Category — Theology

Growing up, my mother always insisted that tattoos were hideous. I was told that I could never get one. Of course, there’s a temporal limit to authority. If a man can wed another woman following the death o fhis former spouse, surely a son can get a tattoo once his formerly-unapproving mother has passed. All too aware of my stubbornness while on earth, from her current vantage she can only observe the full breadth of my resolve.

In the book of Jeremiah, the author laments the Israelites’ rejection of the Lord: “Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve.” (Jeremiah 2: 20 DRB) These last words, “non serviam“, have traditionally been ascribed to Satan in the story of the fall of the angels from heaven.

In Catechism on Pride, St. John Vianney elaborates: “Pride is that accursed sin which drove the angels out of paradise, and hurled them into Hell. This sin began with the world.”

If the sin of pride began with the world, it is in overcoming pride that we obtain God’s forgiveness and advance toward sanctity. The final sentence of Psalm 142, the last words of the seventh and final penitential psalm, proclaims: “Et perdes omnes qui tribulant animam meam, Quoniam ego servus tuus sum.” – “And Thou wilt cut off all that afflict my soul: for I am Thy servant.”

It is these words which I am planning on ascribing on the upper portion of arm, between my bicep and tricep and just below my shoulder. I’d like the words to be just below a circle of thorns circumscribing a monogram: perhaps the IHS, the “mirror of justice”, a Tau cross or a Pelican. The tattoo would be done just with black ink. I’d love to read your feedback.

[I wrote this article in 2007. I believe the words still hold true. I certainly hope they do, as I've yet to find that special person that God has chosen for me!]

The themes of love and romance have always appealed to the appetites of mankind. Fictional works such as Electra, Romeo and Juliet, Wuthering Height , and Doctor Zhivago, portray relationships of tremendous intensity and passion. The emotions invoked in the audience are so great that many consider the relationships depicted to be idyllic. Even St. Augustine confessed that “in the theaters I rejoiced together with lovers when they took … delight in each other, though it was only pretended in the play.”

However, in spiritual maturity St. Augustine “pit[ied] whoever rejoice[d] in his own wickedness.” Far from presenting the idyllic relationship, writers often present a fraud which appeals to our desire for intensity and intimacy. The compacting of the life of a relationship into a couple of hours of viewing or reading makes this deception possible. True love must last forever and it demands the virtues and emotions which are able to sustain the struggles of each day.

In 2005 a documentary which many regarded to authentically represent a story of true love won an Academy Award. Contrary to many films which receive such accolades, the couples presented were neither particularly attractive nor fashionable. However, they did provide an inspiring example of the qualities needed for a relationship of profound beauty. March of the Penguins depicts the mating and breeding of emperor penguins. Once each year thousands of penguins undertake a hundred kilometer pilgrimage from open water to their traditional breeding grounds. When they arrive they will court a partner with whom they will attempt to bring new life into the world. The female only lays a single egg.

“After the female lays the egg, she transfers it to the feet of the waiting male with a minimal exposure to the elements, as the intense cold will kill the developing embryo. The male tends to the egg when the female returns to the sea, now even further away, both in order to feed herself and to obtain extra food for feeding her chick when she returns. She has not eaten in two months and by the time she leaves the hatching area, she will have lost a third of her body weight.

For an additional two months, the males huddle together for warmth, and incubate their eggs. They endure temperatures approaching -62 °C (-80 °F), and their only source of water is snow that falls on the breeding ground. When the chicks hatch, the males have only a small meal to feed them … By the time they return, they have lost half their weight and have not eaten for four months.” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_the_Penguins)

March of the Penguins presents a number of elements that must be present and respected for a couple to find true love. These are the considerations and virtues that should be kept in my mind and worked on to be better prepared to receive true love:

(1) Patience

A hundred kilometer trek is not too an incredible distance – unless you’re a penguin! Male emperor penguins have to patiently wait for two months while their female partners walk to the water and then return to them! I often grow impatient just waiting for a ride to pick me up!

As difficult a virtue as patience is to foster, it is essential if you are to have a successful relationship. St. Paul tells us that “charity is patient, is kind.” (1 Corinthians 13) True love cannot exist without patience. The two are inseparable. Love is not for oneself, but must be directed towards another, reciprocated, and then shared. When one is impatient they wish to satisfy their own desires immediately. The selfish placing of one’s interests ahead of the interests of the one they claim to love will lead not to unity, but to division. However, “he that is patient, is governed with much wisdom” (Proverbs 14:29). A patient person is able to overcome the evil inclinations and carnal desires inherent within them (Genesis 8:21). A person’s heart is strengthened (James 5:8) by this victory - the heart with which they love. This leads to a greater victory: “A patient man shall bear for a time, and afterwards joy shall be restored to him.” (Ecclesiasticus 1:29)

Ask God that your heart, which is both His and yours, may be strengthened in this virtue so as to be able to love more purely and completely.

(2) Awareness of a Specific Time and a Specific Place

Penguins do not breed continuously, but once each year at roughly the same time. “All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). True love requires understanding the season in which the Lord has placed you and preparing for the season to come. If the penguins did not eat properly before their march, surely they would not be able to withstand the rigours imposed on them in bringing new life into the world. People often desire to be with a particular person as soon as they feel an attraction. It can be a struggle to understand why Our Lord does not will for two people to be together at a particular moment. However, use this is a time to prepare to receive His great gift, the gift of a spouse that can help you attain sanctity. Pray that you may prepare yourself well so that you can withstand the trials of the future to keep, hold, and provide for that person - temporally and spiritually.

The penguins also understand that God’s plan entails both a time and a place. Penguins have a particular breeding ground, and return to that spot yearly. When it came to pass that days of Jesus’ “assumption were accomplishing, … he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). If God that has brought two people together, it is He that will show them where we must go. When He shows them, they must then go wherever He desires. Set your face like flint and go; regardless of the uncertainty, regardless of the cost. As the penguins set out across the snow and ice, they did not know what awaited them at the end of the journey. As Noah set out in the Ark, to what end did he think he was sailing? When you set out to be near the person the Lord desires for you, you will face many uncertainties. However, know that Christ will be with you, and that in Him, through your spouses support and love, you will become a saint. You will both become saints! Why worry when we know we rest in His love!?

(3) Sacrifice

For the love of their children, for the love of their partners, the Penguins are prepared to lay down their own lives. Christ tells us that “[g]reater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Marriage is a calling to this greatest of love: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it” (Ephesians 5:25). You must pray and long to be able to give your life more completely. With every word you speak and pray together, your hearts must grow closer to God. In time, you must learn to love so completely that there is nothing that you would not do for your spouse with Gods grace. Your career, your thoughts, your prayers, your life, though it is all Gods, you must desire to give it to that person so that they might present it to Him on your behalf, that the grace received may be shared.

Give praise to His holy name with two mouths but one heart joined in sacrificing love!

(4) Perseverance

It is the yearly perseverance of love that allows the Emperor Penguin to survive. “[H]e that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13). You must will “[p]ersevere under discipline” (Hebrews 12:7). If God has brought you together, God will never abandon you! You will persevere in love, because in each other you will see the manifestation of God who is Love!

If you are called to marriage, finding the person Jesus desires for you is the search for the person in whom you find Jesus. May you find the soul that magnifies His presence in your life!

“Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.” (1 Corinthians 9:24)

[It's late and I'm tired, but I wanted to get this out. I will proof read it tomorrow. I may improve upon it in the future, as I'm passionate about this topic. I hope you find it fruitful nonetheless.]

On opening night of the “Passion of the Christ” I stood in line outside the theater with ticket in hand and trepidation in my heart. Amidst those that had pre-screened the movie and declared its emotive brilliance were many others who criticized the imagery as being too graphic and intense. I was worried that I might also be overwhelmed with the movies portrayals. I expressed these concerns to my friend (read his blog here) who urged me not to focus upon the great suffering which Jesus endured during His passion, but the infinite love which impelled Him to take up the cross. The story which he then recounted to me remains one of my favourite declarations of God’s love for humanity. Julian of Norwich was a medieval English mystic. Among the many ecstasies she experienced were a series of visions in which she witnessed Christ’s final agony on the cross. The face of Jesus was bloody, torn and ravaged, distended and disfigured to such a degree that He was scarcely recognizable. As she gazed upon our suffering Saviour and contemplated His agony, He suddenly opened his eyes and looked upon her:

The Lord: Are you well satisfied that I suffered for you?

Julian: Yes, good Lord, all my thanks to you; yes, good Lord, blessed may you be.

The Lord: If you are satisfied, I am satisfied. It is a joy, a bliss, an endless delight to me that ever I suffered my Passion for you; and if I could suffer more, I should suffer more.

(Revelations of Divine Love, Ch 22, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations.x.i.html)

God’s suffering for our sins, the laying down of His life, constitutes the greatest sacrifice of time memorial and eternal. One can not but be satisfied, comforted, by so loving a God. Yet Jesus’ love for us is divinely without limit. Though He suffered to the full extent permitted by His human nature, He was desirous to that He could manifest His love further: “if I could suffer more, I should suffer more.”

St. Bernard of Clairvaux similarly relates God’s superabundant passion for the good of man: “How great was this love! If Christ the Son of the living God had as many parts of His body as there are stars in the firmament of heaven, and if each of these parts had its own body, Christ would have exposed all of them to the Passion, rather that leave a single soul unredeemed from the clutches of the devil. O what mercy, and how great is the mercy of God!”

“Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus”, writes St. Paul. (1 Timothy 1:15 – DRB) God is not satisfied with mere satisfaction, but desires to do all good in excess. In explaining the writings of Peter Lombard, Richard Viladesau wrote in “The Beauty of the Cross”, “[b]y His passion and death, Christ merited something more than He had merited previously for Himself: namely, our salvation. He could not gain any higher degree of merit than He had simply by His virtuous life; but in the passion Christ obtained more merit – namely, for us. He did so by making himself, in death, a sacrificial offering for our liberation.”

In merit, grace and love – in all virtue – God desires more and He desires us to desire more. In reflection of the love shown on the cross, our service must be passionate. Passion for holiness is virtuous and pleasing to God. Writing on passion in the Summa, Aquinas addresses the question of whether moral virtue can exist without passion:

“If we take the passions as being inordinate emotions, as the Stoics did, it is evident that in this sense perfect virtue is without the passions. But if by passions we understand any movement of the sensitive appetite, it is plain that moral virtues, which are about the passions as about their proper matter, cannot be without passions. The reason for this is that otherwise it would follow that moral virtue makes the sensitive appetite altogether idle: whereas it is not the function of virtue to deprive the powers subordinate to reason of their proper activities, but to make them execute the commands of reason, by exercising their proper acts. Wherefore just as virtue directs the bodily limbs to their due external acts, so does it direct the sensitive appetite to its proper regulated movements.

Those moral virtues, however, which are not about the passions, but about operations, can be without passions. Such a virtue is justice: because it applies the will to its proper act, which is not a passion. Nevertheless, joy results from the act of justice; at least in the will, in which case it is not a passion. And if this joy be increased through the perfection of justice, it will overflow into the sensitive appetite; in so far as the lower powers follow the movement of the higher, as stated above (17, 7; 24, 3). Wherefore by reason of this kind of overflow, the more perfect a virtue is, the more does it cause passion.”

Jesus came that me have life and have it abundantly (cf. John 10:10). Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. Then love more. Pursue the greater glory of God with this passion and your cup will overflow.

The greatest gift, not just of a particular day, but of a lifetime, is to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. As Archbishop Burke observed, “the Body and Blood of Christ is a gift of God’s love to us. It is the greatest gift, a gift beyond our ability to describe … A gift is freely given out of love and that is what God is doing for us every time we are able to participate in Mass and approach to receive Holy Communion.”

On the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, the priest of Corpus Christi Parish in St. John’s, Newfoundland, recalled the reverence with which St. Justin, Martyr directed Christians of the early Church to receive Our Lord:

“Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is about to receive the king. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Give heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?”

St. Justin’s image of the hands of a communicant as a throne for the King finds modern parallel in the memoirs of Francis Xavier Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen. Persecuted for his loyalty to the Catholic Church, the Bishop spent more than 13 years of extreme sufferings in Communist prisons in Vietnam. During that time it was the Eucharist, reverently celebrated in the most horrendous of conditions, which sustained and strengthened him:

“When I was arrested, I had to leave immediately with empty hands. The next day, I was permitted to write to my people in order to ask for the most necessary things: clothes, toothpaste…I wrote, ‘Please send me a little wine as medicine for my stomachache.’ The faithful understood right away.

They sent me a small bottle of wine for Mass with a label that read, ‘medicine for stomachaches.’ They also sent some hosts, which they hid in a flashlight for protection against the humidity. The police asked me, ‘You have stomachaches? Yes. Here’s some medicine for you.’

I will never be able to express my great joy! Every day, with three drops of wine and a drop of water in the palm of my hand, I would celebrate Mass. This was my altar, and this was my cathedral! It was true medicine for soul and body, ‘Medicine of immortality, remedy so as not to die but to have life always in Jesus’, as St. Ignatius of Antioch says. Each time I celebrate the Mass, I had the opportunity to extend my hands and nail myself to the cross with Jesus, to drink with him the bitter chalice. Each day in reciting the words of consecration, I confirmed with all my heart and soul a new pact, and eternal pact between Jesus and me through his blood mixed with mine. Those were the most beautiful Masses of my life!”

In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Church states that sacred vessels “should be made from materials that are solid and that in the particular region are regarded as noble. The conference of bishops will be the judge in this matter. But preference is to be given to materials that do not break easily or become unusable.” (290) Through the Holy Eucharist, Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen came to embody the sacred vessels of which he was deprived. In his weakness, Our Lord made him solid, noble and unbreakable. Despite his persecution, he was filled with life and love. This is the same grace that was offered to the early Church and is available to every one of us each time we attend Mass. Let us prepare ourselves to receive Jesus worthily and respectfully, becoming living tabernacles for Our Lord and King. It is through the Eucharist that we will find the strength to persevere.

SOURCES:

St. Justin, Martyr, “Ordo Romanus I” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.html).

“Francis Xavier Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen: By His Own Accounts” in Vietnamese, compiled by Rev. Msgr. Tran Van Kha (California: Co So Hy Vong Publishers) at  p. 131.

As the adage goes, “when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck a quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” A simple saying, but an accurate one. It is necessary to look at an object’s qualities and traits before determining its identity. If a bird cannot fly, runs 65 kilometers an hour and weighs 120 kilograms, it’s an ostrich, even if someone decides to call it a duck. An ostrich by any other name is still an ostrich.

The above analogy applies to many aspects of our Christian lives. We may profess to be Christians, but if we do not live according to the Word of God, our words are hollow. To be a Christian is not to simply state a belief in Christ, but to follow the words of Jesus, who is the Word made flesh. We must walk the path of faith not as mere wayfarers, but as pilgrims, our faith manifested in the lives that we live. Our actions and deeds must evidence our faith. Our witness must be so strong that it compels others to conclude we are Christians.

However, as we selectively disregard Christ’s teachings and live according to our own prerogatives, our lives may cease to bear the marks of Christianity. Rather than attempting to overcome our fallen nature and ensure that our lives reflect God’s design, we may attempt to recreate God in our own image. If we persist in individually caricaturing the Divine, emphasizing that which we like and minimizing that which we do not, at a certain point we risk presenting an image of God so distorted that what we portray is not the Lord of all, but rather our own personal god.

It is at this juncture, where an individual clearly deviates from scripture in their characterization of the faith, that we must heed Jesus’ admonishment to “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matt 7:1 - RSV) We are in no position to fully comprehend the context from which one approaches their faith. We are oblivious to how deeply their convictions are held, their ability to understand the scriptures, their influences, etc. Final judgment is reserved to God alone, and his mercy is unfathomable, as St. Faustina tells us in her Diary (1698):

“I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things.

Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God.”

Not privy to the intimate workings of the Lord within a person’s heart, we are unable to judge the soul of another. It is for this reason and in this context which Christ warns us not to judge. Yet it is fallacious to contend that Jesus wishes us to refrain from seeking the truth and pronouncing it openly. It is our duty to “[a]lways be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls [us] to account for the hope that is in [us]” as Christians. We must do so with “gentleness and reverence”, but not fear to speak (1 Peter 3:15). Christ has given us our gifts and talents precisely so that we may equip ourselves to speak the truth in love. Not to admonish for its own sake, but to uphold right doctrine and defend the deposit of faith which God has entrusted to His Church. While our words may oppose the beliefs of others, we must speak the truth in the hopes of reuniting all people within the mystical body of Christ:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.” Ephesians 4:11-16 RSV

Yet, rather than unity, there is currently great division even among the Abrahamic traditions. As books can and have been written on this subject, it is necessary to restrict the discussion. Focusing on Islam, for example, striking doctrinal differences are evident in the qualities and traits ascribed to God. While both assert that the God of Abraham is the One, true God, the Quran rejects the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ and Jesus’ divinity:

The Quran denies the Trinity:

Certainly they disbelieve those who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve (Sura 5:73).

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son (Sura 4:171).

The Quaran denies the Father and the Son:

The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them (Sura 9:29-30).

It does not befit GOD that He begets a son, be He glorified (Sura 19:35).

The Quran denies the Deity of Christ:

The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God’s apostle (Sura 4).

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Christ the son of Mary (Sura 5:72).

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right (Sura 5:116).

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary (Sura 5:17).

Despite these beliefs expressed within the Quran, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while affirming the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ and Jesus’ divinity, simultaneously expresses the view that we worship the same God:

841 […] “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Logically, this is a rather puzzling statement. If you asked a Christian and a Muslim if they believed in one God, who is the God of Israel, both would reply in the affirmative. However, if you asked both if Jesus is God, the Christian would reply that Jesus is God whereas the Muslim would deny Jesus’ divinity, stating that “in blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary”. For the Christian and the Muslim, the qualities and traits of God differ, even God’s very essence differs, and to such an extent that one must wonder whether the Catechism’s statement of ordinary, rather than extraordinary, magisterium is correct.

Yet Hilarie Belloc, a great and orthodox thinker, appears to support the teaching of the Catechism. Although he wrote well before the Catechism, he notes that Mohammedanism arose not as a new religion, but as a heresy within Christianity:

“Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was – not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world – on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel – which inspired his convictions […]

He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side – the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.

[…]

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation.

Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.

[…] Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine, Mohammedanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it retained: the equality of all men before God – “All true believers are brothers.” It zealously preached and throve on the paramount claims of justice, social and economic.”

Does Belloc’s exegesis lend enough support to the Catechism’s view that Islam and Christianity worship the same God so as to overcome the obvious problems posed by the denial of the incarnation and issues related to the Trinity which arise as a result?

Personally, I feel that Islam and Christianity differ to such a degree at the doctrinal level that I do not see how the two could describe the same God. Even if you disagree with this end conclusion, there should be little doubt that the Christian must view Islam as doctrinally flawed. The teaching of Islam on the Trinity is incorrect - The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Trinity is God. We know this because, while we have had a personal relationship with the Father, we have also had a personal relationship with the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is absolutely incumbent upon Christians to learn those ways in which Christian and Muslim beliefs differ, learn why they differ, and be able to defend our faith and beliefs.

Despite the above, I believe that on the personal level it may be impossible to know whether an individual Muslim worships the One God. For most people, our faith his not an intellectual exercise. It is an emotive response to the stirring of the heart. We can never be sure the degree to which any person has either turned their heart toward God, nor away from Jesus. Even for those who have been taught about Jesus, it is impossible to determine the depths to which their current religious beliefs have been instilled and to assess their capacity to be fully open to conflicting teachings. Further, surely the Muslims worship Someone, and with admirable reverence at that. Is it not possible that they may worship the God of the Trinity without awareness or an acknowledgement of the Mystery – much as a man might fall in love with a woman only to learn over time the many aspects of her beauty that he could never have discovered before they grew in intimacy? It is perhaps for this reason that the Catechism states that Muslims individually worship the One True God but does not make any assertions with regard to Islam and its teachings.

All this strengthens rather than reduces the obligation of Christians to evangelize and teach the Word. Iinspired by the Holy Spirit, we must draw others to the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. We must introduce others to Jesus, through our love and compassion. However, we must do so with love, gentleness and reverence. As St. Francis said to the Sultan of Babylon: “If you wish to be converted to Christ along with your people, I will most gladly stay with you for love of Him.”

SOURCES:

St. Faustina Kowalska, “Divine Mercy in my Soul: The Diary of Sister Faustina Kowalska”

<http://www.faustina.org/pages/diary.htm>.

Passages from the Quran - Dr Joseph Mizzi, “Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?”
<www.justforcatholics.org/islam.htm>.

Hilaire Belloc, “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed”
<http://www.trosch.org/bks/mohammed.html>.

Brother David Kazmarek, TOR, “St. Francis of Assisi and the Muslims”

<http://www.franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/stfrancis/stf_st_francis_and_the_muslims.htm>.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. I entered the main doors, walked up a flight of stairs, down a hallway, and into the main part of the Church. I looked around for a second, desiring to kneel in the direction of the Eucharist reposed in the tabernacle. I turned to the left, then to the right. Dismayed as to where the tabernacle was located, I just kneeled reverently, knowing that it had to be somewhere within the Church.

At the time, I was perturbed. I was shocked to walk into a Catholic Cathedral and to discover that the tabernacle was so inconspicuously places that I couldn’t even find it. As it turns out, the designers of the Cathedral decided that they would keep the tabernacle in a separate chapel enclosed within one of the massive pillars on the side of the church. I wouldn’t have known it was there if I hadn’t asked. When I did walk inside the chapel, I discovered that it could only accommodate a handful of worshipers. The decor was drab and the room was Claustrophobic. “Does not Our Lord deserves better?”, I thought to myself.  ”Shouldn’t the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our faith, be front and center in our Churches?” I felt cheated that I was unable to genuflect toward the Eucharist and pay proper reverence. As I left the Cathedral I was convinced that there was something wrong with the placement of the tabernacle.

Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, commented on the role of genuflection and the proper placement of the tabernacle during a keynote talk at Westminster Cathedral in 2006:

“As for those who may ignore the significance of this gesture [ie. genuflection], it may be well to remember that we are not pure spirits like the angels. A Protestant once was visiting a Catholic church in the company of a Catholic friend. They passed across the tabernacle area. The Protestant asked the Catholic what that box was and why a little lamp was burning near it. The Catholic explained that Jesus the Lord is present there. The Protestant then put the vital question: “If you believe that your Lord and God is here present, then why don’t you genuflect, even prostrate and crawl?” The superficial Catholic got the message. He genuflected. Everyone can thus see why the tabernacle of the Most Blessed Sacrament is located in a central or at least prominent place in our churches. It is the centre of our attention and prayer. The October 2005 Synod of Bishops emphasised this point (cf Prop., 6, 28, 34). In some of our churches some misguided person has relegated the tabernacle to an obscure section of the church. Sometimes it is even so difficult for a visitor to locate where the tabernacle is, that the visitor can say with truth with St Mary Magdalene: “They have taken my Lord, and I do not know where they laid him” (Jn 20:13).”

Cardinal Arinze’s statement that the tabernacle should be at “a central or at least prominent place in our churches” is not merely his personal opinion. His clearly based his statement on the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

“The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.” - Canon 938 §2

However, much to my surprise, it is worth noting that Canon 938 does not prohibit the use of Blessed Sacrament Chapels. Nor does it contradict Eucharisticum Mysterium, which states:

“The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honor Our Lord in this sacrament. It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures” - “Sacred Congregation for Rites, Eucharisticum Mysterium, (1967) no. 53:

As Monsignor Peter J. Elliott points out, the Church not only permits Blessed Sacrament chapels, but even prefers then in certain circumstance:

“[…] as indicated in Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 53, and its adapted repetition in 1973, there are situations when a Blessed Sacrament chapel is appropriate, for example, in a cathedral or major church frequented by crowds of tourists or pilgrims, such as the Roman basilicas, or where a safe place is required for perpetual adoration. The chapel may also be appropriate in the rare case where the tabernacle would seem very distant and inaccessible if placed at the back of a deep sanctuary. Moreover, the Ceremonial of Bishops, no. 49, citing a very ancient tradition, recommends a chapel for cathedrals.”

However, it is important to remember that Canon law always establishes what is licit and legal, but does not necessarily resolve what is best in any particular situation. It is important to remember St. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 1:8-9 (RSV):

“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient […]”.

The aim of our Church leaders must not be mere compliance with the law, for the law is laid down to constrain the disobedient. Their aim of all faithful leaders must be “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5) The question is therefore not whether the placement of the tabernacle is licit, or even whether the tabernacle is in “a distinguished place … conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.” The question is whether it is conspicuous so as to draw the faithful into the presence of God, adorned to instill reverence and awe, and conducive to inspired adoration of the One True God who is the center time, space and existence.

I am convinced that by this standard the Eucharistic Chapel at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is horribly wanting. Our Lord does deserve better.

SOURCES:

Cardinal Arinze, “Keynote talk at Westminster Cathedral ‘Hearts and Minds’ event”, (London: Apr 3, 2006)

<http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_7__article_3628.htm>.

Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, “Where Should We Put the Tabernacle? A conspicuously located tabernacle is mandated by the liturgical norms and Canon Law” Vol 3 Adoremus No. 9 (Online Edition: Dec 1997/Jan 1998)

<http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_elliott.htm>.

I was poking through the pages of Zenit.org two days ago and came across Pope Benedict’s papal address to the Envoy from New Zealand.  Although the average non-Kiwi would probably find most of the text fairly sterile, the pontiff did include an engaging remark explaining how true common ground can found among diverging interests:

“The Church’s engagement with civil society is anchored in her conviction that authentic human progress — whether as individuals or communities — is dependent upon the recognition of the spiritual dimension proper to every person. It is from God that men and women receive their essential dignity (cf. Gen 1:27) and the capacity to transcend particular interests in order to seek truth and goodness and so find purpose and meaning in their lives. This broad perspective provides a framework within which it is possible to counter any tendency to adopt superficial approaches to social policy which address only the symptoms of negative trends in family life and communities, rather than their roots. Indeed, when humanity’s spiritual heart is brought to light, individuals are drawn beyond themselves to ponder God and the marvels of human life: being, truth, beauty, moral values, and relationships that respect the dignity of others. In this way a sure foundation to unite society and sustain a common vision of hope can be found.”

Let me unpack this for you a little and more clearly draw out how Benedict proposes that we unite society

First, Benedict suggests that a prerequisite for uniting society is (i) recognizing the spiritual dimension proper to every person and (ii) recognizing our inherent essential dignity.

Second, if these prerequisites are present, society can transcend particular interests by seeking (i) truth and (ii) goodness.

If these elements are present (i) individuals will find purpose and meaning in their lives and (ii) we can unite society and sustain a common vision of hope.

These comments are timely, as they seem, at first blush, to fit very nicely with President Obama’s proposal of how to unite society amidst our differences.  During his commencement speech given at Notre Dame University, Obama provided his vision of how society can unite despite its conflicting views on abortion:

“The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts?  Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?  …

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.”  A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election.  He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”  …  He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”  Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter … I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.  And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.  Because when we do that - when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

… I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts.  Open minds.  Fair-minded words. …”

On the surface, Benedict’s vision and that of Obama seem very similar. Obama’s words reflect a sense of the spiritual dimension of people.  An opening of minds connotes an openness to truth.  We may presume a desire for goodness.

But will Obama’s plan allow us to “join hands in common effort.” Are there substantive differences between the messages of Benedict and Obama?

Certainly, at some level, we can find common ground.  Like the Christian doctor who voted for Obama despite his views on abortion, many members of society can overlook many issues.  It is unlikely that any politician’s funding approach to policy areas such as the environment or infrastructure will reconcile completely with all member of the electorate.  Some will consider the funding excessive; some will consider it too slight.  Many may consider it acceptable.  How many can claim that they know the perfect balance on such issues, let alone that a particular politician has struck it? There is obviously room for compromise on such matters.

However, Obama rightly concludes that there are some views which are irreconcilable.  During the Bush administration, many viewed the war in Iraq as such an issue.  For some citizens it was essential for American soldiers to invade.  For others the war was intolerable.  While debate could arise after the fact as to the number of soldiers to deploy or which particular exit strategy was most effective, the initial question was simply whether to invade or not to invade.  For those who had a passionate opinion on this question, the decision to invade likely impacted their decision at the ballot box.

Obama recognizes that the legality of abortion raises a number of issues post facto where some consensus may be attained:

“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies.  Let’s make adoption more available.  Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.  Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics [sic], as well as respect for the equality of women.  Those are things we can do.”

While many of these are things which we can do, the fact remains that they are like the post-war responses, what Pope Benedict would describe as “superficial approaches to social policy which address only the symptoms of negative trends in family life and communities, rather than their roots.”  The Church’s teaching is clear that life begins at conception.  For the orthodox Catholic faithful to the magisterium, abortion is the ultimate attack on the family.  An abortion both physically alters the family and is the ultimate affront to dignity of that unborn child - the very premise necessary to achieve Benedict’s vision of hope.  The adoption of the policies refered to by Obama cannot satisfy the Catholic conscience.

Therefore, Benedict knows that a president who believes that abortion should be legal and permissible is not united with Catholics who believe that the dignity of all life is both inherent and essential, including the dignity of unborn person.  Obama surely realizes this, too.

Where does this leave us? Hoping for a brighter tommorrow. As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, we must continue to engage in vigorous debate. As members of the mystical body of Christ we must engage in vigilant prayer, for the inborn, for our nations, for our Presidents and Prime Ministers, for our Pope and for the light of Truth.

Sources:

Papal Address to Envoy from New Zealand

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-26052

Obama’s commencment address at Notre Dame:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/In-Praise-of-Fair-Minded-Words-at-Notre-Dame/

In the build up to Pentecost, one of my friends and I were engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the Holy Spirit and prayer. She went to Steubenville and often attends praise and worship services. She prays in tongues and apparently knocks people over when she lays hands on them – a good thing she assures me. More of a traditionalist, I have never ‘spoken in tongues’. Further, I perceive a disjoint between the account of speaking in tongues related in Acts 2:1-13 and what occurs when modern Christians are ‘slain in the spirit’. However, despite the intellectual hurdle that this passage continues to pose for me, I do not doubt that prayer has led her to the fruits of the Spirit. Our prayer lives are very different, but we remain brother and sister in the mystical Body of Christ.

Unfortunately, the Church often divides over preferences in worship. Rather than being viewed as descriptions, terms such as charismatic and traditional are sometimes falsely polemicized as paths to either spiritual edification or depravity. The real concern ought not to be a person’s preference in prayer, but their commitment to orthodoxy. A Catholic must always be both faithful to the magisterium and to themselves. Within the Roman Catholic Church there are many roads which lead to the new Jerusalem and, as one of my spiritual directors once told me, the greatest saints are those that are most uniquely themselves.

The desert fathers were particularly aware that each person’s path to sanctity is unique. Each sought to commit himself completely to the particular devotions and practices which God placed within his heart while non-judgmentally respecting the devotions and practices of others. Abba John was ascribed as saying “that the saints are like a group of trees, each bearing different fruit, but watered from the same source. The practices of one saint differ from those of another, but it is the same Spirit that works in them all.”

An exceptional example of different paths leading to holiness is evident in the lives of Abbas Moses and Arsenius:

“A youth who wished to devote himself to the ascetic life, begged an anchorite of the desert of [Scetis] to conduct him to one of the most holy fathers that he might receive advice and instruction from him. The anchorite took him to Arsenius. He was sitting in his cell weaving a mat, and was so immersed in contemplation that he did not observe their entrance, and did not greet them or say a single syllable to them. After some time they went away as silently as they had sat there, and the anchorite took the youth to Moses. He received them so lovingly, spoke of the youth’s intention with such fatherly benevolence, and showed him such hearty sympathy, that he said to his companion after they had taken leave, “Oh, how much holier and better the former robber is than the former courtier.” This saying reached the ancient fathers, and one of them, who was extremely holy, and who had a high opinion of Arsenius, begged God to enlighten him upon the interior state of these two men.” The one, Lord, avoids for Thy Name’s sake all intercourse with men, whilst the other, for the same reason, is kind to them. Which of the two is in the right?” And he fell into ecstasy, and saw two boats floating on one stream. Arsenius sat in one, peaceful and still, and the Holy Ghost hovered above his head. Moses was in the other, and angels travelled with him and were dropping honey upon his lips. Then the father understood that both these holy men, although outwardly different, lived in perfect love, which guided all their actions and made them pleasing to God.”

Our path to sanctity is a journey of relationship. God speaks to us personally, directing each of His words to our individual lives and experiences. The messages we receive are unique, and we must respond to Jesus in a way which is distinctly our own. In our prayers, our devotions, our vocations, we must be uniquely ourselves while never straying from the narrow path which God has set before us through His Church and His promptings.

“I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving: To reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor” – Oliver Wendell Holmes

Sources:

Benedicta Ward, “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection” (Oxford: Cistercian Publications, 1984) at p. 95.

Emily F. Bowden, “The Fathers of the Desert: Translated from the German of the Countess Hahn-Hahn” Vol. 2 (London: Burns and gates) at pp. 241-242. Available for free on line – This website is amazing: http://www.archive.org/details/a586049002hahnuoft

In the build up to Pentecost, one of my friends and I were engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the Holy Spirit and prayer. She went to Steubenville and often attends praise and worship services.  She prays in tongues and apparently knocks people over when she lays hands on them – a good thing she assures me.  More of a traditionalist, I have never ‘spoken in tongues’.  Further, I perceive a disjoint between the account of speaking in tongues related in Acts 2:1-13 and what occurs when modern Christians are ‘slain in the spirit’.  However, despite the intellectual hurdle that this passage continues to pose for me, I do not doubt that prayer has led her to the fruits of the Spirit. Our prayer lives are very different, but we remain brother and sister in the mystical Body of Christ.

Unfortunately, the Church often divides over preferences in worship. Rather than being viewed as descriptions, terms such as charismatic and traditional are sometimes falsely polemicized as paths to either spiritual edification or depravity.  The real concern ought not to be a person’s preference in prayer, but their commitment to orthodoxy.  A Catholic must always be both faithful to the magisterium and to themselves. Within the Roman Catholic Church there are many roads which lead to the new Jerusalem and, as one of my spiritual directors once told me, the greatest saints are those that are most uniquely themselves.

The desert fathers were particularly aware that each person’s path to sanctity is unique.  Each sought to commit himself completely to the particular devotions and practices which God placed within his heart while non-judgmentally respecting the devotions and practices of others.  Abba John was ascribed as saying “that the saints are like a group of trees, each bearing different fruit, but watered from the same source.  The practices of one saint differ from those of another, but it is the same Spirit that works in them all.” 

An exceptional example of different paths leading to holiness is evident in the lives of Abbas Moses and Arsenius:

“A youth who wished to devote himself to the ascetic life, begged an anchorite of the desert of [Scetis] to conduct him to one of the most holy fathers that he might receive advice and instruction from him. The anchorite took him to Arsenius. He was sitting in his cell weaving a mat, and was so immersed in contemplation that he did not observe their entrance, and did not greet them or say a single syllable to them. After some time they went away as silently as they had sat there, and the anchorite took the youth to Moses. He received them so lovingly, spoke of the youth’s intention with such fatherly benevolence, and showed him such hearty sympathy, that he said to his companion after they had taken leave, “Oh, how much holier and better the former robber is than the former courtier.” This saying reached the ancient fathers, and one of them, who was extremely holy, and who had a high opinion of Arsenius, begged God to enlighten him upon the interior state of these two men.” The one, Lord, avoids for Thy Name’s sake all intercourse with men, whilst the other, for the same reason, is kind to them. Which of the two is in the right?” And he fell into ecstasy, and saw two boats floating on one stream. Arsenius sat in one, peaceful and still, and the Holy Ghost hovered above his head. Moses was in the other, and angels travelled with him and were dropping honey upon his lips. Then the father understood that both these holy men, although outwardly different, lived in perfect love, which guided all their actions and made them pleasing to God.”

Our path to sanctity is a journey of relationship.  God speaks to us personally, directing each of His words to our individual lives and experiences.  The messages we receive are unique, and we must respond to Jesus in a way which is distinctly our own.  In our prayers, our devotions, our vocations, we must be uniquely ourselves while never straying from the narrow path which God has set before us through His Church and His promptings.  

“I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving: To reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor” – Oliver Wendell Holmes

Sources:

Benedicta Ward, “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection” (Oxford: Cistercian Publications, 1984) at p. 95.

Emily F. Bowden, “The Fathers of the Desert: Translated from the German of the Countess Hahn-Hahn” Vol. 2 (London: Burns and gates) at pp. 241-242. Available for free on line – This website is amazing: http://www.archive.org/details/a586049002hahnuoft

It is ironic that we live in such an environmentally conscious society while living in an environment which is almost entirely artificial. Unlike the world in which our grandparents were raised, a modern career-person has minimal need to go outdoors. Those that park their car in a garage while at home and have below-ground parking at their workplaces may go through an entire day without stepping outside.  Being “green” drives our consciences but on most days our experiences with greenery are limited to looking out the windows of hybrid vehicles and watering our potted plants.

Perhaps it is precisely because we are inside our dwellings so much that we have become so acutely concerned with nature. When so few eyes see a forest with any frequency, it should not be surprising that a deistic sense of mystery has developed around the natural environment. Environmentalism appears to be a fast growing pseudo-religion, not just increasing in adherents, but also changing the way many view Christianity and our faith. Bookstores first replaced the section for theology with Christianity, then Christianity with religion. Now religion has all but been subsumed by spirituality. Common among the titles are those of nature spirituality and new age religions. As Alan Jacobs observed in the May edition of First Things, even the most holy of books has been made “green”. In The Green Bible, a recently published New Revised Standard Version of scripture, the passage “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned” has been specially highlighted in green type. Apparently the verse “speak[s] to God’s care for creation.” However, the reality is that this passage speaks of His care for us humans and not for trees or caterpillars. This obvious point was apparently missed by the Bible’s editors. Maybe their vision was obscured by the UV-blocking coating on their green-coloured glasses.

This is not to suggest that the “merits” of nature religions are responsible for the regression of former Christians to paganism. Rather, it is reasonable to speculate that the shift to the indoors has somehow so distanced Christians from their faith that eventually it was lost. The resultant restlessness within human hearts has no doubt drawn some to nature religions, hoping for a quick-fix.

In The Luminous Dusk, Dale C. Allison Jr. highlights a number of effects of indoor life, two of which particularly support the contention that our absence of outdoor living has weakened our relationship with God. First, urbanization has undermined our ability to delve deeply into scripture. The bible was written by people who encountered nature. Highlighting passages in green type does little to rectify our inability to relate to the authors’ lived experiences:

“… the Bible [has become] foreign to us, who now pass most of our time in artificial environments. I surely speak for many in saying that few of the significant events in my life have taken place outdoors. It was just the opposite for Jesus. Almost every important event in his life occurred outside - his baptism, his temptation, his transfiguration, his entry into Jerusalem, his crucifixion. The clouds and orbs in the sky were his roof (and I recall that when he spoke of the Last Things, he saw the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and the stars falling from the sky). The fact is hermeneutically relevant. One wonders: Is the story of Adam and Eve not less memorable for people who have spent almost no time in real gardens? Is it not likely that the rhetorical resonance of Jesus’ agricultural parables is dulled for readers who require every detail about planting and harvesting to be explained? Can those who run to sturdy shelters when tornado sirens sound fully appreciate the terror of the disciples on the waves of a stormy Sea of Galilee? Can people who do not know the difference between a sparrow and a starling have any deep emotional response to Jesus’ command to “look at the birds of the air” (Matt. 6:26)? It is hard enough - or rather, close to impossible - to cross the chronological and geographical spaces; but when we have also quitted the natural world, is it not harder to feel sympathy for the characters in the Bible and to identify with their stories?”

Second, we have sufficiently insulated ourselves from the forces of nature that it is usually only when catastrophe strikes that we are forced to acknowledge that we don’t always control our own destiny:

“If an increasing distance from Nature has cut us off from multitudinous sources of wonder, it has also cut us off from certain feelings of terror and replaced them with nurtured feelings of self-sufficiency, even complacency. In the face of earthquakes and tornados, our parents were helpless. Droughts and floods left them humbled, cognizant of their own impotence. But the more we construct buildings that will survive earthquakes, the more we learn about predicting tornados in time to take shelter, the more we think about seeding clouds and towing icebergs, and the more we build drainage ditches to divert floods, the less terrified we become. This is so important because those who are terrified always cry out for help, just as those who are not terrified can remain confident in themselves.”

Despite accepting Allison’s cause and effect analysis, I hesitate to accept his conclusion that “the problems, unfortunately, are much more vivid than the answers.” I hesitate because in a sense he’s right. A re-ruralization of society is simply not in the cards. Yet I optimistically strive to see all our struggles as opportunities for grace. The urbanized environment creates a new context for understanding the always relevant and living word of God. The authors of scripture could never have foreseen or intended that loving our neighbour could mean posting a comment on a webpage so that the author knows someone is reading. Jesus knew, though. Immersing oneself in the bible means finding meaning for your life, your family, in God’s personal words of scripture – written just for you. The message which God whispers to my heart will often be different than that which He whispers to yours. Obviously our messages will be different Elijah’s on Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19). What matters most is that we’re listening.

As for crying out for help, we live in still times. It can’t always be so. One need only recall the plights of the Israelites in the Old Testament to know that our silence toward God seems like an ominous harbinger of things to come. Undoubtebly we will cry out and God, who is everywhere and knows everything, will hear us.  

And the stars and the birds are not going anywhere fast. When I next sleep outdoors it will be as if God has awoken my soul. I yearn for the experience and I crave it, but I know that God has placed me right here, right now. I’m finding my sanctity in front of a monitor with the gentle hum of a computer fan to keep me company. It doesn’t sound like the whisper of God, but it is strangely calming. It’s not a lullaby, but it’s helping me rest for when I can soon become most fully alive.

Sources:

Dale C. Allison Jr, The Luminous Dusk: Finding God in the Deep, Still Places (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006) at pp. 11, 15, 22.

Alan Jacobs, “Blessed are the Green of Heart” 193 First Things Magazine May 2009 - http://www.firstthings.com/