We could write a book on this topic. I'd rather discuss it in conversation and Q&A format, but since that is not possible at this time, I want to jot down some thoughts here that will help you to align your thoughts and philosophy about commitment. It will help you to understand faith-and God himself-more clearly, and your own perceptions and actions.
First, I want to give some secular examples about how it is difficult to truly understand someone else's commitment to "a cause" or a truth over time. Commitment is not an absolute that remains unchanged by time and circumstance. An easy example is two different soldiers in an army. One seems the more totally committed, being very patriotic and military based in his or her orientation. The other person is more casual about their commitment, being correct in their service but not outstanding. However, in a battle, the first performs correctly, doing his or her duty, while the second one, back pressed to the wall, performs an extraordinary act of courage and losses his life for the greater good, whether the course of the battle itself or to protect his or her buddies under fire. Who was, in the long run, the "most committed?" The "higher" on the "commitment 'scale?'" You can see that such a view that it can be measured or compared is entirely bogus. One goes on to a honorable life long service to country and military, while the other average Joe or Mary had average service, and then in a burst of heroic circumstance, gives his or her life. You can't really weigh between the two at all. Each walked their own path of service, honor and righteousness.
There is much argument about the value of an aging life, in a time of pressures to allocate medical costs and even have "death panels." Consider this, then. There is a temptation to look at someone's "contribution" to life. OK, let's look at that. One person is a "producer," who is still active in some highly value societal role. The other was a wallflower, kind of a person who blended into society at large, perhaps a housewife and mother, who is now an aged widow, and whose children are away. She is in a nursing home and increasingly "out of it," and thus not a "contributor." Who is more "worthy" of a fixed number of health care dollars? Well, let's look at what happens. The first person, yes of course, goes on to be "productive" until his or her death. People feel a righteous glow when they get all the medical expenses "care" that he or she needs throughout. Liberals especially feel awesome and "good" in making sure he or she can be "productive" and receive entitled medical care. Cool. The other person slowly fades away in the nursing home. She gets less awesome care because she's old, alone and "dying anyway." No one does anything bad to her, but the mindset, of course, is that it's a low payback investment to give her excellent care at the end of a fading life. Perhaps so. But have you considered all the payback, really?
One day a nurse aide at the nursing home is discouraged, she is young and just starting out, studies are hard, money is tight, hours are long. She is tending to that woman and while so, they talk. That old lady gives the nurse's aide a little encouragement, speaking from her own humble experience as a mom. Like a tiny mustard seed, her words actually matter to the discouraged aide, and over time, especially after that nursing home resident dies, the aide has a new lease on life, a new encouragement, just from that casual conversation near the end of the woman's life, but toward the beginning of the aide's. She goes on to be a great success (in whatever measure of success you have).
Which person was more "committed to productivity" and "worthy?" The first person does their job and leads their life like "normal," by "normal" current societal expectations. The second person was "just a mom" and an "old lady" yet without an agenda, gave advice, not some secret formula, but just good old mom type of belief to the nurse's aide who tended to her, when that aide needed it, and it ended up being a life changing conversation that only unfolded in its significance over time. Good thing that old lady wasn't euthanized, huh?
Suppose the old lady was in a coma and could not talk? They still have total worth as humans because HELPLESS HUMANS ARE LIKE CLAY IN YOUR HANDS. ABUSED OR NEGLECTED ALL YOU DO IS DEMONSTRATE HOW FAR YOU ARE FROM BEING GODLY. After all, the Bible and the Qur'an explain that God took inanimate dust, clay, and made human life. Even when a person is not "productive" or even conscious, they are still the clay by which YOU who ARE "in power" demonstrate if you are godly, and give them the most care that is possible with dignity and life GIVING orientation, not TAKING, or if you are publicly or in secret, against being godly, for you rob the person of their dignity and "manage" the "amount of care" that they receive. Trust me, the dust that God created man from wasn't worth too much either.
So which of the two people, the normal life as "productive" or the normal life as aged end of life "mom" was more committed, more worthy, and more "productive?" You cannot possibly compare: no human being is even 1 percent capable of such an evaluation.
Now, look at being committed to God. There is no point where you are "safe" and "committed enough." Each person throughout their life works on their commitment and even follows different forms of commitment (or even detachment, as ill advised as that may be.) Again, you cannot critique someone else's form of commitment to God: only God can do that, and He will. There is a difference between speaking to someone on a wrong path (such as idolatry), so I'm not saying "live and let live" there, because their eternal soul is worth at least one chastising conversation with them, face to face....or what I am speaking of, which is again, you cannot as a human evaluate someone else's commitment to God. That is the heart of the totally bogus argument about Catholic celibate male priests. People have no right to claim that they are "entitled" to a form of commitment that was in place even before Christ, which is the celibate religious male. John the Baptist was such. At the time just before Jesus, there were many men who were celibate, often living as ascetics in the desert. Men have a perfect right to continue to follow God in that form. Christian men chose to emulate CHRIST in that regard, not the apostles, so the argument that deacons were men, women, had families and sex lives is bogus, because it has nothing to do with the FACT that there is a group of people, celibate men, who select via their calling a form of commitment to God called the Catholic priesthood. It's not like a job title.
So what does a woman do who wants to preach? Well, duh, the first thing to do is to recognize that it is an EQUALLY VALID BUT DIFFERENT FORM OF COMMITMENT TO GOD. I mean, Einstein didn't even have to be channeled to explain that one. I enjoy certain women's preaching very much; those who are firmly rooted in service to God with a genuine heart, not as a power grab. Sometimes I like to listen to Joyce Meyer when I'm channel flipping. One reason is that she is proclaiming the Kingdom, not trying to chip away at someone else's form of commitment (like the priesthood) as a power grab.
I have never met a woman who truly "wants" to be a Catholic priest. They want that "job title," but they don't want what it really is, which is a MAN who decides to follow CHRIST by giving his all, including celibacy. It's like this: I never wanted to be a Boy Scout because, duh, I'm not a Boy. I was a Girl Scout for a year or so but was bored because it was too poorly led locally by women who didn't have their heart in it.
Think back to that example of the soldiers. If one really wants to commit to God, one simply has to commit to His Kingdom first, and then walk through YOUR OWN LIFE based on that commitment. It may just being a good and honorable guy or gal through your life, or it may be turning your entire life over to God. As we see by failed priests, it is not the title or the form of the commitment that is worthy, but the worthiness that the person brings to their choice.
A mediocre priest may, without his even knowing, led very important people to Christ (by important I mean those who might have been lost otherwise). Like the elderly mom, even an average priest saves souls. But someone who is on a total ego trip about their "calling" may turn away people from the Kingdom, as they bog people down in worldly power and attachment, politics, divisiveness and argument. So a "top bishop" may work against the Kingdom without even realizing it, because they make it "all about them and their calling."
I hope this is helpful. I understand this is just scratching the surface of the topic, but I have faith you all have brains, ha, and surely get what I am pointing you towards here.
Showing posts with label preaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preaching. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Spiritual envy: part two, case study
I'm now going to explain how the Blessed Virgin Mary is the greatest recipient of the sin of spiritual envy directed against her of any person in modern times. Yes, she's dead and in heaven and thus does not suffer to her face while alive the wrongs that spiritual envy induces, but remember I explained that there is a destructive influence on everyone involved, including distant second tier persons, of spiritual envy. I will make this a case study and it will help you to 1) better understand the destructiveness of spiritual envy and 2) better understand some of the false preaching that is prevalent today.
I must first say that this is a subject that makes me seethe. Those of you who are innocent and earnest in your wanting to learn more about this, understand that my seething does not, of course, extend to you, and that much of it is actually on your behalf.
Here are the two ways that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the victim of spiritual envy. I'm going to start by outlining the symptoms, and then backing you up into understanding the error and envy that these symptoms result from, and of course, the scriptural sources for correct reverence toward Mary.
1. The unbelievably frequent description of Mary, particularly around Christmas, both in "entertainment" (understandable heathen Philistines) and from the pulpits (unforgivable, and I even hear it from supposedly orthodox Catholics) as follows. I am going to let my seething come through here in the sharpness of my caricature: "Just think, Mary was JUST LIKE ANY GIRL, why EVEN YOU! She was just some poor, knocked up young girl, ignorant like everyone else in those days. She probably was nowhere near as pretty as those artists make her out to be, and she probably had dirty smelly feet and was just, you know, like some third world peasant girl. Gosh she must have been embarrassed to be knocked up by some older guy who she was only engaged to... oh wait, that's right, he isn't the father *tee hee.* So when it's Christmas time instead of reading the scriptures (all of it) and remembering who Mary really was, just imagine that you, you silly girls, COULD HAVE BEEN HER! Wheeeee!!!! Doesn't that make Mary "relevant to today!" She probably had BO too! And of course she was unsophisticated and clueless! But look how God could raise up even someone, well, you know, common and grubby like her!"
2. The Christian denomination or nondenominational (fill in the blank who) has "trouble" with "how the Catholic Church" "views" Mary. Like the Catholic Church is wrong. No, dumb wads, we actually read and believe the Bible, thank you very much.
*SEETHE*
OK, now I can relax that I took out the garbage and dumped it on the curb. Now let's get on with the actual Biblical Mary.
1. Mary was far from "uneducated" or "simple." We know this because she cites Old Testament scripture, complex and lesser known scripture, by heart as part of her indwelling by the Holy Spirit.
What Mary said:
[Mary was newly pregnant with Jesus and stated the following to her cousin Elizabeth]
And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; and his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy-Even as he spoke to our fathers-to Abraham and to his posterity forever" Luke 1:46-55.
Scripture from which Mary is citing:
[This prayer was given to God by Anna, the mother of Samuel, who was the priest who anointed at God's instruction the first King of Israel, Saul, and then when God turned against Saul for Saul's sins, King David. Anna had been bullied and picked on for being unable to conceive a child. She prayed to God for a child and promised that if God gave her a child that she would dedicate that child to God's service. When God gave her a son, the boy Samuel, true to her word she kept him only until he was weaned and then gave him in service to God at the temple.]
My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies, because I have joyed in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord is; for there is no other besides thee, and there is none strong like our God. Do not multiply to speak lofty things, boasting. Let old matters depart from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of all knowledge, and to him are thoughts prepared. The bow of the mighty is overcome, and the weak are girt with strength. They that were full before have hired out themselves for bread: and the hungry are filled, so that the barren hath borne many; and she that had many children is weakened.
The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill, that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them hath set the world. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness, because no man shall prevail by his own strength.
The adversaries of the Lord shall fear him: and upon them shall be thunder in the heavens. The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall exalt the horn of his Christ 1 Kings 2:1-10.
Spend some time studying the two scripture passages, which were separated by over one thousand years. Anna's prayer would not have exactly been a mainstay of regular preaching and worship in the synagogue during the time of Mary, though it would have been well known by the devout. The fact that part of Mary's canticle to Elizabeth is Holy Spirit induced prophecy while part is the most pertinent threads from Anna's prayer shows that this "young girl" knew her scripture by heart and was further able to extract from the scripture, under divine inspiration, those sentiments and prophecy most directly related to Jesus as Messiah and Mary as chosen by God for the highest favor. You can see why I seethe at all the totally un-Biblical implications that Mary was just a simple and uneducated girl; even a total dimwit can see that is not true if you actually read the Bible.
2. Mary was not just "any girl" or by any means "typical" of other girls, then or now, or EVER.
What the angel Gabriel said:
"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though among women" Luke 1:28.
Let me explain this to you slowly. What is grace? Grace is gift and favor given to humans, who cannot merit it for themselves in any way, since all grace is the gift of God. The vast majority of people go their entire lives without receiving much actual grace at all. Grace cannot be earned, but it most assuredly is given to those who are in the process of sanctifying themselves to God (as I've explained previously sanctification is putting God first by dedicating one's day to day life to God's will and service). So the vast majority of people receive some, but not much, grace during their entire life. Yet Mary, that "young girl" of modern cartooning is heralded by Gabriel, before she even knows that she will become pregnant with Jesus, with the title, the honorific of "full of grace." Mary is already full (and full means full, as in filled up, filled to the top, filled in every part of her spotless being) with GRACE. Um, who exactly can claim that? "Just a regular girl?" I think not. No one but Jesus himself due to his being and Mary due to God's planning and proclamation have been or will be full, as in complete, in grace.
Even those who are not envious and/or in denial of Mary do make in all innocence this mistake, so beware of that, and also another mistake that I explain now: Grace is not the same as a blessing. Grace is an actual infusion of gifting and purity from God, while a blessing is good wishes that anyone can bestow upon anyone else. We even say "bless you" when someone sneezes. So some people who don't understand the difference think that the angel is blessing Mary, as in giving her a blessing. He is not. He is stating what has already occurred and what God prepared Mary for: 1) Mary is already full of grace, so she's got as much grace as she can contain already and 2) Mary is already blessed by God. That is the situation before she even has explained to her the mission of the angel and her role as mother of the Messiah and Savior. So she already had all grace and blessing before even being in this extraordinary service to God as being mother to his son.
When people fool silly and stupid people of this generation into thinking "any of you girls" can "imagine what it would have been like if they were in 'Mary's position'" they are lying and defaming Mary. No one in their right mind would have DREAMED of saying such foolish delusion prior to this incredibly ignorant and arrogant, self satisfied, ego maniacal past few generations.
It is impossible to imagine what it is like to be filled with grace because only Jesus, by God's nature, and Mary, by preparation and conferral by God, have ever been in that state of grace. So no, nobody can identify with Mary, or Jesus, to that level. Humans can sympathize with Mary and Jesus in their suffering, for example, but they cannot at all empathize with either of them, as no one can have a reference point of the perspective of someone who is filled with grace and thus filled with God's given pureness.
In the Qur'an it is written And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above all the women of the world Surah 3:42.
Before progressing further regarding the true nature of Mary, let me reintroduce the point about spiritual envy. It is obvious that many people, both individuals and groups, in modern times (the past several generations) have a wrongheaded view of Mary that can only be attributed to spiritual envy. No one can claim to be Christian and be so stingy and denying of the God given grace and purity of Mary that deserves continual praise and role modeling, and that does not take one iota "away" from Jesus. What believer in God thinks that anything even can be "taken away" from God? How is adhering to what the scripture most clearly in black and white shows, for anyone to read, giving "too much to Mary" and "taking away" from Jesus? That is the very transparent and lame excuse, and I know first hand, for spiritual envy of Mary herself and also the institutions that continue to honor, love and revere her as she actually was and remains, now, in heaven.
3. Mary as prophetess.
We have already seen in the first scripture how Mary prophesies in her canticle to Elizabeth, even before Jesus is born, how the ongoing salvatory impact of Jesus will demonstrate God's mercy from generation to generation. Mary also, in a way, receives prophetic insight from the Holy Spirit regarding when it is time for Jesus to perform his first miracle. I marvel (not in a good way) about how many miss this point in the miracle of the wedding at Cana.
First I will tell you what happens using common speech. They are at a wedding and when the groom, the host, runs out of wine, Mary nudges Jesus to do something about it (and she does not mean his charge card; obviously this would have to be a miracle). Jesus rebukes Mary that it is not his time to go public with his miraculous abilities, but Mary overrides his objections and tells the wedding steward to do whatever Jesus tells him to do. Jesus obliges and performs the miracle.
This is an example of how one grace filled person can "know" when to urge the other grace filled person to action. Think about it. If you were just the average guy or gal who hung around with Jesus, would the first "miracle" occur to you to recommend to Jesus when you are at a wedding and they've run out of wine? Huh? Absolutely not. The "average" person would think of many much more dramatic or urgent situations to urge Jesus to perform his first miracle. But none of them would be ultimately as fraught with grace and meaning as the turning of water into wine miracle. Only Mary, filled by God with grace, would have been able to discern that moment, hearing and knowing and "magnifying" that moment and that place and that situation. Why was it so important? Read Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the vine dressers (the fruit of the vine being, of course, grapes for wine). When Jesus told that parable the chief priests and Scribes sought to kill him (Luke 20:19). Soon after that Jesus at the Last Supper took the cup of wine and said "take this and share it among you; for I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:17-18, 20).
Mary by virtue of her fullness of grace hears the Holy Spirit and triggers the moment of Jesus' first miracle, which will be the foundation of his ministry, as Messiah and Savior, as both the true vine and the fruit of the vine.
And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now Jesus too was invited to the marriage, and also his disciples. And the wine having run short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you" Luke 2:1-5.
Do you better understand what a disservice it is to, at best, willfully marginalize Mary's role in faith and salvatory history? After all, none of his newly called disciples realized that this was the time and the place where Jesus should perform his first miracle. Only the woman full of grace, his mother, could hear the prompting and be bold enough to insist that Jesus do so and he complies. Let me address the reason that Jesus seems to first object. I bet now you understand it, though. Jesus is not really objecting, he is saying "My hour has not yet come." That refers to what happens to the son, the cornerstone who is rejected, and is killed by the vine dressers, as I cited for you to read on your own in Luke 20. In Bible speak Jesus is not refusing, but saying that this is the beginning indeed that will lead to the hour that has not yet come, but will.
4. Mary as constant disciple to Jesus.
While those who are in error or those who are spiritually envious of Mary emphasize her low key presence and lack of much "mention" in the Gospels, what is actually emphasized is the continuity of her continual presence throughout Jesus' ministry. Mary did not sit around at home wondering how Jesus is doing while he traveled: she was there. By the way, notice how Mary was invited to the wedding at Cana and "Jesus too was invited" :-) The wedding at Cana needs to be understood as the turning point, as this was when Jesus performed his first miracle and thus his God given authority, having just been baptized and having called the first disciples. Jesus attends the wedding that Mary was invited to, and him also. Mary urges him to perform his first miracle in relation to the fruit of the vine-the wine-and Jesus does so. From this point onward Mary is following him as his most constant disciple, and Jesus has now by action, not by words, proclaimed his public ministry.
Now, you need to understand about Biblical life to understand this next part. Mary, as a widow, had to be supported by her son. Mary thus could not sit around back at the homestead, even if she wanted to, as Jesus was her source of support and Mary tended to him as they would have had they been at home. Mary and the brethren of Jesus were the core of the growing Christian model of the group accompanying Jesus in his ministry while at the same time providing the necessities of life along the way. Ha, you say, how do you know this? Yep, "it's in the Bible." This is why with Jesus' last breath on the cross he gave Mary to the Apostle John as John's mother, and John as her son, as Jesus had to hand over both that symbolic and literal role to John! It's not because they needed to update their business cards to say that John was now the son of Mary since Jesus had been crucified! It was because in those days the eldest son, (and thus, obviously) the only son, provided for his mother, whether at home or "on the road." Mary was with him throughout. I've blogged about this before but this is why Jesus had such pity for the widow who had just lost her only child, her son, and thus decided when encountering the funeral procession to raise him from the dead. Mary and Jesus were in exactly that same position where Jesus, ministry or not, had to support and provide for Mary, his mother, at all times.
Mary remained in the background, as did most of the many nameless disciples, so that those who would freshly hear the words of Jesus could press to the front. This is why you do not hear "mention" of Mary any more than you hear mention of the dozens of unnamed disciples who followed Jesus and the Apostles. She was with them on the outskirts whenever Jesus was about his business. You can read about this when Jesus uses the time that Mary and the brethen (Jesus' other relatives) wanted to speak with him but could not get through the crush. Jesus was not rejecting them, but rather (since he saw them all the time accompanying him) he delayed speaking to them so that he could show the crowd that those who follow his word are his family too.
Likewise when a woman raises her voice in the crowd and praises Mary, Jesus is not rejecting praise of Mary, but as per his ministry, redirects the praise to God. These are examples of how Jesus role modeled how believers must always look toward God, not from any rejection of Mary, of course, but from the ease with which the crowd could understand that the closeness of Mary and the brethren of Jesus to Jesus was now being extended to themselves, through Jesus. In other words, Jesus is saying that instead of focusing on the specialness of himself or of Mary, to start to think of yourselves as special family to Jesus and thus to God through your faith. This is as far of a marginalizing of Mary as you can get; rather, people are invited by Jesus to share in that specialness of closeness to him held by Mary and the brethren of Jesus (and all those unmentioned disciples who also were continually present). Thus Mary is continually present through the ministry of Jesus, through the crucifixion, and after his resurrection, through Pentecost, and then accompanying the Apostle John in all his ministry. The thought of Mary settled in some village is bogus and reflects a total lack of understanding of the handing over of Mary's care by Jesus on the cross to John. The care of Mary meant Mary's constant accompanyment of John, even in her advanced age to the area that is now the country of Turkey, as John unceasingly performed his evangelizing to his own great age of one hundred.
5. Protestants have no reason to marginalize Mary. but historically they have and still do. They should not and first of foremost, because Luther loved and revered her too.
I don't want to get too far afield from the main point, so I will leave it to you to research, if you want to, the depth of feeling that Luther himself had for Mary. I raise the point about Protestants, though, since we are left with the following fallout:
o "Anything but the Catholic Church" syndrome has falsely led many Protestants to marganalize Mary due to rejection of and spiritual envy of the Catholic Church. This is an example of what I alluded to in my first post on this subject, which is that once one is of a mindset toward spiritual envy, one starts to cherry pick scripture, highlighting those parts that seem to support one's view (the two instances I gave where Jesus is viewed, incorrectly, as rebuffing Mary presence and praise of her) while eliminating all reference to the remaining basis for legitimate and consistent reverence for Mary's role in the Church.
o "No one is as good as Mary was supposedly, so she could not have been so either" or "I could have been Mary too" syndrome has latched onto the first syndrome and is rampant in modern times. This too is based on spiritual envy of Mary. Here people deny that someone as Mary was really did exist (the usual attacks on her Immaculate Conception, the snarky comments that she "must have been sinful too" because "all humans are sinners," thus ignoring the "full of grace") thereby concluding that the biblical Mary was not really as she really was. The whole point of Mary is that she WAS the one and only; she was, as both Gospel and Qur'an attest, the purest and totally unique. Spiritual envy blinds many today to that obvious truth because they are, incredibly, jealous of the purity of the mother of the Savior.
Even more ludicrous is the notion that while no one could have really been as pure and good as Mary, therefore the "Mary claimant and imitator/imposter" field is wide open. People start to think if Mary could not have been as unique, predestined, God filled in grace and purity, if she must therefore in their minds be something "less" than that, this "opens the field" to people claiming to "channel" Mary or to be "reincarnated" Mary. This is all, again, spiritual envy based. It is back to my original exposition of the links where envy leads to denial and then coveting. Many modern people envy what Mary really was and remains (step one) so they deny that she was exactly as the Bible and the Qur'an state (step two) and then, having "cut her down to size," they next figure they can claim some portion of the spirituality of Mary that they so envy and covet (step three). Thus you have egregious and blaspheming charlatans who lay claim to a spiritual identity that belongs (as each does, of course) to only that one and only original person, but they do so only after denying and diminishing it enough that they can think they can reasonably claim it as their own.
I hope that this helps you, dear reader, to understand through this crucial faith case study how spiritual envy is a terrible sin full of actual destructive power that resonates through generations and erodes genuine faith even in those who are not fully culpable and participating. As I pointed out above, I've been shocked (hardened and saddened as I am) by proportedly orthodox thinking Christians, including Catholics, who bought into the barefoot dirty waif who though ignorant and ordinary becomes baby Jesus momma. Let's put it this way. I would be willing to bet you an awful lot that Luther, when he died and faced his maker, was very glad that he never lost sight of who Mary was, and what reverence and love is due to her. It would be wise to make this the last Christmas where knocked up "I can relate" Mary baby Jesus momma is promulgated in entertainment and preaching. Yes, tired as I am I got to seething again here, as I do whenever I think of that plain out insulting image of Mary. I won't lie, I've wanted to punch some preachers in the nose when I hear that rubbish and Hollywood, I'd totally given up on them anyway but seething remains.
Young people, hi again, hope you've hung in there through this long exposition and that it's helpful to you. Do not be afraid to believe the truth that genuine God given purity and goodness did exist on earth and remains so, of course, in heaven. All this in the praise of the name of Jesus.
I must first say that this is a subject that makes me seethe. Those of you who are innocent and earnest in your wanting to learn more about this, understand that my seething does not, of course, extend to you, and that much of it is actually on your behalf.
Here are the two ways that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the victim of spiritual envy. I'm going to start by outlining the symptoms, and then backing you up into understanding the error and envy that these symptoms result from, and of course, the scriptural sources for correct reverence toward Mary.
1. The unbelievably frequent description of Mary, particularly around Christmas, both in "entertainment" (understandable heathen Philistines) and from the pulpits (unforgivable, and I even hear it from supposedly orthodox Catholics) as follows. I am going to let my seething come through here in the sharpness of my caricature: "Just think, Mary was JUST LIKE ANY GIRL, why EVEN YOU! She was just some poor, knocked up young girl, ignorant like everyone else in those days. She probably was nowhere near as pretty as those artists make her out to be, and she probably had dirty smelly feet and was just, you know, like some third world peasant girl. Gosh she must have been embarrassed to be knocked up by some older guy who she was only engaged to... oh wait, that's right, he isn't the father *tee hee.* So when it's Christmas time instead of reading the scriptures (all of it) and remembering who Mary really was, just imagine that you, you silly girls, COULD HAVE BEEN HER! Wheeeee!!!! Doesn't that make Mary "relevant to today!" She probably had BO too! And of course she was unsophisticated and clueless! But look how God could raise up even someone, well, you know, common and grubby like her!"
2. The Christian denomination or nondenominational (fill in the blank who) has "trouble" with "how the Catholic Church" "views" Mary. Like the Catholic Church is wrong. No, dumb wads, we actually read and believe the Bible, thank you very much.
*SEETHE*
OK, now I can relax that I took out the garbage and dumped it on the curb. Now let's get on with the actual Biblical Mary.
1. Mary was far from "uneducated" or "simple." We know this because she cites Old Testament scripture, complex and lesser known scripture, by heart as part of her indwelling by the Holy Spirit.
What Mary said:
[Mary was newly pregnant with Jesus and stated the following to her cousin Elizabeth]
And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; and his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy-Even as he spoke to our fathers-to Abraham and to his posterity forever" Luke 1:46-55.
Scripture from which Mary is citing:
[This prayer was given to God by Anna, the mother of Samuel, who was the priest who anointed at God's instruction the first King of Israel, Saul, and then when God turned against Saul for Saul's sins, King David. Anna had been bullied and picked on for being unable to conceive a child. She prayed to God for a child and promised that if God gave her a child that she would dedicate that child to God's service. When God gave her a son, the boy Samuel, true to her word she kept him only until he was weaned and then gave him in service to God at the temple.]
My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies, because I have joyed in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord is; for there is no other besides thee, and there is none strong like our God. Do not multiply to speak lofty things, boasting. Let old matters depart from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of all knowledge, and to him are thoughts prepared. The bow of the mighty is overcome, and the weak are girt with strength. They that were full before have hired out themselves for bread: and the hungry are filled, so that the barren hath borne many; and she that had many children is weakened.
The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill, that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them hath set the world. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness, because no man shall prevail by his own strength.
The adversaries of the Lord shall fear him: and upon them shall be thunder in the heavens. The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall exalt the horn of his Christ 1 Kings 2:1-10.
Spend some time studying the two scripture passages, which were separated by over one thousand years. Anna's prayer would not have exactly been a mainstay of regular preaching and worship in the synagogue during the time of Mary, though it would have been well known by the devout. The fact that part of Mary's canticle to Elizabeth is Holy Spirit induced prophecy while part is the most pertinent threads from Anna's prayer shows that this "young girl" knew her scripture by heart and was further able to extract from the scripture, under divine inspiration, those sentiments and prophecy most directly related to Jesus as Messiah and Mary as chosen by God for the highest favor. You can see why I seethe at all the totally un-Biblical implications that Mary was just a simple and uneducated girl; even a total dimwit can see that is not true if you actually read the Bible.
2. Mary was not just "any girl" or by any means "typical" of other girls, then or now, or EVER.
What the angel Gabriel said:
"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though among women" Luke 1:28.
Let me explain this to you slowly. What is grace? Grace is gift and favor given to humans, who cannot merit it for themselves in any way, since all grace is the gift of God. The vast majority of people go their entire lives without receiving much actual grace at all. Grace cannot be earned, but it most assuredly is given to those who are in the process of sanctifying themselves to God (as I've explained previously sanctification is putting God first by dedicating one's day to day life to God's will and service). So the vast majority of people receive some, but not much, grace during their entire life. Yet Mary, that "young girl" of modern cartooning is heralded by Gabriel, before she even knows that she will become pregnant with Jesus, with the title, the honorific of "full of grace." Mary is already full (and full means full, as in filled up, filled to the top, filled in every part of her spotless being) with GRACE. Um, who exactly can claim that? "Just a regular girl?" I think not. No one but Jesus himself due to his being and Mary due to God's planning and proclamation have been or will be full, as in complete, in grace.
Even those who are not envious and/or in denial of Mary do make in all innocence this mistake, so beware of that, and also another mistake that I explain now: Grace is not the same as a blessing. Grace is an actual infusion of gifting and purity from God, while a blessing is good wishes that anyone can bestow upon anyone else. We even say "bless you" when someone sneezes. So some people who don't understand the difference think that the angel is blessing Mary, as in giving her a blessing. He is not. He is stating what has already occurred and what God prepared Mary for: 1) Mary is already full of grace, so she's got as much grace as she can contain already and 2) Mary is already blessed by God. That is the situation before she even has explained to her the mission of the angel and her role as mother of the Messiah and Savior. So she already had all grace and blessing before even being in this extraordinary service to God as being mother to his son.
When people fool silly and stupid people of this generation into thinking "any of you girls" can "imagine what it would have been like if they were in 'Mary's position'" they are lying and defaming Mary. No one in their right mind would have DREAMED of saying such foolish delusion prior to this incredibly ignorant and arrogant, self satisfied, ego maniacal past few generations.
It is impossible to imagine what it is like to be filled with grace because only Jesus, by God's nature, and Mary, by preparation and conferral by God, have ever been in that state of grace. So no, nobody can identify with Mary, or Jesus, to that level. Humans can sympathize with Mary and Jesus in their suffering, for example, but they cannot at all empathize with either of them, as no one can have a reference point of the perspective of someone who is filled with grace and thus filled with God's given pureness.
In the Qur'an it is written And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above all the women of the world Surah 3:42.
Before progressing further regarding the true nature of Mary, let me reintroduce the point about spiritual envy. It is obvious that many people, both individuals and groups, in modern times (the past several generations) have a wrongheaded view of Mary that can only be attributed to spiritual envy. No one can claim to be Christian and be so stingy and denying of the God given grace and purity of Mary that deserves continual praise and role modeling, and that does not take one iota "away" from Jesus. What believer in God thinks that anything even can be "taken away" from God? How is adhering to what the scripture most clearly in black and white shows, for anyone to read, giving "too much to Mary" and "taking away" from Jesus? That is the very transparent and lame excuse, and I know first hand, for spiritual envy of Mary herself and also the institutions that continue to honor, love and revere her as she actually was and remains, now, in heaven.
3. Mary as prophetess.
We have already seen in the first scripture how Mary prophesies in her canticle to Elizabeth, even before Jesus is born, how the ongoing salvatory impact of Jesus will demonstrate God's mercy from generation to generation. Mary also, in a way, receives prophetic insight from the Holy Spirit regarding when it is time for Jesus to perform his first miracle. I marvel (not in a good way) about how many miss this point in the miracle of the wedding at Cana.
First I will tell you what happens using common speech. They are at a wedding and when the groom, the host, runs out of wine, Mary nudges Jesus to do something about it (and she does not mean his charge card; obviously this would have to be a miracle). Jesus rebukes Mary that it is not his time to go public with his miraculous abilities, but Mary overrides his objections and tells the wedding steward to do whatever Jesus tells him to do. Jesus obliges and performs the miracle.
This is an example of how one grace filled person can "know" when to urge the other grace filled person to action. Think about it. If you were just the average guy or gal who hung around with Jesus, would the first "miracle" occur to you to recommend to Jesus when you are at a wedding and they've run out of wine? Huh? Absolutely not. The "average" person would think of many much more dramatic or urgent situations to urge Jesus to perform his first miracle. But none of them would be ultimately as fraught with grace and meaning as the turning of water into wine miracle. Only Mary, filled by God with grace, would have been able to discern that moment, hearing and knowing and "magnifying" that moment and that place and that situation. Why was it so important? Read Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the vine dressers (the fruit of the vine being, of course, grapes for wine). When Jesus told that parable the chief priests and Scribes sought to kill him (Luke 20:19). Soon after that Jesus at the Last Supper took the cup of wine and said "take this and share it among you; for I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:17-18, 20).
Mary by virtue of her fullness of grace hears the Holy Spirit and triggers the moment of Jesus' first miracle, which will be the foundation of his ministry, as Messiah and Savior, as both the true vine and the fruit of the vine.
And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now Jesus too was invited to the marriage, and also his disciples. And the wine having run short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you" Luke 2:1-5.
Do you better understand what a disservice it is to, at best, willfully marginalize Mary's role in faith and salvatory history? After all, none of his newly called disciples realized that this was the time and the place where Jesus should perform his first miracle. Only the woman full of grace, his mother, could hear the prompting and be bold enough to insist that Jesus do so and he complies. Let me address the reason that Jesus seems to first object. I bet now you understand it, though. Jesus is not really objecting, he is saying "My hour has not yet come." That refers to what happens to the son, the cornerstone who is rejected, and is killed by the vine dressers, as I cited for you to read on your own in Luke 20. In Bible speak Jesus is not refusing, but saying that this is the beginning indeed that will lead to the hour that has not yet come, but will.
4. Mary as constant disciple to Jesus.
While those who are in error or those who are spiritually envious of Mary emphasize her low key presence and lack of much "mention" in the Gospels, what is actually emphasized is the continuity of her continual presence throughout Jesus' ministry. Mary did not sit around at home wondering how Jesus is doing while he traveled: she was there. By the way, notice how Mary was invited to the wedding at Cana and "Jesus too was invited" :-) The wedding at Cana needs to be understood as the turning point, as this was when Jesus performed his first miracle and thus his God given authority, having just been baptized and having called the first disciples. Jesus attends the wedding that Mary was invited to, and him also. Mary urges him to perform his first miracle in relation to the fruit of the vine-the wine-and Jesus does so. From this point onward Mary is following him as his most constant disciple, and Jesus has now by action, not by words, proclaimed his public ministry.
Now, you need to understand about Biblical life to understand this next part. Mary, as a widow, had to be supported by her son. Mary thus could not sit around back at the homestead, even if she wanted to, as Jesus was her source of support and Mary tended to him as they would have had they been at home. Mary and the brethren of Jesus were the core of the growing Christian model of the group accompanying Jesus in his ministry while at the same time providing the necessities of life along the way. Ha, you say, how do you know this? Yep, "it's in the Bible." This is why with Jesus' last breath on the cross he gave Mary to the Apostle John as John's mother, and John as her son, as Jesus had to hand over both that symbolic and literal role to John! It's not because they needed to update their business cards to say that John was now the son of Mary since Jesus had been crucified! It was because in those days the eldest son, (and thus, obviously) the only son, provided for his mother, whether at home or "on the road." Mary was with him throughout. I've blogged about this before but this is why Jesus had such pity for the widow who had just lost her only child, her son, and thus decided when encountering the funeral procession to raise him from the dead. Mary and Jesus were in exactly that same position where Jesus, ministry or not, had to support and provide for Mary, his mother, at all times.
Mary remained in the background, as did most of the many nameless disciples, so that those who would freshly hear the words of Jesus could press to the front. This is why you do not hear "mention" of Mary any more than you hear mention of the dozens of unnamed disciples who followed Jesus and the Apostles. She was with them on the outskirts whenever Jesus was about his business. You can read about this when Jesus uses the time that Mary and the brethen (Jesus' other relatives) wanted to speak with him but could not get through the crush. Jesus was not rejecting them, but rather (since he saw them all the time accompanying him) he delayed speaking to them so that he could show the crowd that those who follow his word are his family too.
Likewise when a woman raises her voice in the crowd and praises Mary, Jesus is not rejecting praise of Mary, but as per his ministry, redirects the praise to God. These are examples of how Jesus role modeled how believers must always look toward God, not from any rejection of Mary, of course, but from the ease with which the crowd could understand that the closeness of Mary and the brethren of Jesus to Jesus was now being extended to themselves, through Jesus. In other words, Jesus is saying that instead of focusing on the specialness of himself or of Mary, to start to think of yourselves as special family to Jesus and thus to God through your faith. This is as far of a marginalizing of Mary as you can get; rather, people are invited by Jesus to share in that specialness of closeness to him held by Mary and the brethren of Jesus (and all those unmentioned disciples who also were continually present). Thus Mary is continually present through the ministry of Jesus, through the crucifixion, and after his resurrection, through Pentecost, and then accompanying the Apostle John in all his ministry. The thought of Mary settled in some village is bogus and reflects a total lack of understanding of the handing over of Mary's care by Jesus on the cross to John. The care of Mary meant Mary's constant accompanyment of John, even in her advanced age to the area that is now the country of Turkey, as John unceasingly performed his evangelizing to his own great age of one hundred.
5. Protestants have no reason to marginalize Mary. but historically they have and still do. They should not and first of foremost, because Luther loved and revered her too.
I don't want to get too far afield from the main point, so I will leave it to you to research, if you want to, the depth of feeling that Luther himself had for Mary. I raise the point about Protestants, though, since we are left with the following fallout:
o "Anything but the Catholic Church" syndrome has falsely led many Protestants to marganalize Mary due to rejection of and spiritual envy of the Catholic Church. This is an example of what I alluded to in my first post on this subject, which is that once one is of a mindset toward spiritual envy, one starts to cherry pick scripture, highlighting those parts that seem to support one's view (the two instances I gave where Jesus is viewed, incorrectly, as rebuffing Mary presence and praise of her) while eliminating all reference to the remaining basis for legitimate and consistent reverence for Mary's role in the Church.
o "No one is as good as Mary was supposedly, so she could not have been so either" or "I could have been Mary too" syndrome has latched onto the first syndrome and is rampant in modern times. This too is based on spiritual envy of Mary. Here people deny that someone as Mary was really did exist (the usual attacks on her Immaculate Conception, the snarky comments that she "must have been sinful too" because "all humans are sinners," thus ignoring the "full of grace") thereby concluding that the biblical Mary was not really as she really was. The whole point of Mary is that she WAS the one and only; she was, as both Gospel and Qur'an attest, the purest and totally unique. Spiritual envy blinds many today to that obvious truth because they are, incredibly, jealous of the purity of the mother of the Savior.
Even more ludicrous is the notion that while no one could have really been as pure and good as Mary, therefore the "Mary claimant and imitator/imposter" field is wide open. People start to think if Mary could not have been as unique, predestined, God filled in grace and purity, if she must therefore in their minds be something "less" than that, this "opens the field" to people claiming to "channel" Mary or to be "reincarnated" Mary. This is all, again, spiritual envy based. It is back to my original exposition of the links where envy leads to denial and then coveting. Many modern people envy what Mary really was and remains (step one) so they deny that she was exactly as the Bible and the Qur'an state (step two) and then, having "cut her down to size," they next figure they can claim some portion of the spirituality of Mary that they so envy and covet (step three). Thus you have egregious and blaspheming charlatans who lay claim to a spiritual identity that belongs (as each does, of course) to only that one and only original person, but they do so only after denying and diminishing it enough that they can think they can reasonably claim it as their own.
I hope that this helps you, dear reader, to understand through this crucial faith case study how spiritual envy is a terrible sin full of actual destructive power that resonates through generations and erodes genuine faith even in those who are not fully culpable and participating. As I pointed out above, I've been shocked (hardened and saddened as I am) by proportedly orthodox thinking Christians, including Catholics, who bought into the barefoot dirty waif who though ignorant and ordinary becomes baby Jesus momma. Let's put it this way. I would be willing to bet you an awful lot that Luther, when he died and faced his maker, was very glad that he never lost sight of who Mary was, and what reverence and love is due to her. It would be wise to make this the last Christmas where knocked up "I can relate" Mary baby Jesus momma is promulgated in entertainment and preaching. Yes, tired as I am I got to seething again here, as I do whenever I think of that plain out insulting image of Mary. I won't lie, I've wanted to punch some preachers in the nose when I hear that rubbish and Hollywood, I'd totally given up on them anyway but seething remains.
Young people, hi again, hope you've hung in there through this long exposition and that it's helpful to you. Do not be afraid to believe the truth that genuine God given purity and goodness did exist on earth and remains so, of course, in heaven. All this in the praise of the name of Jesus.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Advice for priests who write & deliver homilies
I need to offer some advice to priests regarding their homilies. In my many years of listening to homilies (more than you realize) I’ve observed a drift from the core of what each homily really should (and must) include. I’m not going to talk about length of homilies, the tone, the use of current events, etc. because those points will be obvious once I tell you the two parameters around which you must frame every homily.
The first piece of advice is that every homily must have one point to it that is specifically put into words and repeated throughout. This is true whether you are giving a very simple homily, such as explaining the life of a saint, or amplifying the meaning of the day’s reading of the Gospel, or if you are giving a more lengthy and complicated homily, such as pondering the return to faith of several people who are relevant to the day’s subject. So whether you are having a simple homily or a more complex one, each one must have one and only one explanatory “theme” that is clearly stated and if the homily is lengthy, after each section this theme is restated and attached to the segment just delivered. Here is an example.
Your purpose in a given day’s homily is perhaps to discuss the life of a saint. And that is fine because the spiritual biography of saints is a very important and logical topic for many homilies. However, you should select one aspect of the saint’s life story and make it the obvious theme. For example, highlight one of the techniques that the saint used to draw closer to God and say so. So you might start the homily with the statement, “Saint Name is an example of a saint who was drawn closer to God through the Holy Eucharist.” You then give the planned life information up to the time where the saint first encounters the Holy Eucharist. You then say, “And this is the pivotal moment, where Saint Name first feels the draw closer to God through the Holy Eucharist.” You then give the rest of the homily information about the saint. You then conclude restating your theme so that the listeners are able to go from Mass with an “actionable step,” to put it in kind of modern business terms. So you conclude with “And just as Saint Name felt drawn closer to God through the Holy Eucharist, you can do the same by ….. suggestions…. And/or if you or a family member are feeling spiritual staleness you can emulate the saint by …..suggestions” and you conclude by glorifying God who makes such refreshment possible.
Too many homilies sound like university lectures. They impart much information which is interesting to listen to, and informative, but are not preaching the Gospel. It is fine to give out a lot of information but not if after listening to it the parishioners leave without being able to repeat what the central point was. Therefore I strongly urge that even if you are going to roam around many topics and purposes in a given homily that you still select one and only one point that is the one you would want the parishioner to be able to recognize, repeat and act upon, should he or she chooses. Businesspeople know that any presentation should make no more than three basic points. Homilies need to have one point, even if much information is imparted, because the purpose is to preach and exhort the people about the Gospel reading of the day (or the saint of the day, or other faith based event).
The second point I would like to make is that each and every homily better mention God. I can’t believe I have to write this, but it has become more and more obvious through the years I have observed the, um, evolving “art” of homily writing. The whole point is the worship of God. No matter how prosaic the topic of the homily, God should be referenced, praised and explained regarding God’s expectations regarding the homily subject. Like I mentioned before, the Mass is worship, sacrifice and the proclamation of the word of ….yes, God! Every homily should have a tone of explaining God’s hand and will in all things, and thus God must be mentioned by name and also by explaining to the people God’s will in all things. Look again at the example I gave above. We know that all grace comes from God. Do not talk about the life of a saint without giving praise and amplification to the role that God fulfills in drawing the saint close to him. People need to hear that explicitly. Otherwise they sit in a church and actually forget about God. Pope Benedict provides an excellent example in this regard in all of his speaking and writings. The Holy Father always draws his topic within the context of God’s expectations and will. I’m going to write more about this topic in my very next blog posting.
So remember these two points and if you apply them you will see the Mass attending (or listening) congregation flourish as a result. No matter how complex the homily, have one and only one theme that you explicitly state repeatedly so that people can carry away with them an actionable or at least contemplate-able faith strengthening “action step.” And never deliver a homily without mentioning God in his own place of worship, for goodness sake.
I hope that you find this helpful! God bless all priests who labor in the vineyards.
The first piece of advice is that every homily must have one point to it that is specifically put into words and repeated throughout. This is true whether you are giving a very simple homily, such as explaining the life of a saint, or amplifying the meaning of the day’s reading of the Gospel, or if you are giving a more lengthy and complicated homily, such as pondering the return to faith of several people who are relevant to the day’s subject. So whether you are having a simple homily or a more complex one, each one must have one and only one explanatory “theme” that is clearly stated and if the homily is lengthy, after each section this theme is restated and attached to the segment just delivered. Here is an example.
Your purpose in a given day’s homily is perhaps to discuss the life of a saint. And that is fine because the spiritual biography of saints is a very important and logical topic for many homilies. However, you should select one aspect of the saint’s life story and make it the obvious theme. For example, highlight one of the techniques that the saint used to draw closer to God and say so. So you might start the homily with the statement, “Saint Name is an example of a saint who was drawn closer to God through the Holy Eucharist.” You then give the planned life information up to the time where the saint first encounters the Holy Eucharist. You then say, “And this is the pivotal moment, where Saint Name first feels the draw closer to God through the Holy Eucharist.” You then give the rest of the homily information about the saint. You then conclude restating your theme so that the listeners are able to go from Mass with an “actionable step,” to put it in kind of modern business terms. So you conclude with “And just as Saint Name felt drawn closer to God through the Holy Eucharist, you can do the same by ….. suggestions…. And/or if you or a family member are feeling spiritual staleness you can emulate the saint by …..suggestions” and you conclude by glorifying God who makes such refreshment possible.
Too many homilies sound like university lectures. They impart much information which is interesting to listen to, and informative, but are not preaching the Gospel. It is fine to give out a lot of information but not if after listening to it the parishioners leave without being able to repeat what the central point was. Therefore I strongly urge that even if you are going to roam around many topics and purposes in a given homily that you still select one and only one point that is the one you would want the parishioner to be able to recognize, repeat and act upon, should he or she chooses. Businesspeople know that any presentation should make no more than three basic points. Homilies need to have one point, even if much information is imparted, because the purpose is to preach and exhort the people about the Gospel reading of the day (or the saint of the day, or other faith based event).
The second point I would like to make is that each and every homily better mention God. I can’t believe I have to write this, but it has become more and more obvious through the years I have observed the, um, evolving “art” of homily writing. The whole point is the worship of God. No matter how prosaic the topic of the homily, God should be referenced, praised and explained regarding God’s expectations regarding the homily subject. Like I mentioned before, the Mass is worship, sacrifice and the proclamation of the word of ….yes, God! Every homily should have a tone of explaining God’s hand and will in all things, and thus God must be mentioned by name and also by explaining to the people God’s will in all things. Look again at the example I gave above. We know that all grace comes from God. Do not talk about the life of a saint without giving praise and amplification to the role that God fulfills in drawing the saint close to him. People need to hear that explicitly. Otherwise they sit in a church and actually forget about God. Pope Benedict provides an excellent example in this regard in all of his speaking and writings. The Holy Father always draws his topic within the context of God’s expectations and will. I’m going to write more about this topic in my very next blog posting.
So remember these two points and if you apply them you will see the Mass attending (or listening) congregation flourish as a result. No matter how complex the homily, have one and only one theme that you explicitly state repeatedly so that people can carry away with them an actionable or at least contemplate-able faith strengthening “action step.” And never deliver a homily without mentioning God in his own place of worship, for goodness sake.
I hope that you find this helpful! God bless all priests who labor in the vineyards.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Bible Reading: St. James 5:1-6
Come now, you rich, weep and howl over your miseries which will come upon you. Your riches have rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you, and will devour your flesh as the fire does. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who reaped your fields, which have been kept back by you unjustly, cry out; and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have feasted upon earth, and you have nourished your hearts on dissipation in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the just, and he did not resist you.
***
This is from the Epistle of St. James the Apostle, who was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. This is St. James "the lesser" (that means younger), not St. James the Greater, also an Apostle, whose memorial day is this week.
I hadn't intended to include a fire and brimstone kind of Bible reading tonight, but the book fell open to this section and I realized there are some good points I can make that touch on current topics (the Bible always has comfort and insight even for the most modern problems).
First, a little bit about St. James. Known as a pillar of the Christian community in the decades after Jesus, St. James also retained and demonstrated great knowledge of the Jewish roots in the Old Testament. He was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is known to have been at the council of Jerusalem around the year 50. St. Paul consulted with him about the Gospel. He was esteemed by the Jews and called "James the Just," yet was nonetheless martyred by them in the spring of 62.
And so, you can read this letter, this Epistle written by the man who was also Bishop of Jerusalem, and see that there are elements that already demonstrate the "teaching" role of a bishop in his diocese. So you could view the section that I cite above as kind of the "fire and brimstone" part of one of his sermons as part of exhortation and instruction through his diocese. So you can see that already around three decades after the Lord Jesus Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, St. James was visibly performing a role that we see in Catholic bishops today. This is another example of the continuity of the Church as established by the Apostles and its organization. Think about it. Here is one of the Apostles, bishop of the city where Jesus had been crucified just several decades prior. St. James the Greater had been martyred (the first of the Apostles to so die) in the year 42, so it was a continually hazardous place, the city that was the very cradle of what would be the Catholic Church through the presence of Jesus Christ. I'll return to that point after first discussing some of the commentary about this passage that I'm citing here.
The most important point is that while it is vehement it is not an "anti the rich" sermon. It is an anti the unjustly rich sermon. St. James is criticizing the rich who do not pay the wages due to their employees and he is also criticizing the rich who hold money back when it could be put to good use. So this text cannot and should not be cited as justification for either side of the so called "prosperity Gospel" debate. It does not condemn people who are rich; it condemns the people who are unjustly rich. Likewise, though, it does not endorse being rich because of some argument that God wants people to make as much money as possible. Clearly St. James recognizes that morally correct wealth relies on fair and prompt payment to the workers and active use of the wealth for good and charitable purpose on earth. This is what he means by not storing it up, it rusts, and so forth. St. James is not saying that the rich cannot have holdings or savings. But he is strongly implying that their wealth must be refreshed and used in the community, and not hoarded.
Doesn't it make you wonder if there had been some scandal or some specific outrageous cheating of the poor workers by the wealthy that inspired this part of what sound much like a sermon? I point this out to remind you that yes, that was probably the case, just as how bishops speak out, often making real waves (like in the Eucharist controversies) in response to specific events within their diocese. The difference is that these would not be wealthy Christians that he is railing against, as in his flock, but these are more "social injustice" commentary toward wealthy merchants and landholders in Jerusalem. Remember, the early Christians, most especially the Apostles, were always simultaneously preaching to their early fledgling Christian flock and to evangelize and hope to convert the large majority around them of Jews and Gentiles. So early "sermons" by the Apostles always had two audiences at the same time: the small numbers of faithful believers and the huge numbers of those who still opposed them, or who had not heard and accepted the word yet.
This is why notice how very neatly St. James concludes this section with reference to "the just" who was condemned and put to death but did not "resist you." St. James is clearly aligning Jesus, who meekly and without resistance had everything, including his life, taken from him with the desperately poor workers who are deprived of their wages by people who do have the means to pay them. This is very astute preaching if you remember that indeed his audience would be both the converted but especially the not yet converted. This section is undoubtedly representative of his actual words on a number of occasions where he preached. You can also just with this small analysis of his words here understand how the Jews might have admired his sense of justice, hence giving him that nickname of "James the Just," yet still be driven to martyr him because of their disbelief in the Christian doctrine.
I hope that this is helpful at once again showing how a reader of scripture can glean a lot of insight into what it would have been like "looking over the shoulder" of Jesus' Apostle who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Returning to that topic, I want to remind you that what Jesus essentially said to Peter is that wherever you establish yourself, that is where I will build my church. So Peter, after a time as Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, to the heart of the Empire to evangelize, and established the bishop's seat in Rome. Therefore as Bishop of Rome this is where Peter established the Church, and the Papacy. Jesus gave the physical placement of the heart of the future Church within a person, a man, to establish, not the sentimental or spiritual location. This is why Rome is the home of the Papacy and the Vatican, and not Jerusalem, where one might have otherwise assumed. I thought that comparing St. James being Bishop of Jerusalem with Peter's movement to Antioch and then Rome to be Bishop of Rome, and hence the first Pontiff, would make the organization of the very earliest Church and its continuity into its present form be easier to see and, honestly, to admire. Jesus knew what he was doing when he sent the Apostles out to become what would be the role models and actuality of bishops, while one man, Peter, would be the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself where he established his staff, which would be... Rome!
***
This is from the Epistle of St. James the Apostle, who was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. This is St. James "the lesser" (that means younger), not St. James the Greater, also an Apostle, whose memorial day is this week.
I hadn't intended to include a fire and brimstone kind of Bible reading tonight, but the book fell open to this section and I realized there are some good points I can make that touch on current topics (the Bible always has comfort and insight even for the most modern problems).
First, a little bit about St. James. Known as a pillar of the Christian community in the decades after Jesus, St. James also retained and demonstrated great knowledge of the Jewish roots in the Old Testament. He was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is known to have been at the council of Jerusalem around the year 50. St. Paul consulted with him about the Gospel. He was esteemed by the Jews and called "James the Just," yet was nonetheless martyred by them in the spring of 62.
And so, you can read this letter, this Epistle written by the man who was also Bishop of Jerusalem, and see that there are elements that already demonstrate the "teaching" role of a bishop in his diocese. So you could view the section that I cite above as kind of the "fire and brimstone" part of one of his sermons as part of exhortation and instruction through his diocese. So you can see that already around three decades after the Lord Jesus Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, St. James was visibly performing a role that we see in Catholic bishops today. This is another example of the continuity of the Church as established by the Apostles and its organization. Think about it. Here is one of the Apostles, bishop of the city where Jesus had been crucified just several decades prior. St. James the Greater had been martyred (the first of the Apostles to so die) in the year 42, so it was a continually hazardous place, the city that was the very cradle of what would be the Catholic Church through the presence of Jesus Christ. I'll return to that point after first discussing some of the commentary about this passage that I'm citing here.
The most important point is that while it is vehement it is not an "anti the rich" sermon. It is an anti the unjustly rich sermon. St. James is criticizing the rich who do not pay the wages due to their employees and he is also criticizing the rich who hold money back when it could be put to good use. So this text cannot and should not be cited as justification for either side of the so called "prosperity Gospel" debate. It does not condemn people who are rich; it condemns the people who are unjustly rich. Likewise, though, it does not endorse being rich because of some argument that God wants people to make as much money as possible. Clearly St. James recognizes that morally correct wealth relies on fair and prompt payment to the workers and active use of the wealth for good and charitable purpose on earth. This is what he means by not storing it up, it rusts, and so forth. St. James is not saying that the rich cannot have holdings or savings. But he is strongly implying that their wealth must be refreshed and used in the community, and not hoarded.
Doesn't it make you wonder if there had been some scandal or some specific outrageous cheating of the poor workers by the wealthy that inspired this part of what sound much like a sermon? I point this out to remind you that yes, that was probably the case, just as how bishops speak out, often making real waves (like in the Eucharist controversies) in response to specific events within their diocese. The difference is that these would not be wealthy Christians that he is railing against, as in his flock, but these are more "social injustice" commentary toward wealthy merchants and landholders in Jerusalem. Remember, the early Christians, most especially the Apostles, were always simultaneously preaching to their early fledgling Christian flock and to evangelize and hope to convert the large majority around them of Jews and Gentiles. So early "sermons" by the Apostles always had two audiences at the same time: the small numbers of faithful believers and the huge numbers of those who still opposed them, or who had not heard and accepted the word yet.
This is why notice how very neatly St. James concludes this section with reference to "the just" who was condemned and put to death but did not "resist you." St. James is clearly aligning Jesus, who meekly and without resistance had everything, including his life, taken from him with the desperately poor workers who are deprived of their wages by people who do have the means to pay them. This is very astute preaching if you remember that indeed his audience would be both the converted but especially the not yet converted. This section is undoubtedly representative of his actual words on a number of occasions where he preached. You can also just with this small analysis of his words here understand how the Jews might have admired his sense of justice, hence giving him that nickname of "James the Just," yet still be driven to martyr him because of their disbelief in the Christian doctrine.
I hope that this is helpful at once again showing how a reader of scripture can glean a lot of insight into what it would have been like "looking over the shoulder" of Jesus' Apostle who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Returning to that topic, I want to remind you that what Jesus essentially said to Peter is that wherever you establish yourself, that is where I will build my church. So Peter, after a time as Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, to the heart of the Empire to evangelize, and established the bishop's seat in Rome. Therefore as Bishop of Rome this is where Peter established the Church, and the Papacy. Jesus gave the physical placement of the heart of the future Church within a person, a man, to establish, not the sentimental or spiritual location. This is why Rome is the home of the Papacy and the Vatican, and not Jerusalem, where one might have otherwise assumed. I thought that comparing St. James being Bishop of Jerusalem with Peter's movement to Antioch and then Rome to be Bishop of Rome, and hence the first Pontiff, would make the organization of the very earliest Church and its continuity into its present form be easier to see and, honestly, to admire. Jesus knew what he was doing when he sent the Apostles out to become what would be the role models and actuality of bishops, while one man, Peter, would be the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself where he established his staff, which would be... Rome!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Bible Readings and commentary
There is a basic about Bible reading and comprehension that many who have not been well formed in their faith do not realize. When one reads the Bible, there are many little footnotes per page, in the tiniest reading (I need glasses AND my magnifying glass to read them myself!) Many Bible readers ignore them, and for quick looking up of a passage and enjoyment that is fine.
Others assume that the footnotes are the way modern books indicate "if you want more information, go here." And so people mostly assume they don't need more information and think that that is that.
Still others glance at the footnotes and in the Gospel, seeing they reference other Gospels, assume that the footnotes just point you to the same events that you are reading about, referenced in one of the other three Gospels, or cited by the Apostles in the Epistles. Or they assume, and this is also often true, that the footnotes are provided by the Bible scholars to point back in the Old Testament to prophesies that pertain to Jesus so you can see the event as being one of those prophesied by the prophets.
But here is an extraordinary thing that everyone once knew, and many have forgotten, which is that the footnotes help you read exactly the scripture that Jesus himself quotes from! Jesus preached daily in the Temple (when in Jerusalem) or in the local synagogues. So Jesus did much more preaching than is recorded, obviously, in the Gospel. Nothing important is left out, but I am teaching you that Jesus did what many do today, which is to preach and to abundantly "quote scripture!"
Here is one of the most famous of the sayings of Jesus, evidence of what I am saying that he preached daily, and further, I want to help you understand the solid scriptural foundation of what Jesus said, and how he constantly referenced to the Old Testament prophets and the teachings of God.
Luke 19: 45-48
And he entered the temple, and began to cast out those who were selling and buying in it, saying to them, "It is written, My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves."
And he was teaching daily in the temple.
But the chief priests and the Scribes and the leading men of the people sought to destroy him; but they found nothing that they could do to him, for all the people hung on his words.
Just about everyone knows about Jesus kicking the moneychangers out of the temple. And many know that he made "a quote." But if you do not look up the footnote, you will miss seeing the actual scripture that Jesus is quoting, and its full glory! Jesus is not just repeating some saying. Jesus quotes either God or one of the prophets directly from holy scripture. So when he quoted, trust me, the faithful recognized what he was saying and recognized directly the source. So when Jesus quoted My house is a house of prayer read from where he is quoting:
Isaiah 56: 1, 7
Thus says the Lord...
them I will bring to my holy mountain and make joyful in my house of prayer; their holocausts and sacrifices will be acceptable on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
Jesus is quoting God in the scriptures.
But hold your hats, wait until you see the second section of scripture that Jesus is citing. Follow the footnote in your Bible to Jer 7:11.
Jeremiah 7: 1, 11
The following message came to Jeremiah from the Lord...
Has this house which bears my name become in your eyes a den of thieves?
See, if you follow the footnotes and read the Old Testament that Jesus is citing, you not only know more clearly what he is saying, and you see his authority as he not only teaches but preached with more knowledge to even the wise, but most importantly you hear and comprehend Jesus exactly as a pious and devout listener would have heard him. He was not just giving some rabble rousing political or spiritual speeches, as those who try to detract today in modern times from Jesus like to allege. When you read the actual parts of the scripture that Jesus is citing in its fullness, you recognize that the listeners of his day knew right away what passages he was citing and the authority from God that he was invoking. That rocked the world.
See, many Jesus detractors today think people came "just for the miracles," assuming of course that the miracles "actually happened." And yes, many, many people brought their sick to be cured. But they stayed and listened, and THIS is the type of thing that they heard. It is what Jesus said, not what miracles he performed, that changed the world. You see, the ability to perform miracles came from God, and so he performed miracles out of love for their suffering, but also to show in a way that everyone could understand the authority he had received from God. Because, obviously, only God could provide the ability to perform the type of miracles that Jesus performed for the benefit of thousands of people.
But Jesus equally powerfully asserted his authority through words, by quoting God and the prophets and then fulfilling those words. THAT "wowed" the people and demonstrated his authority just as much as the miracles.
Go back to the first reading. Notice something? Jesus is not performing miracles in the temple at all. He is preaching, and he is packing them in. "And he was teaching daily in the temple... for all the people hung upon his words."
Do you see more clearly why the chief priests and the Scribes hated and feared him so? He was able to fulfill admonishments from the Lord God himself to keep the temple a house of prayer, and not a den of thieves, and then literally move in there and preach the authoritative word of God day after day, packing the people in (who prevented his enemies from making a move to harm him) and all without the use of miracles.
Ha, ha, now you can really savor what happens next. I won't type it in here, but if you read the beginning of Chapter 20, you will see just what I am saying happens. Jesus goes on preaching day after day, until finally the chief priests and Scribes regrouped and challenged him. And what do they say? "Tell us, by what authority dost thou do these things? Or who is it that gave thee this authority?"
See, they recognized all that Jesus preached and knew full well whose authority he was citing, as all the priests and Scribes would know by heart what Jesus cites. So that is why they use the word "authority" in their challenge to him, because they knew absolutely very well whose authority Jesus invokes. They try to trap him into saying so, but Jesus eludes them with a counter-question, which they cannot answer.
I hope you find this helpful, on several levels. It deepens your faith to understand what exactly Jesus is saying, and how he established his authority through not just miracles, but by sound and firm scriptural references that resonated with all the people who thronged to listen to him. He took over the temple, essentially, preaching to the crowds but not in a "praise and worship" kind of way that many modern Christians think of when they hear "preaching." Jesus preached the word of God as already revealed in the scripture, and pointed out the failure of the chief priests and Scribes to remain true to what God has commanded. So you can better understand Jesus and all the events, plus deepen your faith by seeing the continuity between what was said and prophesied in the Old Testament and how Jesus cited and fulfilled it day by day, not just at his death and resurrection. Also, you can "take your place in the crowd," by hearing the words Jesus said just as how he would have meant them and how the faithful would have recognized what he cited of God's word and how people can implement and be faithful to what God truly wants from them. This is how Jesus performed his ministry.
Others assume that the footnotes are the way modern books indicate "if you want more information, go here." And so people mostly assume they don't need more information and think that that is that.
Still others glance at the footnotes and in the Gospel, seeing they reference other Gospels, assume that the footnotes just point you to the same events that you are reading about, referenced in one of the other three Gospels, or cited by the Apostles in the Epistles. Or they assume, and this is also often true, that the footnotes are provided by the Bible scholars to point back in the Old Testament to prophesies that pertain to Jesus so you can see the event as being one of those prophesied by the prophets.
But here is an extraordinary thing that everyone once knew, and many have forgotten, which is that the footnotes help you read exactly the scripture that Jesus himself quotes from! Jesus preached daily in the Temple (when in Jerusalem) or in the local synagogues. So Jesus did much more preaching than is recorded, obviously, in the Gospel. Nothing important is left out, but I am teaching you that Jesus did what many do today, which is to preach and to abundantly "quote scripture!"
Here is one of the most famous of the sayings of Jesus, evidence of what I am saying that he preached daily, and further, I want to help you understand the solid scriptural foundation of what Jesus said, and how he constantly referenced to the Old Testament prophets and the teachings of God.
Luke 19: 45-48
And he entered the temple, and began to cast out those who were selling and buying in it, saying to them, "It is written, My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves."
And he was teaching daily in the temple.
But the chief priests and the Scribes and the leading men of the people sought to destroy him; but they found nothing that they could do to him, for all the people hung on his words.
Just about everyone knows about Jesus kicking the moneychangers out of the temple. And many know that he made "a quote." But if you do not look up the footnote, you will miss seeing the actual scripture that Jesus is quoting, and its full glory! Jesus is not just repeating some saying. Jesus quotes either God or one of the prophets directly from holy scripture. So when he quoted, trust me, the faithful recognized what he was saying and recognized directly the source. So when Jesus quoted My house is a house of prayer read from where he is quoting:
Isaiah 56: 1, 7
Thus says the Lord...
them I will bring to my holy mountain and make joyful in my house of prayer; their holocausts and sacrifices will be acceptable on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
Jesus is quoting God in the scriptures.
But hold your hats, wait until you see the second section of scripture that Jesus is citing. Follow the footnote in your Bible to Jer 7:11.
Jeremiah 7: 1, 11
The following message came to Jeremiah from the Lord...
Has this house which bears my name become in your eyes a den of thieves?
See, if you follow the footnotes and read the Old Testament that Jesus is citing, you not only know more clearly what he is saying, and you see his authority as he not only teaches but preached with more knowledge to even the wise, but most importantly you hear and comprehend Jesus exactly as a pious and devout listener would have heard him. He was not just giving some rabble rousing political or spiritual speeches, as those who try to detract today in modern times from Jesus like to allege. When you read the actual parts of the scripture that Jesus is citing in its fullness, you recognize that the listeners of his day knew right away what passages he was citing and the authority from God that he was invoking. That rocked the world.
See, many Jesus detractors today think people came "just for the miracles," assuming of course that the miracles "actually happened." And yes, many, many people brought their sick to be cured. But they stayed and listened, and THIS is the type of thing that they heard. It is what Jesus said, not what miracles he performed, that changed the world. You see, the ability to perform miracles came from God, and so he performed miracles out of love for their suffering, but also to show in a way that everyone could understand the authority he had received from God. Because, obviously, only God could provide the ability to perform the type of miracles that Jesus performed for the benefit of thousands of people.
But Jesus equally powerfully asserted his authority through words, by quoting God and the prophets and then fulfilling those words. THAT "wowed" the people and demonstrated his authority just as much as the miracles.
Go back to the first reading. Notice something? Jesus is not performing miracles in the temple at all. He is preaching, and he is packing them in. "And he was teaching daily in the temple... for all the people hung upon his words."
Do you see more clearly why the chief priests and the Scribes hated and feared him so? He was able to fulfill admonishments from the Lord God himself to keep the temple a house of prayer, and not a den of thieves, and then literally move in there and preach the authoritative word of God day after day, packing the people in (who prevented his enemies from making a move to harm him) and all without the use of miracles.
Ha, ha, now you can really savor what happens next. I won't type it in here, but if you read the beginning of Chapter 20, you will see just what I am saying happens. Jesus goes on preaching day after day, until finally the chief priests and Scribes regrouped and challenged him. And what do they say? "Tell us, by what authority dost thou do these things? Or who is it that gave thee this authority?"
See, they recognized all that Jesus preached and knew full well whose authority he was citing, as all the priests and Scribes would know by heart what Jesus cites. So that is why they use the word "authority" in their challenge to him, because they knew absolutely very well whose authority Jesus invokes. They try to trap him into saying so, but Jesus eludes them with a counter-question, which they cannot answer.
I hope you find this helpful, on several levels. It deepens your faith to understand what exactly Jesus is saying, and how he established his authority through not just miracles, but by sound and firm scriptural references that resonated with all the people who thronged to listen to him. He took over the temple, essentially, preaching to the crowds but not in a "praise and worship" kind of way that many modern Christians think of when they hear "preaching." Jesus preached the word of God as already revealed in the scripture, and pointed out the failure of the chief priests and Scribes to remain true to what God has commanded. So you can better understand Jesus and all the events, plus deepen your faith by seeing the continuity between what was said and prophesied in the Old Testament and how Jesus cited and fulfilled it day by day, not just at his death and resurrection. Also, you can "take your place in the crowd," by hearing the words Jesus said just as how he would have meant them and how the faithful would have recognized what he cited of God's word and how people can implement and be faithful to what God truly wants from them. This is how Jesus performed his ministry.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Bimbo eruption: "Preachers" behaving badly
I'm not speaking of the blond bombshell scandal type of bimbo; if only it were that simple. I'm actually referring to many "preachers" AS bimbos. This has been going on for years and is part of the hubris of many Protestant and non denominational churches, including "mega churches." That's why there is a Catholic Church in the true apostolic tradition. Whatever else its flaws it prevents bimbo preaching, which is what millions of Americans are served up every day.
These bimbo preachers think they have a personal insight into God, which no other generation, no matter how "hell fire" they preached, ever dared to presume. These bimbo preachers take secret advice from "New Age" advisers about the "hidden meaning" of the Bible. They then cherry pick sections from the Bible and preach as though they personally know what God "intends." Hagee is just one of the obvious examples. They are everywhere, large mega churches and small local congregations. They have allowed their minds to be poisoned and puffed up and in return have misled countless congregants. They ought to fall onto their knees in fear for the arrogance they have shown in claiming they can match Biblical events to modern day events. The Catholic Church is quietly on course for preaching Jesus; the Catholic Church is not in the inflated prophet bimbo business. It makes my hair stand on end knowing what crap is passed off as "Bible study" by many of these bimbo preachers. And they accuse the Catholic Church of not knowing the Bible? The daily Mass IS the Bible, and the sacraments as given to humans by Jesus Christ. The hypocrisy is incredible.
What is most shameful is the using of the Jews. Non-Catholic "Christians" shamelessly "interpret" the Bible to manipulate Jews as gun fodder in religious drama. The nerve of these so-called preachers to "interpret" the Jews' place in God's kingdom is an abomination. To dare to "read into" Bible passages events and/or justification as having anything to do with worldly events such as the Holocaust is treachery. I think every Jew who takes money or comfort from these people is a fool.
And one more thing. You think God is talking to you and giving you a message and an "interpretation?" Well try shutting up about it. Instead of puffing yourself up blabbing your own brilliant Id or Ego derived insights to mislead others, how about spending a year or two in prayerful discernment about any "message" that "God" might happen to be "giving you." You don't acknowledge genuine visitations, such as by the Blessed Virgin Mary as authorized by the Catholic Church, but you think YOU have a personal message from God? Ha ha ha. It would be funny if it weren't that you were leading so many souls astray, not the least of which is your own. If you think "God" is "inspiring you" with "insight" and "The Holy Spirit," try shutting up for a year or two and sincerely praying on what you think you are "hearing." The Bible repeatedly shows that God does not establish a private little chat and insight line for everyone to be a "prophet" "politician" and "current events analyst." What a disgrace to the name and the mystery of God.
These bimbo preachers think they have a personal insight into God, which no other generation, no matter how "hell fire" they preached, ever dared to presume. These bimbo preachers take secret advice from "New Age" advisers about the "hidden meaning" of the Bible. They then cherry pick sections from the Bible and preach as though they personally know what God "intends." Hagee is just one of the obvious examples. They are everywhere, large mega churches and small local congregations. They have allowed their minds to be poisoned and puffed up and in return have misled countless congregants. They ought to fall onto their knees in fear for the arrogance they have shown in claiming they can match Biblical events to modern day events. The Catholic Church is quietly on course for preaching Jesus; the Catholic Church is not in the inflated prophet bimbo business. It makes my hair stand on end knowing what crap is passed off as "Bible study" by many of these bimbo preachers. And they accuse the Catholic Church of not knowing the Bible? The daily Mass IS the Bible, and the sacraments as given to humans by Jesus Christ. The hypocrisy is incredible.
What is most shameful is the using of the Jews. Non-Catholic "Christians" shamelessly "interpret" the Bible to manipulate Jews as gun fodder in religious drama. The nerve of these so-called preachers to "interpret" the Jews' place in God's kingdom is an abomination. To dare to "read into" Bible passages events and/or justification as having anything to do with worldly events such as the Holocaust is treachery. I think every Jew who takes money or comfort from these people is a fool.
And one more thing. You think God is talking to you and giving you a message and an "interpretation?" Well try shutting up about it. Instead of puffing yourself up blabbing your own brilliant Id or Ego derived insights to mislead others, how about spending a year or two in prayerful discernment about any "message" that "God" might happen to be "giving you." You don't acknowledge genuine visitations, such as by the Blessed Virgin Mary as authorized by the Catholic Church, but you think YOU have a personal message from God? Ha ha ha. It would be funny if it weren't that you were leading so many souls astray, not the least of which is your own. If you think "God" is "inspiring you" with "insight" and "The Holy Spirit," try shutting up for a year or two and sincerely praying on what you think you are "hearing." The Bible repeatedly shows that God does not establish a private little chat and insight line for everyone to be a "prophet" "politician" and "current events analyst." What a disgrace to the name and the mystery of God.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Using discernment in the Rev. Wright controversy
I think what Rev. Wright says is abominable, regarding the use of Jesus and his name to preach that he was an "oppressed black man," to "damn the USA" and so forth.
However, he has a right to have his beliefs, and people who agree with him have a right to listen to them.
Back on the other hand, though, I totally agree with people who repeatedly play audio tapes about his public preaching. I understand his church sells them, making them part of the public sphere, so that is no problem to respond with great criticism. I agree that the brightness of light should be shed on all cults and faiths that preach hate. Those beliefs should be exposed and condemned.
I agree that this is obviously part of the total package that Barrack Obama supporters, and all the potential voters, must look at in assessing their support of him. One's general and public faith profile is a legitimate factor in the assessment of a candidate's stances and character.
But I detect a heavy whiff of hypocrisy. A big fat stinking whiff of hypocrisy. This is why I agree with John McCain that profiling a religious figure should not be the only point of a political attack ad. Here's why.
How many times do we have to watch certain "evangelical" and "fundamental" Protestants and non-denominationals "explain" what "countries God is mad at and how the Bible says they will be punished?" They make tons of money off this crap, say nothing about the distracting of people from their piety to assigning "good" and "bad" to entire people, stating that they will be damned. The "Left Behind" series of books with a sweep of the hand says that Catholics and Muslims are not going to be "saved" in their imaginary "rapture." These "Christians" don't mind "damning" a whole group of people just based on their faith and culture, and not only doing this as "preachers," but as shaking their big fat moneymakers.
So why should I be more annoyed at a black man who has rage, based on his perception of society, who then twists the words of Jesus than I am with the white men who view Jews as conversion fodder for the End of Days? Who claim to "know" when God is "mad" at America or anyone else? Have we not listened to decades of that shit? And it is regularly covered in mainstream media as "news" (true, with a little giggle when it is Pat Robertson). But people on talk shows host hour after hour of uneducated "end of times" "experts" who preach just as bad if not worse than Rev. Wright.
John McCain is right to try to prevent Republican partisan ads from focusing only on the religious figure and not the candidate's own spoken record.
Meanwhile, you might want to change the channel on your TV or live stream when you hear a white "expert" "explain" to you which countries "God is mad at and going to punish" and "how the Bible tells them where and when and who." Your brains are being filled with crap.
However, he has a right to have his beliefs, and people who agree with him have a right to listen to them.
Back on the other hand, though, I totally agree with people who repeatedly play audio tapes about his public preaching. I understand his church sells them, making them part of the public sphere, so that is no problem to respond with great criticism. I agree that the brightness of light should be shed on all cults and faiths that preach hate. Those beliefs should be exposed and condemned.
I agree that this is obviously part of the total package that Barrack Obama supporters, and all the potential voters, must look at in assessing their support of him. One's general and public faith profile is a legitimate factor in the assessment of a candidate's stances and character.
But I detect a heavy whiff of hypocrisy. A big fat stinking whiff of hypocrisy. This is why I agree with John McCain that profiling a religious figure should not be the only point of a political attack ad. Here's why.
How many times do we have to watch certain "evangelical" and "fundamental" Protestants and non-denominationals "explain" what "countries God is mad at and how the Bible says they will be punished?" They make tons of money off this crap, say nothing about the distracting of people from their piety to assigning "good" and "bad" to entire people, stating that they will be damned. The "Left Behind" series of books with a sweep of the hand says that Catholics and Muslims are not going to be "saved" in their imaginary "rapture." These "Christians" don't mind "damning" a whole group of people just based on their faith and culture, and not only doing this as "preachers," but as shaking their big fat moneymakers.
So why should I be more annoyed at a black man who has rage, based on his perception of society, who then twists the words of Jesus than I am with the white men who view Jews as conversion fodder for the End of Days? Who claim to "know" when God is "mad" at America or anyone else? Have we not listened to decades of that shit? And it is regularly covered in mainstream media as "news" (true, with a little giggle when it is Pat Robertson). But people on talk shows host hour after hour of uneducated "end of times" "experts" who preach just as bad if not worse than Rev. Wright.
John McCain is right to try to prevent Republican partisan ads from focusing only on the religious figure and not the candidate's own spoken record.
Meanwhile, you might want to change the channel on your TV or live stream when you hear a white "expert" "explain" to you which countries "God is mad at and going to punish" and "how the Bible tells them where and when and who." Your brains are being filled with crap.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
