|
go here to buy my stock photography
Alan Creech
 Custom Search
happy st. patrick's day sites & things i like
abbey of gethsemani faith communities christ the king blogs i read
aaron klinefelter
|
December 06, 2009
> 12:33 AM
favorite spiritual thinkers/writers I don't read nearly as much as some of my friends. I read slowly - that's part of the reason. I also, only read things that really, for a number of reasons, catch my attention - that draw me in, that connect with me in some way and say to me: "this is going to be some really good, solid stuff that will build you up in a real and serious way." And if I latch onto something I read, I latch on and keep on going. Anyway, here is a list of the Christian thinkers/writers who's thoughts and insights I have most latched onto. Not sure what this will tell you about me - depends on who you are I guess.
Labels: spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | December 01, 2009 > 12:21 PM advent 2 We're getting off to a slow start in our observation of Advent in the Creech household this year - too slow for me anyway. We have our new candles for the wreath. We have our new devotional book - Advent and Christmas with the Saints. This series of books has been good so far, no reason not to keep going with another one. They're sitting there together in the living room - not one candle yet lit, not one devotion yet read. We'll get to it - hopefully before Christmas Eve. The other day I got to e-talking with someone about what we're awaiting in Adent - liturgically, His first coming, or His second coming, at the end. The comment discussion got around to saying it was both, and it is. But I'm wondering now if there's another "coming" we don't anticipate enough. It's a little more esoteric than the first and the last, although integrally connected to both. It's His continual and progressive coming now, into our world and into our lives. This, I believe, is the most important coming of Jesus that we are to be awaiting, and working to cooperate with. It is the Kingdom of God now among us and within us. I've talked about this before, but the whole concept of "Kingdom" is really only an analogy used by God to communicate something bigger and deeper to us in our own language. It's not merely about the coming of an attitude in which we recognize God as a crowned "King" of some kind of bounded "kingdom." That's too small. It's a fine analogy, but I really believe He was/is getting to something much bigger there. Advent is really all about the Incarnation, as is Christmas. These are liturgical ways we have developed as the Church to help us navigate and appreciate the coming of God, of the fullness of His Life, into our world. The Incarnation is also not merely about God appearing among us as a man for 33 years and then returning on a cloud to heaven - so that now, in effect, the Incarnation went away with Him. Jesus was the first-born of many siblings, not the only-born. The Incarnation continues in us! The Life of God has entered us as we have come into union with Christ - through Him, with Him, in Him. So we continue to see it's effects in our own lives and in the world around us as we are being transformed into His very Image by the Lord, as we gaze on Him with unveiled faces (2 Cor. 3:18). So, we should anticipate and pray: Come now, Lord Jesus - not to end it all vindicate us, not to burn the sinful world up and lift us on high, but continually come, expand Your Presence in me. Fill us with Your Life and change us, and with us, everything and everyone we touch. Labels: advent, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | July 29, 2009 > 9:19 AM freely given Sometimes we have problems like this - like poor Prometheus. We do not understand the nature of God. OK, well, "duuuuuh," as the saying goes, but we should, at least to a degree more than we do. He's revealed it to us, to an extent. I know we have to grow in our ability to grasp it, to grasp Who He Is. Some may think, "we can never do this." I'd have to disagree. I don't believe God created us to be eternally ignorant of the fullness of reality, even of His Reality. We're just presently out of sync with it. But -- Jesus -- the Great Gift of God to us. He gave us Himself. But we want to earn it. We want to steal the fire. We can't get our broken heads around the fact that anything He has given us is pure gift. And let's be honest, those of us who are Catholic, or Wesleyan/Arminian for that matter, have a few problems in this area. The seeming paradox of His Grace mingled with our cooperation, gets confused, often. Far too often we lean on the "our cooperation" part - as if there were "parts" of all that. I know, I know. It really is complicated - not to Him of course, but for us to get hold of. I certainly believe we can cooperate, that our wills are involved in everything that God does in, for or through us, even if we're not overtly aware of it. I believe that's the way God created us. And I do not believe that short-circuits the concept of "pure gift" when it comes to Jesus, Grace, our ultimate and complete salvation, etc. I never said it passed the "pure logic" test. Does it need to? If so, there are a few other things we need to make God aware of so He can straighten that mess out. Of course, ultimately, even our small, unnoticeable yeses are the result of His Grace giving us the ability to say them. So, here we are, back to HIM. Rely on the Gift. Receive it as gift. Don't count on yourself. His Grace. His Love. His Mercy. His working anything in us, for us, through us. Labels: christian life, merton, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | July 22, 2009 > 12:59 PM she of magdala > reposted A few years ago, in 2005, I was thinking about she who's feast day is today, and wrote a significant post on these thoughts. I think it's worth reposting today. The premise comes from the concern some have that somehow leaders in the Church or others made up the whole "she was a prostitute" thing in order to denigrate her character because she was a woman, blah, blah, blah. OK, I'll let my former words, and still my current thoughts, speak about this.  St. Mary Magdalene. I know it's not her feast day or anything, at least not that I know of. I was just thinking of her. I probably heard something on a show I saw on Discovery or somewhere, something like that. I have often thought this and have rarely said it. Sooo, what's the big damn deal if she was a prostitute? Seriously. If indeed, she was a prostitute and then answered a call to follow Christ, knew Him, learned from him, and then was a part of making Him known - so what. Is that a bad thing? Well, it's a thing, for sure. It may even be a good thing.Here's what I mean: If there was this woman named Mary from Magdala and this woman was a prostitute for whatever reason - if that is so and this woman encountered God in the flesh, Jesus the Christ and was changed by the Life she encountered in Him, then we should glorify God. Does this make me think less of Mary? No. I said no. It doesn't at all. I don't even understand that. I don't understand where that information about her past (if it was so) would make anyone feel that she was dirty or unworthy or anything of the sort - any more than the rest of us. Paul was effectively a murderer of Christians for God's sake and he announced that to be true. What is there in this alleged prostitution conspiracy that could harm Mary at all compared to that? Nothing. It's ridiculous. It would seem to me that anyone espousing such a theory is the person who has something against prostitutes, who would for some reason feel a woman "disqualified" for whatever for having been one. I'm not sure but I think there are numerous churches named after this sanctified former prostitute. I'm pretty sure people all over the world venerate her and pray asking for her intercession. Why? Because she was a notorious follower of Jesus - because she was committed and stayed with Him when others fled in fear - because of her great faith. Perhaps her escape from that life through Christ has caused a greater harvest of gratitude and thanksgiving in the world than if it had been some otherwise "upright" woman in not so much need of radical salvation. Unless of course you want to make some kind of case that it's just fine and dandy to continue to be a prostitute - that this is a legitimate life-choice for someone and that there is no need of "salvation" for such a person. I don't think you want to do that. But that's no different than any other fallen state of any other person whom Jesus came to Love and raise up into full and true humanity. So, let's stop trying to make big deals where no deals need be made. I couldn't care less if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Nobody said she was turning tricks out of the upper room. Crazy. Mary is you. Mary is me. We all might as well have been prostitutes or murderers. It doesn't matter. And if it does matter, it matters because of the great Love and Power of God that came to bring us back to life anyway - despite our unworthiness. Pray for us Mary of Magdala, that we may answer the call as well as you did. technorati tags > mary magdalene, prostitution, davinci code, theology, church Labels: christian life, saints, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | June 25, 2009 > 2:02 PM two links I'm not usually a "linker" when it comes to blogging, but here and there something will hit me and I want to share it with you, whoever you are. Today I have two blog posts - linked in order of having read them - from two friends.
Labels: church, friends, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | June 07, 2009 > 12:57 PM trinity Blessed be God the Father and his only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit: for he has shown that he loves us. + Let us pray to our God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God, we praise you: Father all-powerful, Christ our Lord and Savior, Spirit of love. You reveal yourself in the depths of our being, drawing us to share in your life and your love. One God, three Persons, be near to the people formed in your image, close to the world your love brings to life. We ask you this, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, true and living, for ever and ever. Amen. + Today is Trinity Sunday, when we celebrate the essence of God as three in One, God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of course this deep revelation of Who God Is, is special to all of us who are Christians. Although we don't fully understand it with our intellects, we are made able by His Grace to spiritually understand it, and Him. As we are being transformed into His Image, in and through the action of the Trinitarian God, we become more and more able to grasp the significance of this mystery. I have a personal connection to God as Trinity in that I was birthed into Christ in a church called Holy Trinity - and wait, that's not all! The man who opened the Gospel of Christ to me, who baptized and confirmed me, who was a deeply important early mentor and spiritual director to me, was a member of a religious order called The Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity - Fr. Killian Mooney, S.T. There Trinity Missions aren't there in Harlan any more - not for a long time, but there were there for quite a while and I was a product, so to speak, of their missions there. I'm grateful they were there and that Fr. Killian was there in the right place and right time to help usher me into the Kingdom. I could probably say a lot more about God as Trinity and our own nature as His Children, community, etc., but that's really all that I have for today. Peace. Labels: church, liturgy, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | April 22, 2009 > 10:51 AM re-post > 08-05-2002 > seeing ourselves The subject matter of this post is, as I see it, some extremely important stuff. They way we think about our "original brokenness," our separation from God and what constitutes it, is very important. And it goes on to elaborate about how this effects our life, even our Christian life now. Seeing ourselves doing and being good - hmmm. Oh, and the link to my friend Paul Fromont is an old one, but I left it there for nostalgia's sake. Continuing the blogersation with Paul... I think this was important stuff he posted yesterday. This James Houston quote - "Prayer that is done ‘because I have always prayed’ inoculates us against true prayer, preventing us from finding a living relationship with God" - is extremely good. That along with the Screwtape Letters quote about how the demons "...should try to get them to ‘feel good’ about their prayers. Wormwood should divert their attention from the relationship of prayer to the feelings instead." says tons! This business about us being aware of ourselves doing impressive spiritual things is such an important thing. We don't think about this. We simply take for granted that we should be looking at ourselves doing good in order to make sure that we are in fact doing it. And of course we are to then be happy about what we have seen. What is that? What have we just done? We need to think about that. It reminds me of something I heard Thomas Merton talking about (I sound like I was a 20 year old monk in 1968) - as he borrowed from Martin Buber (a mystic Jewish writer), about how Adam's sin, Original Sin, was in fact that Adam was trying to be good - wow! He said "don't lynch me!" You can imagine why. Whaaat!? Yip, Adam's dorky deal was that he took someone else's word that he needed to do this thing in order to be like God. It was that he was not acutely aware that he already WAS like God! He already was good. he simply wasn't aware of this fact as we are used to it. His stupid deal was that he forfeited his simple created goodness which he was not able to observe for a false self-created goodness that he was able to LOOK AT, so that he could see that he was being good. Something to think about. Labels: christian life, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | April 14, 2009 > 6:25 PM re-post > 03-08-2002 > a new kind of guts What are we? I mean, did God create a purposely faulty bunch? Did He intend for us to have a nature that had a propensity to move against Him? Silly God. He would indeed be silly - eternally silly I guess - if He would have done such a thing. But I don’t believe that He did that. I don’t think we were created to be separated from Him. In fact, I believe when He “breathed life into us” that pile of dirt became a being like unto Himself - that that breath was His very life essence. What a noble thing. “Let us make one like us” God said to Himself, and then He did. That is what we’re supposed to be. To be called a human being was not supposed to be an insult to an Angel but something which garnered a response like “I wish it was so.” But we are not that. And as I remember, a few of the Angels quite left their created order as well. What is the Jesus thing all about? Did He simply come to be an example (WWJD)? Are we supposed to look at His life and emulate it? It IS written “be imitators of God...” you know. Well, I think its a bit more involved than that isn’t it. If we were simply able to look at that life and make the choice to do what He did, ironically, we wouldn’t need Him at all really. That all takes place on the outside. We look at something, we imitate it. Ask my friends, I can imitate with great skill just about anybody I pay enough attention to - but that doesn’t make me Hank Hill does it? Or anyone else - because that’s an external thing. It doesn’t change who I am. Too many Christians have ignored the mystical aspects of what we’re all about for too long. Its all in our heads I’m afraid - even with those who talk about the “heart” alot. The Jesus thing is about internal transformation. Its about metaphysics. Its about unseen eternal reality. And no, I’m not a gnostic! He came and did what He did, became what and whom He became so that we could become something and someone else too. Our eternal insides change when we become Christians, and then we begin a journey toward full and holistic transformation. The behavior part follows. We’re waaay too concerned about what we do or don’t do. This concern, again ironically (lots of irony going on here), keeps us in that realm - in the realm where everything is about behavior - about doing and not being. Wow! How did we get here? I know, too long an answer. Being “born again” or better yet “born from above” is not about joining a new club or a new religion. Its about getting our spiritual guts ripped out and then replaced with a new plumbing system. What does that mean for us? It means our new system works differently than the old one. Its not just a shiny new set of guts that are the same kind as the old ones - they’re a NEW KIND OF GUTS ALTOGETHER! Is that gross enough for you? What!? A 6 chamber heart? What’s that? No Liver!? What do you mean no Liver!? I don’t like Liver anyway - good! Obviously I’m speaking in metaphor here, but do you see what I’m saying? Its all different now - when we’ve stepped into His Life on the other side of Jesus. Its not just thinking different thoughts, its thinking in a whole different way. Its not just eating different foods, its that we process food in an entirely new and different way. I think until we begin to understand these things, we will stay cramped up where we are - trying to be good and being frustrated because we always fail at it so miserably. Its not about being good! I mean its not about doing good - doing good things - thinking good thoughts. Its about discovering that at the core of our being, by the Grace of Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, we have been recreated as good people - God kind of people - and letting that radiate outward through our whole selves, letting it transform us in totality. Whhheeeew - I just had a kind of e-mail exchange with someone that sparked all that. I wonder sometimes about whether we really know what it means to be a Christian. Not that I have it all figured out. If I think I have a clue though, I’ll at least be confident about what I think I know until I figure out I’m wrong. Stranger things have happened. Labels: re-post, soteriology, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | November 08, 2008 > 9:52 AM mccabe on forgiveness  I've been reading a little Herbert McCabe for a while now, here and there. He's fast becoming one of those guys - the ones you read and nearly everything makes sense, you know the ones. He was an English Dominican Priest/Philosopher/Theologian who died in 2001. Here's a snippet from the back of the book jacket I have... "The major influence on McCabe was the Bible, but he was also a devoted admirer of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, whose ideas saturated his public speaking." A little more from Wikipedia here. Anyway, I like him - the way he writes and thinks. Very helpful.I think one of the first bits I read from him was about forgiveness, somewhere. I bought the book I have now not long after - God, Christ and Us - which had in it the whole context. The book is a collection of previously unpublished sermons and talks. The chapter called The Forgiveness of God is a very good one from start to finish. He talks about our forgiveness of others, what injuries cause to need to forgive, and leads into how that helps us to understand God and His forgiveness of us and how that works. ... God, of course, is not injured or insulted or threatened by our sin. So, when we speak of him forgiving, we are using the word 'forgiving' in a rather stretched way, a rather far-fetched way. We speak of God forgiving not because he is really offended but accepts our apology or agrees to overlook the insult. What God is doing is life forgiveness not because of anything that happens in God, but because of what happens in us, because of the re-creative and redemptive side of forgiveness. All the insult and injury we do in sinning is to ourselves alone, not to God. We speak of God forgiving us because he comes to us to save us from ourselves, to restore us after we have injured ourselves, to redeem and re-create us.Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a nice little meal for us to digest. This is a Catholic theologian getting down underneath and past the legal and technical talk of sin and forgiveness - down into the core of what's going on. What I read here is something about God's Heart, in His infinite immutability, reaching out in His nature of Love, to a broken mess of a humanity who couldn't do anything to fix itself if it tried. He reaches out to us, into us, when the inward barriers are put aside - when somehow we respond to His Grace and perhaps say "yes" without even consciously knowing we have done so - and fills us with His forgiveness, which transforms us from the inside-out. Sure, there are Sacraments and signs that we experience to help concretize His forgiveness to us, but in a very real way, it's already there. Our sorrow for our sin, our repentance, is only a reflective sign of what's already happened in our deepest selves. This is why our deep, growing and dynamic relationship with God in Christ, through the working of the Holy Spirit is the really important thing. If this is not real and actually happening, Sacraments won't really do us any good. That's not to say they're not real in themselves, just that any effectiveness they would have in and for us is only to be had when they are mixed with a real and living faith. OK, that's good for a Saturday when nobody's reading this. Pax vobiscum. Labels: herbert mccabe, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | September 30, 2008 > 8:48 AM wisdom of the desert > one > quies I picked up a little book a week or so ago - Thomas Merton's Wisdom of the Desert. It's one I've seen quotes from here and there but have never owned. I'm already glad I found it. It's not very big at all but nuggets abound. Here's the first among several quotes that I'll share with you. He's speaking of the Desert Fathers of Christian monasticism, mostly hermits, and why they went into the desert... ...the proximate end of all this striving was "purity of heart" – a clear unobstructed vision of the true state of affairs, an intuitive grasp of one's own inner reality as anchored, or rather lost, in God through Christ. The fruit of this was quies: "rest." Not rest of the body, nor even fixation of the exalted spirit upon some point or summit of light. The Desert Fathers were not, for the most part, ecstatics. Those who were have left some strange and misleading stories behind them to confuse the true issue. The "rest" which these men sought was simply the sanity and poise of a being that no longer has to look at itself because it is carried away by the perfection of freedom that is in it. And caried where? Wherever Love itself, or the Divine Spirit, sees fit to go. Rest, then, was a kind of simple nowhereness and no-mindedness that had lost all preoccupation with a false or limited "self." At peace in the possession of a sublime "Nothing" the spirit laid hold, in secret, upon the "All" – without trying to know what it possessed.Quies - I like that. Rest - think Sabbath - THE Sabbath. This is the fullness of the experience of our Salvation. Resting inside our identity in Him. And it's not just a chosen mindset. I mean, this "rest" is not simply our choosing to say to ourselves that we are resting in Christ. I think it's much more than that. Perhaps we should start that way, but also realize that what we're doing in saying that is beginning a path of real and substantive change that will end (this is our hope) in true quies, true rest. I've said things like this before, about how unnatural our state is now, having been cut off from God's Life - having to follow a way back into a union that we were created for to begin with. It sort of requires a bit of preoccupation, of "anxious concern" or "fear and trembling." We know this. What I'm afraid we have forgotten to some degree is that this is not the ideal state, this striving preoccupation. This is not intended to be our ongoing way, as if that were the goal. We treat it that way, though. We get to this point of watching ourselves, what we do and don't do, how we act, making sure that this and that are in order, all the while glancing back and forth up to God to make sure He's watching us too - "see, see, I'm doing it, you see me - watch me Daddy!" That's fine for a child, but if we get to be 30 years old and we're still constantly glancing back and yelling, "watch me Daddy, watch!" - we generally go to therapy. It would be good if, fairly early on, we came to at least the realization that we are on a journey in a direction - that we are headed somewhere and as we go, things change and grow. If we knew this from the get-go, maybe we wouldn't despise the change so much. We would less likely think that where we happen to be at any point along the way is the destination. There are unfortunate consequences to believing that you're "there" when you're not. What's this go to do with Desert monks and quies? Good question - here's the answer: They were about getting to that "place" where God could transform them. Their search was to find out how to tap into His ever-flowing Stream of Life and be carried away by it, into the great, deep ocean of union with Him. That quies business is about getting to a point where you're not having to watch yourself so closely because you've been changed into the kind of person who's nature guides your steps as naturally as it always did, but now in the Way of God. Imagine not having to strive to be or do good, but just doing it because that's how and what you are. This is what God wants for us. Of course that takes a while, so we should settle in for the trip. technorati tags > desert fathers, thomas merton Labels: christian life, merton, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | September 08, 2008 > 8:47 AM i will never forget your precepts An observation from this morning's Mid Morning prayer: As I read/prayed the Psalm, I found myself thinking, "is that it?" Here's a sample, from Psalm 119... I will never forget your preceptsOf course I know the context, when and where this Psalm was written. Still, we pray it now, as Christians, as those on the other side of the torn veil, and it causes a little pause. If all we have is seeking precepts, we are in bad shape. You'd think, by listening to and watching the lives of some of our Christian siblings, that, indeed, this is all we have - seeking and knowing His precepts, and keeping them. Therefore, we have life. As is also in the Office each day... O God, come to our assistance! What is the deep reality of our Christianity? What is it? Seeing laws and keeping them?? O Lord, make haste to help us! Certainly there are those things that we must and must not do - but why? Because of fear of punishment? St. Augustine said, and rightly I believe, many years ago, that if we do good for fear of punishment, we are not sons but slaves, but at least we should do this until Love comes and shows us the real way. The answer to why should be to consider the second reading from yesterday's Mass in the lectionary, which ends, "Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." In essence, Love is our only precept. And Love is only truly possessed through our union with Him in Christ. Again, our cooperation is in order at all times, internally and externally saying "yes" to His Love, to His transforming presence in us. But that IS what it's all about, His Love, which is really Himself, making us like Him. God please forbid our faith remain or become a mere keeping of precepts. Labels: mysticism, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | June 21, 2008 > 10:27 PM soooo sick This may be one of the things I have to say: I am sooo sick of controversy in the Christian arena. I'm so damn tired of theological argumentation - We've got this right, of course they've got all that wrong. I'm so glad I'm not like that crew over there. It makes me feel really good knowing that I've got it all wrapped up. Seriously - I see so much of it in the blog world that it just makes me ill. But healthy theological debate is important - Truth is important - we've got to hash these things out and get to the bottom of things. I'm really beginning to wonder about all those statements. How important is it? Please don't answer that - any such answer will undoubtedly be in the category of that which makes me want to throw up. Listen, I'm a theological thinker. My mind works like that. But when it comes to what's really, really important in the Christian life, in life in general, I'm beginning to believe that getting everything tightly wrapped up in a neat little "Truth bundle" is NOT it. It's not what we really should be expending our energy on. I'm sure there are healthier examples than I see regularly. It would be nice if they were more the norm - but they're not. Yes, yes, it matters what we believe. Yes, some things are "truer" than others. Some things believed produce other things that aren't good - I know this. This can be so without us all becoming those who just sit around waiting for opportunities to pounce on those with whom we have "issues" ecclesiastically or theologically. All this mess goes 26 different directions. There really aren't many innocents out there. Hell, I'm sittin' here bitchin' about people who bitch about things, so there you go. We're in a broken world. We would all do well to more fully realize this. Lord have mercy, please. technorati tags > theology, controversy 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | June 12, 2008 > 9:30 PM God told me Sounds like it's going to be a big 'ole thought out post doesn't it? Ah well, sorry to disappoint. Just thinking - thoughts rolling around in my head and I came up with this. Here's an interesting list of people who had a bad case of the "God told me's":
So, of course! But of course (also), not everything you think you hear is God. Not every leading you believe is from Him, is indeed, from Him. Be about having a relationship with Him, with and in His People. Be about the business of being formed by Him. Don't sit around being about the business of "hearing" this or that all the time. We hear Him best as mature believers, as well-formed spiritual adults. So, don't be crazy about the thing, but also, don't be overly rational and skeptical about it either. I'm pretty certain He's always talking. Our "job" is to get in the way of what turns us into the kind of people who can always be hearing. Labels: spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | May 24, 2008 > 2:27 PM to the least of these You know, you've heard that Scripture around, "whoever does it to the least of these has done it to me" - that one. We hear this a lot in the context of helping the poor - help the poor because we are helping Christ in them. We are ministering to Jesus in the poor, or to anyone who is downtrodden or marginalized in some way. That's the concept. It's a very interesting concept. I certainly see it, and it's not unscriptural, surely. Jesus said these things to people, to us. As I was thinking about this the other day, I began to wonder if there wasn't more to it than that. I've thought this in the back of my mind many times along the way but have never quite brought it to the front enough to write about it like this. Let's begin like this: It's easy to love Christ, to love Jesus. Jesus sacrificed Himself for us. He gave His whole life for us. He existed as a human being entirely for us! What's not to love? If I simply train myself to see that I am loving Jesus as I do something for some human person here on earth, then it will be much easier. I will even feel more of a pull or draw to do things like that. I mean, that's Jesus lying there in the gutter... for Christ's sake! And that's fine, for what it is. What I'm wondering though, and leaning heavily towards, is that this concept was given to us only as a beginning, not as the end-all of our reasoning for action. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Remember that one? Sure you do. So do the ancient Israelites. They read it in the Torah long before God took on human flesh. The concept then was to love your friends, your countrymen and hate your enemies. That wasn't quite the God-created ideal now was it? No. God was dealing with us where we were - and, as always, leading us on to where He desired for us to eventually be. How about this? "Love one another as I have loved you." Now that's another shade of blue altogether in the sky above. The ozone has been cleaned up and all the pollution pulled away for that statement. We're getting at the ideal here. To love as Jesus loved is quite a leap from merely loving as you might love yourself. It's beyond what is presently considered human. All this is getting somewhere. Back to the seeing Christ in the poor thing: What if God actually wanted us to love people for who they really were? I'm serious about this now. I believe God wants us to purely love the nasty, torn up people that we are looking at AS nasty, torn up people, not just as a mask for Jesus. He wants us to love AS Jesus (as HE) loved/loves, not just for the sake of Jesus. He wants us to become people like Jesus so that our love is on the same order as the Love of God - because we are breathing His Breath as Jesus did. He wants this to become natural for us, much as being selfish has been natural to us thus far. I'm saying this has to go beyond, "I'm doing what God directed us to do." I'm saying this really needs to eventually go beyond, "I'm doing this in order to love Christ in the unlovable." I believe what God set out to do here is to make us into people who don't need masked motives in order to be good. He is trying to make us fully good, period. Not so that we can do good - that will happen because we are good - but because that's how He created us. If all we ever do is directed by a motive of "being holy" or "being obedient to God" - there is generally a "...so I... don't get in trouble - don't go to hell - can get to heaven when I die - get rewarded for doing the right thing - get my prayers answered - I, I, I..." It's sort of inevitable that we end up with a sort of selfish motive. Can we do something simply because it's the right thing to do, even if we don't feel like it? Certainly, and we should. But we shouldn't see this as the goal or the ideal of what Christianity is supposed to be. We shouldn't look at that as just the way it is and live there. We should understand this is where we may happen to be now, but God is actually calling us to be like Him, like Jesus - not just for ourselves, but for everything, for it all. We're called to be recreated, not just to do what we're told. Our goal for ourselves, for everyone, should be the same as God's goal for us all. I believe His goal for us is that we should see as Jesus sees because we have been made who Jesus is. I'll clarify briefly. His goal for us is that we be people who are fully integrated with His Eternal Life, people who, when we walk down the street and see someone in need, have compassion because compassion and love is a part of the fabric of our being. How did Jesus do this? Did He see Himself in poor people or sick people or spiritually crippled people? Did he help them simply in order to fulfill His duty to the Father so He could be rewarded with the Resurrection? I'm thinking not. I think He saw and was compassionate because that's who He was. He loved people because He was integrated with Love Itself. So, if we love others as Jesus loved them, we will be loving them AS people - often as nasty, no-count, filthy, sinful people, not because somehow "they are Jesus," but because somehow we are Jesus. And I don't mean just acting on His behalf, I mean because we have become transformed, loving people and that's what people were created to do, to be. technorati tags > helping the poor, christian holiness, love one another, transformation Labels: spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | May 05, 2008 > 2:40 PM on may 5th or thereabouts Get ready for some prime blog rehash! You've got to dip back into your archives sometimes to keep things rollin' you know. So here we go. I went back to several previous May 5th posts, or as close to May 5th as I could get. One is an awesome two-part series which is very relevant to (and seeded mind you) my recent post about union with God. There's another soteriological post in the list too - woo hoo! What can I tell you - these are the things I think and wrestle around with in my mind. I may have even evolved a little more since some of this, but I think it's still good. Some of the comments are interesting too - if you get froggy, try to read them as well - even if they say there are (0) comments, they're there.
technorati tags > union with god, christian mysticism, soteriology, theology, salvation Labels: catholic, liturgical prayer, liturgy, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | May 02, 2008 > 12:36 PM union with God A few days ago my blogging friend Michael Spencer put up a question he was thinking about at Internet Monk about being in union with Christ and how Sacraments such as the Eucharist relates to that. I put in my 3.5 cents and it made me start thinking about the subject again. My comment at his place was a beefy one so I thought I'd regurgitate it as a post here. I also want to add links to several other posts I've done on the same subject - union with God - in my own blogging history. This is actually one of my central themes of blogging/teaching about Christian life. So here we go... The whole idea of union with Christ is, for me, the center of Christianity. I think the concept is often talked about too simplistically. Some Christians don't talk about it at all. Their notion of what a Christian is has more to do with an external statement of faith or merely an assent to a catalog of beliefs. They have no theology of union, of a mingling of Life and life. This is unfortunate. I certainly wouldn't say this makes them not genuinely Christian. It may, though, hinder their ability to tap into certain aspects of our union with God in Christ. Another thing that might make this discussion a little more difficult between those of different traditions is this: thinking of union as either an either-or situation or one in which a person is initially connected and then grows, progressively, in a deeper and deeper union with God in and through Christ and the action of His Holy Spirit. If one's view tends toward the either-or - either you're in union or not, I can understand having philosophical difficulty if we start talking about how, for instance, Sacraments such as the Eucharist are said to help bring us into a greater union with God in Christ. If, on the other hand, you think more in my neighborhood - that there is, yes, an initial connection (justification, union) but there is then a growing union with God, a progressive union. In this view, we may well be connected to God but our union with Him is not yet complete. A lot of things can and do contribute to this growing union. Sacraments are some of the chief ways we can tap into the fullness of God's Life (God's Grace - the actual "stuff" of Grace). And the Eucharist is the prima Sacrament I suppose, in which we are given an opportunity to tap into (I like to say it like that) the ever-flowing river of His sacrificial Grace in the heavenly dimension. Can one be in union with Christ, be a Christian, be born from above, belong to God, be "in Christ" without ever receiving the Eucharist as Sacrament? Yes. Are there many ways (in my view of progressive union) that Christians can deepen or increase their union with God in Christ? Again, yes and this gets to this business about having "more of Christ." It's not really about someone saying, "nya nya, we've got more Christ than yoooouu dooo" - I hope it's not. It's about a certain view of a growing union with Him that produces real transformation of our being. And it's not just mechanical; i.e., you go up and receive Communion and boom, you're more unified. The proverbial Sacramental "wormhole" may have been opened up but your inward, participatory faith is a key element in how efficacious this Sacrament is for you. It's much like "mixing faith" with the hearing of or reading of the Scriptures - faith mixed and change happens - faith not mixed and you have heard words but they don't do much. There is a definite cooperation element which is key in this life of progressive union with God. Some of the old mystics and monks used to (still do I guess) talk about what they called the unitive way - the way in which we walk in order to participate in a furthering of our union with God. And I'm not talking about us doing some kind of "works" and God rewarding us with more union. I'm talking about tapping into the Way, which as we are concerned does involve practices, things we do in order to put ourselves under the proverbial water fall of His Grace. So, if you have an understanding of our union with God as growing and progressive then there's really no disconnect with the idea that a Sacrament like the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper could be a conduit for increasing or deepening that union. And I'm not saying that this union is only to be had through the Sacraments, and not only to be facilitated by them. They are conduits given by God for a broken humanity. One day the Church (in any expression) won't be necessary. One day Sacraments will fade away in the blinding light of our complete and unbroken union with God through and in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Right now we're talking about a God who works through His People, through the Body of His Son both in and, in a way, through the context He has created us to live, the world. But, of course, the more technically we try to nail these things down and define them, the more trouble we get in, for God won't hold a nail. Well, He did once for a little bit, but you know what I mean. His mystical Reality is not bound by our understanding of the Sacraments or even how He might have intended them to work for us in our present state of existence. Here are some links to a few older posts I've done concerning the subject of union with God. This list is probably not complete. I did some looking around today and these are what I found. I'll start the list with probably one of the most comprehensive and pointed posts on the subject. I read it again this morning and it really does get to the heart of the matter for me. The rest will be in chronological order...
technorati tags > union with god, christian mysticism, soteriology Labels: sacraments, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | March 22, 2008 > 7:03 PM holy saturday thoughts Holy Week is nearly over. This day would have been an odd one for the Apostles and Jesus' first disciples. We prepare for a joyous celebration of Easter Resurrection. We know the end of the story. They didn't know this. It would be very difficult to say with certainty how much faith each of them had in the fact that Jesus would rise and really be alive in front of them again. There was likely a good bit of grief and anxiety going on in their midst - we know there was. I think my feelings on this day are more like that than leaning to any sort of joyous anticipation. I feel a bit on the dark side, wondering if any sort of resurrection will come after all this. And where was Jesus during all this? "Where" - that designation comes up a bit short, as does any that are bound in the space-time continuum. We use this language to talk about dimensional realities like heaven and hell, but they are only ways we have of talking about something we can't quite fully grasp as we presently see things. So, to answer the question as I've come to see it: He was in hell. Now, I'm honestly not trying to be controversial. I'm sharing how I understand what took place at that time - see, there we go talking about time. The early creedal statements talk about Jesus descending into hell before He rose again. Many believe this must have been talking about a visit to what is known as "Abraham's bosom" - the place of the dead in Jewish thought. All these are mysterious concepts to us - some "place" other than heaven or hell, or purgatory, where faithful people "went" when they died before Jesus provided a way to heaven - odd. The concepts of heaven or hell are odd. So, trying to say we have these things nailed down would be even more odd. The Church over the centuries hasn't said much about the details of these... places. And as far as I know, there has never been an absolute "this is the way it is" about whether or not Jesus could have or did actually go into hell when He died, at some point, for some reason. I've heard theological speculation in both directions. It seems like the thought is repugnant to some. To others, the argument seems to be something along the line of it being ontologically impossible. I imagine that could well be applied to Him becoming a human being as well - but He did that. It's hard to guage that kind of thing. I'll tell you how I think about it, obviously not completely or in the form of a full-fledged theological thesis. Short story - it's consistent to me. It makes sense that if we are going to talk about Jesus' passion and death by crucifixion acting as payment for our sins, as a sacrifice that paid a price for our salvation (and yes, this is deep inside Catholic thought about salvation) - if we're going to do that, it would make sense to say that if He's going to pay the price and cover the whole deal, that to do that in as complete a fashion as possible, hell would need to be a part of the picture. If Jesus would take upon Himself the stripes and total consequence of all our sin, it follows that He would do this both inside and outside of time. In short, if we can agree that hell is outside of time, in the realm of what we refer to as eternity, then if Jesus "went there," He was there to pay an eternal price. This, as I see it, makes the whole passion, death, descending into hell, and resurrection thing even greater. He not only soaked up any kind of punishment in the earthly dimension, but He also soaked up all the mess of hell itself - for us, for me, for you. And through the power of His Resurrection, as He ascended from the dead, His Life, eternal Life, neutralized the death, the eternal death, of hell. So, when we say yes to Him - when we allow His Life to take root in us and swallow us up, the effects are incomprehensibly greater than perhaps we once imagined. Our Life in Him is eternal Life. We have been saved from eternal death. Looking at it in this way does no harm to the Glory of God in Jesus at all. What it does in my mind and heart, is cultivate an even greater harvest of thanksgiving to God. Again, just some thoughts before our celebration of His Resurrection. technorati tags > holy saturday, jesus descended into hell, holy week 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | March 16, 2008 > 3:47 PM palm sunday > whom were they cheering for? Palm Sunday or Passion Sunday today. We stood for a long time at Mass today, hearing and responding within the story of His Passion. First, of course, we picked up our Palm fronds at the door - so it starts with that procession, with His procession into Jerusalem amid the cheers of her citizens. On this day we're often encouraged to welcome Jesus as King and Messiah as they did that day, with these Palms. We even keep them, these blessed branches, in our homes, till Ash Wednesday of next year. That's fine. Certainly we should always have a welcoming heart for Jesus as our King and Savior, but taking the whole story in context, should we welcome Him - as those people did? I have always gathered the answer to that question should be - No. For whom were they cheering? Unfortunately, we find out quickly enough, not for Whom Jesus really was and what He really came to bring. They cheered for a Messiah, for a King who wasn't real. Their joy was for the kind of Messiah that Jesus never was, never had the intention of being. He did not wear armor. He did not route the Roman oppressor. He didn't bring down those legions of Angels He spoke of, to lay waste and set the throne back up in Jerusalem. He didn't even speak up for Himself on His way to execution! What a wimp! How He came to "save" was not quite what they were looking for. How He came to "rule" was not what they wanted. I don't hear this much around this time of year. I've said it myself, plenty. Are we missing something? Are we missing an opportunity to shine the light on Who and What Jesus really is - as well as who and what He is not? Maybe a little. Perhaps we should keep out Palm branches, sure - but when we look at them we should remember that Jesus was a little sad about they reasons for which He was welcomed that day in Jerusalem. We should remember not only to welcome Him, but to welcome Him for the right reasons, as the right Savior, as the King He came to be - and make sure we don't get mixed up. Hosannah in the highest! Our Messiah has come! technorati tags > palm sunday, messiah 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | March 04, 2008 > 10:29 AM mccabe on prayer Our praying itself is as much a gift as is the answer to it. And prayer is not just God's gift in the way that our power of speech or our health is God's gift; prayer is God's grace, and that means it is due to God's own life within us, God's own spirit within us.I believe Fr. McCabe has hit a few nails on their heads here. I think it's very important that he has reminded us that our prayer is a gift. We wouldn't even be wanting to pray in any way if God's Grace in us had not first given us Himself in that way. People don't just get up the gumption to pray out of their raw, untransformed guts. Prayer, communication with God, this sacred interchange, is a great gift, one we have because we have been taken up into the mystical Life of Christ Himself, because we have been inhabited by His Holy Spirit. So, even when the words we speak in prayer are not perfect because we are not perfect, they are still being spoken out of our union with Him, because we are in Him, and that is an amazing thing. Being honest in prayer - what a concept. Many of us probably spend a good amount of time not doing this, feeling guilty about how we really feel and would like to pray, and praying about something we think we should pray about. OK, I'm not sure there's anything horrible about praying for things we know are needed or right, but with what motive? To make sure God knows we really are unselfish and then His Eye will twinkle with gladness when He looks at us? I hope not. If so, please stop it and start praying for the FJ Cruiser you really want and let Him deal with you where you actually are instead of having to get down through layers of bull crap to get to the child beneath. Just be the child. He loves children. Children who are children have a good chance of growing up right. Children who think they are, or who act like, adults already, put their parents in a serious bind. The things you could teach a child, they cannot learn. It's time, then, to be who and where we are I reckon. We might actually grow up one day. technorati tags > prayer, herbert mccabe Labels: prayer, spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | March 01, 2008 > 3:44 PM mccabe on the kingdom I've been reading my new book, which makes me ask, why have I never heard of this man before now? I'm speaking of Herbert McCabe. I guess Dominicans don't really get famous very often. God, Christ and Us is a collection of sermons and other teaching, so it doesn't come off like hard-to-read theology. I don't mind some of that myself, but this is very accessible. Here's another quote for you to chew on - very good stuff on the Kingdom of God, about temporary things vs. permanent things. Check it out... I think that the author of Hebrews is thinking of the fact that in one way we have received the promise, in one way the Kingdom has come. We are no longer simply groping in the dark. In a sort of way, in Jesus Christ the promise is fulfilled, the Kingdom is established - in an odd sort of way, myteriously, in the way we call 'sacramentally'. Sacramentally, we have arrived at the Kingdom, just as Abraham arrived as a stranger, a foreigner in the Promised Land. But he lived there in a tent - a temporary shack. And he didn't make the mistake of thinking that what he built was the real thing. It was just a structure he threw up while waiting for the gift of the real city, waiting for the terrible giving of the city, a giving that involved letting his people be broken and remade.The Church is a tent, a shack, a temporary dwelling on our way to the fullness of the Kingdom. Oh my. I think this is very true, though. And because this is true, we cannot afford to think of the Church as the point of it all. It is not the point. The Church is sacramentally the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth. It's a conduit, a tool God is using to move us from one way of being to another. I've said this before. The Church is really a stop-gap solution for a broken people. It's not meant to be permanent. Once the fullness of the Kingdom swallows us all up, there will be no more need for the Church, our worship as members of it, it's liturgy, even for the Sacraments. We won't need all this any more at that point. We will be where It has been leading us. This is not to say the Church is unimportant or not needed now. We are far from the recapitulation of all things. Until then, the Church is our vehicle of transformation. It is the vessel God has given us, in which we travel from the brokenness of this dimension of life into the fullness of the one we do not yet fully see and experience - more accurately, into the re-merger of these two dimensions, the earthly one and the Kingdom. technorati tags > the kingdom of god, hope, herbert mccabe 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | February 26, 2008 > 1:20 PM his accomplishment > mccabe > powerbook Scattered title, I know, but there are a few things. I haven't blogged in a bit so I'll make this a multi-tasking post. First, in this morning's Morning Prayer, one little bit jumped out at me. This same bit has awakened in my spiritual eyes before. I saw it again today. O Lord, you mete out peace to us,"...it is you who have accomplished all we have done." Amazing statement. Whole systematic theologies have been written to try to explain this, or discount it, or something. It kind of falls in that area of mystery I think. Well, have we done it or has God done it? What's the deal? Is it up to me or up to Him? How is it that He has accomplished something that I have done? Weird, isn't it? Yes, it's weird. Lots of things about God and how humans interact and relate to and with Him are very, very weird. Some of these things seem paradoxical. How can both be true? Because -- they just are. To explain "how" is to try to fit something into our minds that just won't presently fit. Trust. Faith. This is what we need in these cases. And yes, I said presently fit - because I firmly believe God did not create us to be so limited. Our minds were created to know as He knows. We're just broken. We're in the process of getting fixed though. Until then, let's try to find some rest in that statement - let the weight lift off our shoulders - HE has accomplished all we have done.  I just bought this book: God, Christ and Us by Herbert McCabe OP. I just got it yesterday so I've only read a couple of pages, but it seems good so far. He's actually talking about faith in the first chapter, so it fits the above topic. He's talking about Hebrews 11. Here's a little quote:For the author of Hebrews, faith has to do with what we do not yet see, what we hope for. It has to do with what is over the horizon. If you like, it is what lures us on to journey over the horizon to look at what we cannot yet see. ...Here, faith is all about trying to understand. It is about not being content to understand the things that are obvious, the things we can already see. It is about trying to understand what we do not yet see. It is about setting out on a journey to explore what we have not yet seen.Seems like good stuff so far. I'll let you know as I go along. If you're a FaceBook-y and are interested in liturgical prayer or monastic prayer, spirituality and practices, I've started a FaceBook group called Liturgical & Monastic Prayer. Hopefully it'll be a cool little place to pool that common interest, encourage each other, and share resources. Feel free to join if this is something you're interested in.  Ahh, like a little kid, I'm kind of excited about a few upgrades I've been able to do to my PowerBook G4 (Aluminum) this week. Hee hee hee! We got a good chunk back as a tax refund already, so other than paying stuff off, I talked to Liz and earmarked an amount to use so I could beef up my computer. If I'm going to be working on it, I sure can't afford to buy a new one, but I can at least optimize what I have. So, all for around $350, I was able to buy a new battery, a new AC adapter/charger cord, max out the RAM with 2GB of memory, and get a 500GB external firewire hard drive. Niiice. I did my shopping to find good deals. Everything is new but not necessarily Apple branded and the hard drive was on sale. Everything is here and working great so far except the memory. I'm anxious to see what kind of performance enhancement that will make to my system. OK, that's it for the geek report. Peace.technorati tags > lent, god's grace, herbert mccabe, daily office, powerbook upgrade Labels: computers, lent, liturgical prayer, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | February 09, 2008 > 12:54 PM I will give you a new heart I will give you a new heartFrom Morning Prayer this morning. Again, the core of all things. This is a statement of recreation, of setting right and straight what went wrong and crooked. Our God is promising to re-establish us in His intended order of Creation. Our hearts have become like stone. And what did He say? That He would overlook our stony hearts, feel kindly toward us, and leave us as we are? No, He said he would take our stony hearts away and replace them with what He calls "natural hearts." That word, natural, has become a dirty word to Christians because of our oddly skewed way of looking at physicality. Natural, in this instance, is Good. It means, "I will give you hearts like I originally gave you, hearts like you're supposed to have." People weren't created to have stony hearts - hearts off of which the Word and Love of God rebound. That's not factory-original stuff. The orignial Human Heart had that capital letter in front of it. It was created in union with the eternal Heart of God. And this is what we're cooperating with - this is what we open ourselves to - the replacement of our original parts. technorati tags > lent 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | January 22, 2008 > 10:51 AM i have kept your commandments Though the proud may utterly deride me  Now, what might you think about when you read such a Psalm? Seriously. "I keep your law." Ah, well, you do, do you? Is that right? I'm sorry, I know this is the Word of God and all but sometimes when we read the Psalms might we be reading the heart of a fallen man crying out to God from his fallen state of semi-knowledge - much like us?? Yes, I think maybe.I'm not trying to do some kind of professional interpretation job on this bit of Scripture (what is that by the way - a pro Scripture interpretation? never mind about that). I'm telling you what my reaction was, a bit, when I prayed/read that this morning. It wasn't all that positive. The antiphon says this: During my pilgrimage, I have kept your commandments. I said it and had to actually say, "well, not really I haven't." God have mercy - and He does. This other thing - and I see this happening sometimes - about, "I am seized with indignation at the wicked who forsake your law." I look around and see all these lame people who are sinners, who don't obey Your law like I do and it pisses me off! Who do they think they are? That doesn't seem like a good attitude at all. I'm thinking, let's save our indignation about things like that for ourselves. We've got to realize that when we look around and see all these sinners around us, all we're really looking at is ourselves anyway - and when we get that we're a little closer to reality. Being close to reality is good. It's necessary in order to go any further. God, save us, save me, from self-righteousness. Save me from indignation over the sins of others. Help me to see all things as they really are. technorati tags > psalms, self righteuosness Labels: spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | January 17, 2008 > 11:48 AM jekyll & hyde OK, please do yourself a favor and go read this. It's a fairly lengthy blog post by Fr. Al Kimel about our views of God's love, forgiveness, how we look at sin, etc. He's mostly interacting with thoughts expressed in a book by Dominican theologian Fr. Herbert McCabe. I've added a new book to my wish list now. Good stuff. It will be challenging for some to read, but it's good. I snagged this particular quote from Fr. Alvin's post, just to wet the appetite... "It is very odd that people should think that when we do good God will reward us and when we do evil he will punish us. I mean it is very odd that Christians should think this, that God deals out to us what we deserve. … I don't believe in God if that's what he is, and it is very odd that any Christian should, since there is so much in the gospels to tell us differently. You could say that the main theme of the preaching of Jesus is that God isn’t like that at all" (God, Christ and Us, p. 11) technorati tags > god's love, forgiveness, sin 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | January 01, 2008 > 1:55 PM mary, mother of God, the incarnation, and us  Today is the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God. Why? Because she's special and played a unique and special role in the economy of our Salvation. Because in the ancient Tradition of the Church, she has been considered the Mother of God and our Mother.Why now, during the Christmas season? When else? If there is an appropriate time for such a feast day, this is it. Because this is the season in which the Incarnation became a reality with her cooperation. She became His Mother at Christmas. Part of, if not most of, the significance of Mary in the whole story, our whole story, is that she is one of us. She is not God, or a god (really, she's not). Anyone who treats her as such or thinks of her in that way is out of the orthodox theological park. Back to this: She is us - our hope that we too can be totally immersed in the Essence of God, fully transformed into His Image. In our understanding of the Communion of Saints, we believe she has a special place among all those Saints that have passed over into the heavenly dimension. We believe that they can still pray for us ("help" us). So, she can certainly help us, intercede for us. Today is a day we can especially honor her and ask for her intercession. Why is a holy day of obligation with an attached penalty of mortal sin? Wow, I won't even try to fully answer that as I'd like to. I'll say this. I believe it's unfortunate that these days have a load of guilt attached to them. It's not necessary. Sure, maybe a good many Catholics won't go to Mass on holy days if the "obligation" and fear weren't attached to it -- annnd, so what? It's about fear. Will I go to Mass tonight? Sure, we're going. Am I going because I'm afraid the Life of God will be ripped out of my insides if I don't? God forbid - God forbid. Does this take some kind of power or honor away from Jesus or the rest of the Godhead? If it does for you, then back off Mary and re-assess how you think of her. It shouldn't. It doesn't have to. It doesn't for me. As I alluded to before, the point of Mary is Jesus. There would be no honor for Mary if she weren't HIS Mother, if she wasn't made pure and holy BY HIM. Any place she has of honor or veneration has been given to her BY HIM. If your Mary does not point to her Son, then your Mary needs a re-haul. Your view of her needs re-hauling actually, but you get my point. This is my Son, and the Son of God, look at Him with your whole being. Whatever glory shining from my face comes from He Who IS Light. Let's hear her saying that. technorati tags > mary, mother of god, virgin mary, incarnation Labels: catholic, liturgy, mary, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | December 13, 2007 > 9:16 AM advent > reflection on grace Last night's Merton Advent reading was a good one. I thought I'd share it with you. He doesn't use the word but it centers on Grace - good for all seasons. We need to remind ourselves that what we are doing is not a human action; it is divine. This is God's work, not our work. We must be very conscious of that fact because today... people are too often carried away by the merely human side of what is to be done, and they concentrate too much on their own work, their own efforts, and even their own desires, fancies, and inclinations. All these things are good, but they are secondary, and what is secondary has to remain in second place. What is first is God's work, God's Spirit.How much do we hear in our "today" about this? "It's about what you do." "It's our actions that count." I've heard/read that a lot in the last few years. I've heard little to counter it. I think we're afraid to counter it for fear of sounding like we're espousing some idea of "praying and doing nothing." If you're not busy either doing something good or coming up with new, creative good things to do, you're seen as some kind of non-Christian lump. Now, this can fast be taken the wrong way: that I am advocating just sitting around and believing and not doing good things. Not the case at all. I'm not advocating anything at all really. I'm just reflecting on what Merton said there. I think we would all do well to reflect that any good thing we might do is not so much about us doing it as it is about God doing work in and through us in the world. We shouldn't get too impressed with ourselves and what we are doing. We should rightly be impressed with the Spirit of God in us. Let's not try to hard to be the Savior - there already is one. I realize we are incorporated into Him and do His work - His work, not our work. I know I've gotten the two confused on more than one occasion. God give us Grace to live in Your Grace, to work with the right understanding. technorati tags > advent, thomas merton, grace Labels: advent, merton, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | December 06, 2007 > 12:04 PM quicktake > avoiding sin as self-preservation This is something I was thinking about this morning. Liz and I were talking about "little white lies" and how acceptable they are in most people's moral understanding of things. Most of us have probably grown up in a setting where this was likely even expected of children, especially teenagers. The conversation got around to why one wouldn't lie, for instance. Why not? Because it's wrong. OK, fine. I agree, by the way. Lying, for me, is one of the most hateful things one person can do to another. If someone lies to me -- let's just say I hate it deeply. Anyway, what I thought and said then was that it was very unfortunate that the only reason most Christians avoid a sin like lying (or anything else really) is because they'll feel bad, especially if they get caught. And if they think about it much, depending on their moral sensibilities, they might get around to not doing it because they want to avoid punishment or discipline from God. If it's a matter of something more serious to them, they might avoid it in order to avoid hell. You may be thinking I'm going to say how good this is. You'd be wrong. Ultimately, all those reasons are about SELF-preservation. They do not take into consideration any love of the other. They're not concerned with any damage done to the person lied to, how it may have hurt them. The person who thinks like this, who has been taught to think like this, is primarily concerned with the concept of "committing" or "not committing" a sin as a legal idea. They're concerned with themselves not breaking a law so that then they will be found guilty and therefore, liable to judgment. I'll admit I'm dealing with an ideal notion of what a Christian should be thinking/feeling about these things - and why not? I won't apologize for that. When you get right down to it, this legal motive I've just described is a selfish motive. It really only takes self into consideration. Ironically, there may be a lot of Christians who are not technically guilty of many sins at all, but who are less loving, less Christ-like than many others who are. It's a bad, bad thing that children are taught these things - to avoid doing bad things so they won't be punished by God, so that they won't have a black mark on their little heavenly records, so that they, they, they won't be burned up in the end. Horrible. If we teach our children such things, we are teaching them to be selfish. We're teaching them to operate out of a core of guilt. Is this really what Jesus came to give us? What, then, is the alternative? If you don't make them afraid of hell, they'll just go wild! Excuse me, but bullshit. Mine haven't, and I'm pretty sure they won't. And I'm not naive. Teach them Love. Allow yourself to be taught to Love. First, to be loved by God. Then, to be transformed by that Love. And finally, to love others as God has loved you. Sounds kinda like the Gospel doesn't it? I'll answer for you, Yes. It does. But, .... No! But, what about.... Don't worry about it! Love God. Love your fellow human beings. Everything else you'd be worried about is taken care of inside of that. Yes, yes, I know, Love must be taught as the true Love of God - not just gushy feelings, it must be properly formed. Still - Love. Learn to live as a Child, not a slave. Then pass it on to your children, if you have any - that they are, in fact, beloved children, not slaves who need to fear the whip. technorati tags > sin, selfishness Labels: spiritual formation, theology 0 comments
|
permalink | e-mail me | |
daily prayer
lent lectionary readings > today
my blog post labels
blogging archives
|
000
038
Adam's pride was a kind of Promethean blindness to the true nature of love. 
