I gave this homily Friday night. I know I'm a bit tardy in posting it, but it's only during this afternoon that I've been able to come up for air during this busiest church season.
I should also provide a bit of prefatory explanation: in recent years I've presided at the Good Friday evening liturgy at our parish. This is not necessarily how Rome envisions it (the rubrics for that celebration say something along the lines of, 'It's especially fitting that a priest celebrate Good Friday') but it's fairly common around here to have a deacon lead Good Friday service. The reasoning is (a) there is no confection of the Eucharist on Good Friday, so a priest isn't 'necessary'; and (b) there is only one priest at our parish, and he appreciates the break, at least for one liturgy, from celebrating and preaching during this time when so many high holy days are clustered together.
At any rate, here is the homily. Sometimes, the text of what I preach comes to me easily. This was not one of those times.
Good Friday is a strange name for today, isn’t it? It doesn’t feel that good. Jesus has died. Worse, he’s been killed unjustly by the civil and religious authorities. What’s so good about that?
And of
course, there is a sense in which the events we recall today were not good at
all. They were bad. Worse than bad: they were catastrophic. Calamitous.
It seems Jesus’s enemies had won.
His followers, who had given up everything to follow him, surely were fearing
for their lives.
Today is not
good because Jesus was killed in a monumental act of injustice. Today is good because of why Jesus died. The events we remember today all were part of
God’s plan. And Jesus was aware of the
plan. He had predicted that he would die
this way. He knew what his enemies were
planning.
And so, when
Peter fought to protect his master from being seized by the soldiers and
guards, Jesus ordered Peter to put away his sword. Jesus didn’t want to stop these events from
happening.
We’re left
with the impression that, not only did Jesus not resist this unjust proceeding,
he positively cooperated with it.
But why? Why would Jesus elect to die this way?
The answer,
both simple and profound, is – he died for us.
Jesus died to save us. Jesus died
because he loved us.
Every once
in a while, we hear stories of risks and sacrifices that people make on behalf
of a member of their families. I have
heard stories of a family member donating a kidney for another member of the family. That’s a great gift.
Even more
amazing is when someone risks her life to save a stranger. Here’s a
story I read recently about a woman in Chicago who risked her life to save
a stranger. This happened in 2020. The woman’s name was Julie Macholz. She was walking her dog along the Chicago River
one day, when she noticed a group of people standing by the water. Then she saw one of the men jump into the
river. He was trying to rescue another
man who already was in the water and was struggling. That’s what the onlookers were watching. As Julie hurried over, she saw the river current
was carrying the would-be rescuer away from the person who needed to be saved.
Julie could
have stood there and watched with the group of onlookers. She could have pulled out her cell phone and
called 911. Instead, she yelled to the onlookers
to toss life rings to the two men in the water.
Then she went into the water after them.
She took one of the life rings, grabbed the drowning man around his
shoulder, and the onlookers pulled them both over to the ladder. By that time the first responders had arrived
and completed the rescue. Channel 7
cameras captured Julie’s rescue.
Reporter Stacey Baca from Channel 7 interviewed Julie. Julie said, “I made the decision I had to
go. He was starting to go under.” She added, “God puts you in a place, and
things happen.” Just think about that
for a moment. It seems Julie is pretty
sure that God meant for her to be there.
She had worked as a lifeguard in high school and college, and also was a
pioneering Navy pilot who received water rescue training in the Navy.
Julie Macholz
is a hero who risked her own life to save the life of someone she didn’t even know. There is a word for that: it’s love. What love Julie must have for other people.
Stories like
Julie’s, as wonderful and inspiring as they are, still don’t come close to what
Jesus did for us. Here is how much love
Jesus has: he died, not just for one person, but for all persons. Jesus took the sins of all of us upon himself
and restored our relationship with God, by dying on the cross for us. He did this because he loves us. That’s why this is Good Friday: because Jesus’s
death, as tragic as it seems, is the supreme act of love. It’s not too much to say that we owe Jesus
our lives. More than our lives – Jesus’s
gift to us extends even beyond death, to the life to come.
Today is
very bad, but today also is very good.
As we remember Jesus’s tragic death, let us also remember how much he
loves us, and how fortunate that is for us.
I should also provide a bit of prefatory explanation: in recent years I've presided at the Good Friday evening liturgy at our parish. This is not necessarily how Rome envisions it (the rubrics for that celebration say something along the lines of, 'It's especially fitting that a priest celebrate Good Friday') but it's fairly common around here to have a deacon lead Good Friday service.
ReplyDeleteThis is really surprising. I have yet to encounter or even hear of a deacon presiding on Good Friday. While priests are really in short supply and overworked on Sundays, typically all the priests in parishes around here concelebrate on Holy Thursday and Good Friday.
The only slight exception has been the very progressive pastor of a very liturgical church who sometimes came to the Holy Thursday and Good Friday services in a clerical suit and sat with the people!
I guess I would be a little concerned about the downgrading of the Good Friday Service into something like the Way of the Cross followed by a communion service.
The very simple but very beautiful Good Friday service at the parish of the very progressive priest was far from that. It is interesting that there was no homily at this service even when the pastor presided. He would go and sit in the front pew for a rather long period of silence. As a scripture scholar he was an excellent homilist. It was a very powerful and humble admission that he was not going to attempt to explain the mystery of the cross.
The reading of the passion was accompanied periodically by the Taize refrain “Jesus remember me when you come into your Kingdom.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3StPXD6flQ
For the veneration of the cross everyone would come in procession to one cross, just as if they were coming to communion at only one station while the choir and people sang hymns.
Then the simple communion service with the Saint Louis Jesuits hymn Behold the Lamb of God which is also used as the communion song on Palm Sunday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWFXEsFNSZM
While I am concerned about what message not having the pastor at this service sends, I am concerned in general about priests, choir directors and others doing too many services. While I do not mind going to a Saturday evening Mass and a Sunday Morning Mass, I would find it very disturbing to go to two Masses on Sunday as many priests do, or even worse to a Saturday Mass and four Sunday Masses as our choir director does!
Hi Jack, many thanks for those comments. You mention the presider simply sitting in silence after the reading of the Passion, and the Passion reading being interspersed with the Taize "Jesus, Remember Me". That is exactly what we did this year for the Palm Sunday Passion reading ("Jesus, Remember Me" being especially fitting for Luke's account this year). I am not certain we go without a homily every year on Palm Sunday, but we've done it in the past.
DeleteOn Good Friday, we also "break up" the Passion account with a musical interlude; in our case, it's Marty Haugen's lyrics to "What Wondrous Love Is This", which I believe is an old Southern Harmony Protestant hymn. 1-2 stanzas are sung during each interlude.
We also do the individual veneration of the cross as you describe. We sort of do two venerations: at the prescribed time, before Communion, we bring the cross (a very large one - almost life-size; it takes several people to carry it) up the center aisle to the front. Three times on that journey, we pause, stand the cross upright, and the presider (or a cantor) sings "Behold, behold the wood of the cross, on which is hung our salvation", with the people responding, "O come, let us adore." (It's the St. Louis Jesuit version, but not the entire song - just that exhortation and response). When the cross reaches the foot of the sanctuary, it's placed in a stand, and everyone kneels and venerates from their pew. Then, after the service ends, everyone is invited to process up the center aisle and venerate that single cross, much as you described. Most years, people are invited to touch, embrace or kiss the cross; this year, for COVID reasons, we placed the cross at the top of the steps so it was out of reach from the floor, and asked people not to touch it.
We don't downgrade the Good Friday service. We do all of it. As you probably know, that liturgy is not a mass, and there is no Eucharistic Prayer. Nothing is skipped.
I'd prefer a priest lead it, because that is what the rubrics prescribe, and it is prescribed for a reason (which also is given in the rubrics). But I understand the reality of the shortage of priests and the necessity, or at least advisability, of making pastoral adaptations.
Maybe we are a bit progressive in Chicago.
Jim, your Good Friday service sounds very similar to ours. We did the whole thing too, it was in the evening. The priest presided, and Deacon K assisted. The other deacpn had to work. K also did a Communion and Divine Mercy chaplet in the afternoon at the assisted living place, because most of those people wouldn't be able to come to the parish service.
Delete“ Jesus took the sins of all of us upon himself and restored our relationship with God, by dying on the cross for us. ”
ReplyDeleteJim, could you plain what you mean by this - explicitly.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm
DeleteJesus died because we are all sinners. We are always killing Jesus in some way, whether it's through a great crime or the slow drip of our petty meanness. I presume that's why the crucifix is front and center (or should be) over the altar.
ReplyDeleteJesus came back to show us that God's kindness and mercy is greater than sin and can cobble us back together if we keep trying to start fresh.
Trying to go much deeper than that makes my head hurt and, in my experience, leads to unproductive arguments.
Saying that Jesus came to show us that “God’s kindness and mercy are greater than sin” is not exactly the same as saying that “Jesus took the sins of all of us upon himself and restored our relationship with God, by dying on the cross for us.”. IOW, that Jesus died to atone for our sins. That Jesus HAD to die to “restore our relationship with God”. That dying to redeem human sin was the whole reason for the incarnation. Atonement theology claims that God would NOT have shown mercy and kindness UNLESS Jesus underwent a cruel death. That Jesus coming to life as a human being explicitly to die for our sins was NOT Plan A, but was Plan B - he had to save us from eternal punishment in hell a cruel, vindictive God because of “original sin” - because human beings sin - aren’t perfect.
DeleteI can’t accept that God is that cruel.
I can accept this statement Jesus came back to show us that God's kindness and mercy is greater than sin and can cobble us back together if we keep trying to start fresh.. That understanding does not require that Jesus die a cruel death in order for God to show kindness and mercy. Jesus taught us that God is kind and forgiving- but not though a mandated death as a human sacrifice to a vengeful God. He died because of the cruelty of some human beings. He died because of what he was teaching a culture that believed all gods were cruel,and capricious - even the one God of Israel was cruel to those who weren’t in the tribe of Israel, according to their scriptures, slaughtering their enemies right and left, including innocents, drowning even Jews who weren’t without sin, saving only Noah and his family.
The God introduced to humanity by Jesus is a God of love. He died because he taught that. He taught that humans can be “redeemed,” can be made whole, IF we would only learn to love one another. The way of the world then as now, was tribalism and hate. Hate won then and Jesus died - to show ultimate love for his fellow human beings. Not to atone for our sins, but to teach by example that speaking truth to power - that love - might cost us our very lives. But we still haven’t learned to love - often not even those close to us whom we claim to love. Jesus showed perfect love. But he did not have to die to make sure God would forgive human sin so that we might go to “heaven”, whatever it may be.
Jean, my head has been hurting over grappling with this theology for at least 30 years now. What I was taught - that every time I sinned it had resulted in driving a nail into Jesus’s body- that every time the mass was celebrated Jesus was suffering and dying, sacrificing his body and blood literally all over again, every day, in millions of masses, became an obstacle to christian faith that I couldn’t get around - unless I found a different understanding. I can’t possibly accept any version of atonement theology and still believe that God is good.
Jim, your link to the catechism doesn’t work. But I have read the catechism. I actually own one - a book. And I have the searchable Borromeo site bookmarked. I am not looking for the catechism answer. I would like to know how you would explain all of this in your own words.
ReplyDeleteJack, Orthodox theology often makes more sense to me than western theology. But I would never join an Orthodox Church for two reasons - around here they are all tribal - tied to particular national cultures - Greek, Russian, Syrian etc. Secondly, I could not handle their liturgies on a regular basis! I like short and simple liturgies - short homilies, a short service that has only the basics, and no music! Weekday Catholic masses are the best of the RC liturgies. But now that I am familiar with EC practices, I also like Morning Prayer and Evensong. Evensong does have music, obviously. But the service is still simple, and brief, with the music truly part of the prayer service.
ReplyDeleteI think "substitution atonement" is a problematic phrase because what it brings to mind for many people is an angry, vindictive father who is compelled to punch a hole in *something or someone*, and Jesus is the protective older brother who stands between us and the two-by-four or the leather strap, and takes the blows himself. The phrase is not to my knowledge in either Scripture or the catechism. And this is a complete misunderstanding of who the Father is (he is God) and who Jesus is (he is God). God can't be at war with Himself. What we have are Jesus' own words: "No one has taken (my life) away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." John 10:18. It's the mystery of the Incarnation, Jesus has joined us in our broken humanity, and has accepted the totality of it, which includes death. A death as cruel as what humanity has dished out to one another. It's a mystery. I can't understand it, but I accept that it was done for love of us.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, it may not be in scripture, but most of Christianity, including the Catholic Church, teaches atonement- what Jim said - Jesus took the sins of all of us upon himself and restored our relationship with God, by dying on the cross for us. ” This is atonement theology. To slightly paraphrase Jim - Jesus atoned for our sins by taking all the sins of all humanity on himself, and after he did this, humanity’s relationship with God was “restored” by his death on the cross. This says that the relationship with God would not have been restored without Jesus’s (excruciating) death on the cross. This is why I asked Jim to clarify the meaning of his words in the homily. Yes - Jesus chose to accept his death sentence, but was his death necessary to “redeem” us from our sins? Or was to teach us that to live honestly, all of us might have to face consequences? I have trouble accepting that it was to bring about the the “forgiveness” of (our) sins by God . I can accept that Jesus did it to show love but not to atone for our sins.. However, atonement is the catechism teaching. See below.
Delete613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world",439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".440
614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442
Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience
615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfactionfor our sins to the Father.445
Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross
616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction.He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.
617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."…….
Continued in next comment
Yes, everything you said, Katherine. God cannot be at war with Himself. And neither can God be at war with what He has created. Many saints, including St Julian of Norwich, have observed that God can only love. If that's so, we have to look at the mysteries of the crucifixion and resurrection in the context of love, not anger, frustration, and demands for blood sacrifice.
DeleteCont.
Delete620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19)…..
622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).
623 By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).
The church eventually rejected the ransom theory of atonement. Maybe it needs to rethink its acceptance of Anselm’s satisfaction atonement too.
The Satisfaction (or Commercial) theory of the atonement was formulated by the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. ‘Why the God Man’). In his view, God’s offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.
What faith I still have in the christian religion was saved by reading people like Richard Rohr, from whom I first learned of Duns Scotus.
Friday, March 20, 2015
The common Christian reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”–either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God the Father (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Anselm’s infamous Cur Deus Homo has been called “the most unfortunately successful piece of theology ever written.” My hero, Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), agreed with neither of these understandings. Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used in the Gospels and by Paul). He was inspired by the high level cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the first chapter of John’s Gospel.
Richard Rohr: Eager to Love: The Alternative Way of Francis of Assisi, pp. 183-188
Rohr has been delated to Rome for “ heresy” countless times. Yet he remains a priest in good standing. Perhaps there is hope that Catholic atonement theology teachings will change someday.
Of course, trying to gain understanding is complicated even more because of the inherent confusion of the doctrine of the Trinity. When the theologians themselves can’t actually explain their own teachings, they try to get a pass by saying it’s a “mystery.” :)
Jack, I am definitely with the Orthodox in not accepting the doctrine of original sin.
Please note - I don’t necessarily disagree with how you understand all of this But I do question the official teachings, as defined in the catechism that Jim referred to rather than clarifying what he said in his homily- a dutiful repetition of the catechism actually. Jim was teaching standard Catholic atonement theology. I assume that he agrees with it because of the lack of nuance in his phrasing of it.
DeleteForgot the citation for the first quote after the end of the catechism paragraphs that refers to the satisfaction/ commercial theory of atonement.
Deletehttps://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2015/03/love-not-atonement/
FWIW - terms like "atonement" and "expiation" aren't really in my vocabulary - on this topic or any other topic, religious or secular. Please don't take this as a comment on whether or not those terms are valid or useful in thinking about Jesus's death. I'm just noting that (literally) I don't think about his death in those terms. Those words weren't used in any religion or theology class over the course of my Catholic formation (elementary school, high school, undergrad, deacon formation).
DeleteBTW, Jim, nice homily. I hadn't heard the story about Julie Macholz. That was truly a heroic act.
ReplyDeleteIt made me think about the first classmate of my graduating class to die. It actually happened before graduation. Her name was Cathy. She and her brother were fishing in a boat at the lake. Unfortunately neither were wearing life jackets. The brother fell out, and she dived in to try to rescue him. He was saved, but Cathy drowned.
That’s a tragic story. Many years ago, my brother got a ladder, tied a rope around his waist with someone holding it onshore and crawled out on a frozen lake after two kids broke through the ice. He got hold of one and crawled backwards. But when he returned to the break in the ice he couldn’t see or feel the other child. He leaned in as far as he could ( he is 6’6” and has long arms and upper body) but didn’t go under the ice to search. I think it’s always haunted him. It seems he has dwelled more on the one he couldn’t save than on the one he did save. But it’s very likely that he would have died along with the child he couldn’t reach. I imagine Cathy’s brother has had to deal with survivors guilt ever since.
DeleteThis may not speak to our group, but this essay by Alda Sigmundsdottir is testimony to the power the story of the resurrection can have even for non-beluevers. Converts like me, raised in a precarious family without much religious tethering, don't come to faith because someone can nail down exactly what God's plan was at the time of the resurrection, but because the faith provides enough space for people's imagination to stretch in the direction of God. https://aldasigmunds.com/a-meditation-on-the-resurrection/
ReplyDeleteInteresting essay. But fortunately for me, I don’t relate to most of it. I’ve been spared the kind of terrible darkness that she experienced. Just occasional bouts of depression that pass in a day or so. I do relate to one of her statements though
DeleteOn Easter, Christ is said to have risen from the dead. My personal belief is that much of what is written in the Bible is allegory for the human condition. I do believe a man named Jesus from Nazareth lived and that he was a remarkable human being, a pacifist, a truth-seeker, a man with ‘flawless mental sight’, a man who should be an inspiration for anyone. As for whether he actually rose from the dead, I do not know
The literal truth of the Resurrection is irrelevant to me. It’s not a teaching that disturbs me, whether it’s “true” literally or not. It doesn’t disturb me because it’s a teaching that is a love-teaching. It teaches hope and joy.
The focus on the gruesome murder of Jesus and the teaching that his death was necessary to “save” or “ redeem“ us to atone for humanity’s sins to appease a wrathful God - supposedly re-enacted at every mass - are the opposite. This focus and teaching cannot be reconciled with an understanding that God is mercy, that God is LOVE. It might teach that Jesus the man taught love through how he lived and how he died. But it does not teach that the entity called “God” is love. The christian religion, especially Catholicism, tries to “redeem” the teaching that the torture, suffering and death that Jesus endured to “save” us by making Jesus’s suffering, by making all human suffering, into a “good” thing, rather than a form of evil.
"That Jesus HAD to die to “restore our relationship with God”."
ReplyDeleteHi Anne - I don't think I've ever said that Jesus was compelled to die for our sins. But I think he chose to do so, out of love for us. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else I can say about it which I didn't say in my homily or here already. (In fact, I pretty much said that already, too.)
Personally, I don't think God is cruel. God spent the better part of salvation history trying to call us back - begging us to turn back to him. But I think it was CS Lewis who said that what we really want isn't God the Father but God the Grandfather - a somewhat distant and extremely indulgent old guy who checks in on us from time to time, during which infrequent episodes he gently smiles at our foibles and hugs us no matter what.
Maybe the problem is that we are unwilling to imagine God as mother. Mothers seem to be better able to combine love and care with being demanding.
DeleteOf course, we also have to remember that the Gospel says that we have to become as little children. One of the best interpretations of this was a recent homily by an African monk at Saint Meinrad. He pointed out that this implies that we are also all invited to be "babysitters" to one another.
Jack - excellent point re: God as Mother. My wife certainly is better than I am at combining love and care with being demanding. She's a much better parent than I am.
DeleteLove the idea of us acting as babysitters!
Sigh. Jim, so I guess you DO agree with atonement theology - Jesus chose to die to save us - from the wrath of God. Hard to square that with your image of a kindly grandfather who smiles at our foibles. Instead what the church teaches is that only the death of Jesus would appease God. Nobody else’s sacrifice of him or herself would do - only that of “the God-man” could atone for our sins.
DeleteYou don’t think God is that cruel. But the cruelty of this theology is right there in the catechism. If I am to have faith that God is good, I can’t believe in a God that would not forgive human beings their sins unless Jesus suffered and died. But that IS what the RCC teaches, as you can read in the catechism at the Borromeo site that you referred to, from which I copied relevant passages for the previous comments.
This is one of the big problems with the church - kindly people, say deacons, say things that aren’t actually what the church officially teaches. Even Katherine, an incredibly devoted and knowledgeable Catholic didn’t know that the RCC teaches atonement theology, even though it’s in prayers and is referred to in every mass - but the words used are not “atone” - but “save” or “redeem” or “sacrifice” or maybe “lamb of God”. The lamb was a blood sacrifice to God. Sacrifices were made to appease angry gods, including the one God of Israel. So even if Jesus chose to die out of love for humans, as you say, that implies that he knew that God would withhold forgiveness and condemn all humanity for eternity if he didn’t sacrifice himself - a blood sacrifice. The lamb of God. Because Jesus knew that only his death would be enough to atone for all the sins of the world.
Anne,
DeleteFrom the Bible, and other Christian writings, one can construct an atonement theology. I have no doubt that some Christians, today and in the past understood Christianity in that way.
However, citing the Bible or any other religious text including the Catechism as a proof text either to argue for "atonement" theology or an indictment against "atonement" theology as the "official position" of either the Bible or a Church ignores the complexity of the Bible, Christianity and Catholicism.
Among the multitude of Andrew Greeley's books is a very wise one called "Religion as Poetry" in which he argues that religion really works more as poetry, e.g., as liturgy, contemplation, prayer than as prose, e.g., theology and philosophy.
There are all sorts of highly intellectual Christians: Origen, Augustine, Acquinas, Calvin, etc. that have tried to systemize Christianity. They make interesting reading for some intellectuals but really don't work for most people, including myself.
I have encountered what I take for "atonement" theology in various places. As poetry it made little sense for me. But I think an angry God has made sense of life for some people in the past and still does today. My parents were very good. They were each other's best friends and became my best friends as I aged. But not everyone else has been so fortunate.
I think the image of an "angry God" has been used in the past, and even in the present day, by many politicians, both clerical and lay, as a means of social control. That is to basically say that we all are bad, and that we (or at least other people) need authoritarian rulers to keep everyone in line.
I guess I'm unclear about why it's important what Jim thinks about substitutionary atonement. He seems like a decent guy trying to do his best like the rest of us, all of us hampered by circumstance, limited understanding, imperfect levels of empathy, and biases. He was found to be good enough to be a deacon. But that doesn't make him Answer Man for the Church Eternal.
DeleteOf course Jim is a decent guy. I don’t mean to pick on you, Jim. I single Jim out sometimes because he is the only one here who literally has a pulpit. He is the only one here who teaches officially to hundreds of people every week. . Not a single human being looks to me to explain christian teaching, fortunately. So I can blather on about what I think and it matters not at all. What clergy teach does matter. As we all know, the official teachings of religion have driven millions out of church doors. Because churches don’t listen, don’t engage the hard questions and doubts of millions. They duck rather than grapple with these doctrines in a meaningful way. They usually end up with “ it’s a mystery”. So it’s very hard for the questioners and doubters to find those who share their questions, their doubts, their own understandings. They are pretty much shut down when they try. They have to become “nones”in order to retain at least a tiny bit of faith. Then the churchy types look down their noses at them and dismiss them as lazy, or hedonistic, etc, condemned, because they aren’t among those in the pews every Sunday.
DeleteThe reason CP is my only form of prayer is because it does not force one to accept doctrine.
I so welcomed the homilies given by our now retired EC pastor. Because he didn’t stick with the tried and true - as just about every Catholic priest and deacon I’ve heard does. He offered genuine and deeply thoughtful insights and understandings that sometimes actually addressed the problems with Christian doctrine without dodging the hard stuff.
"Sigh. Jim, so I guess you DO agree with atonement theology - Jesus chose to die to save us - from the wrath of God. Hard to square that with your image of a kindly grandfather who smiles at our foibles. Instead what the church teaches is that only the death of Jesus would appease God. Nobody else’s sacrifice of him or herself would do - only that of “the God-man” could atone for our sins."
DeleteRegarding the kindly grandfather: that's not my image, it's CS Lewis's. And he doesn't offer it as a valid metaphor for God, but as a flawed metaphor. His point is that God is no absentee grandparent, but a good father who is deeply involved in our lives.
Beyond that: you're attributing more here to me than I've said (or I believe).
I don't think of God as "wrathful" - at least not as congenitally wrathful :-). I do think that God's wrath is on display here and there in the Hebrew Scriptures. That is a part, but not the totality, of God's self-revelation to us. Those revelations of God's righteous anger are part and parcel of why God as kindly, amiable grandfather is a flawed metaphor.
But let's be clear: God is not some grumpus with rage issues. God loves us, and when he chastises us it's because that what a good parent has to do from time to time.
I don't use the language of God needing to be "appeased". Nor have I ever said that only Jesus's death would do.
I accept the myth - the poetry, if you will - of The Fall. Maybe our primal rebellion against God kindled his wrath, but personally, I suppose that grief was his predominant emotion. We were expelled from his presence, not because he is temperamental, but because *that is what we chose*. We self-exiled. And we're not able to fix that on our own. We need his help.
And he has tried, over and over and over again, to call us back. That is why he ultimately sent his son to us - in hopes that his son would bring us back.
I don't claim that Jesus's death is the only way God could have saved us. For all I know, God had Plans A, B, C...Z. But for reasons which may not be completely fathomable to us, the Father and Son landed on this plan, and that is the plan they, er, executed.
The idea of Jesus as a sacrifice has resonated with people over the years. Certainly, it might make sense for someone steeped in Temple spirituality. Or someone who lives on a livestock farm and is comfortable with the slaughter of animals.
But even that explicitly sacrificial imagery needs to be understood as Jesus as both priest and victim: he offered himself.
It’s really so interesting, as I mentioned to Stanley, how people read the same things, see the same things, are taught the same things, but understand them so differently. You say that CS. Lewis sees God as a good father who is deeply involved in our lives. I presume that you agree. You say that God loves us. In thinking about that I realized that I don’t really believe that. I guess I have never believed that. I haven’t actually ever seen any evidence that God loves us. I have made a choice to try to believe that God is love, that God loves us. It’s a choice because I want to believe it. But it’s an irrational belief, because it’s based on an emotional want, rather than on real evidence.
DeleteAnyway, not your problem.
DeleteYes, I think that life experiences have a lot to do with our perceptions of God. Some time back, CS Lewis was a rediscovered darling of conservative Christians who liked thinking about God as a hard-ass boss who demanded obedience and didn't have time for people who wanted to argue. Lewis's God didn't mete out punishment so much as let the devil take you straight to hell if that's what you wanted. No skin off His nose.
DeleteGod is always at least 50 percent invention by and baggage of whomever is talking about God.
If we knew how God really thinks and operates, our heads would explode because we are not built to understand the infinite and everlasting.
I know saying it's a mystery sounds glib, but it is.
"I haven’t actually ever seen any evidence that God loves us."
DeleteNow Anne - aren't you the one who tells me that a walk in the woods or a view of the mountains can be a spiritual experience? God's revelation of his goodness is all around us. Try a strawberry - they're starting to come into season now.
I read CS Lewis decades ago as my doubts and questions became harder and harder to ignore. I was particularly interested in learning about his conversion experience. He framed it as an intellectual experience as I recall. He “reasoned” himself from unbelief to belief in a god, and then to christianity. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t find his reasoning to be convincing. I had had great hopes that he would be able to help me make the leap. I was terribly disappointed.
DeleteI do believe in God. But it’s pretty much only because of the natural world, the incomprehensible wonder that is the universe. I feel awe when alone in nature. I feel God’s presence there. And it is only there that I have some hope that God is good. I don’t get that feeling from the bible. Nor from christian theology. There I see a not so loving God.
Anne - I sympathize. There is more than one pathway to finding God. I hope centering prayer is one pathway for you.
DeleteI'd think that reasoning ourselves into belief is pretty rare. I understand it worked for Edith Stein. It may have worked for CS Lewis, but I would guess that his friendship with committed Christians like the other Inklings was as important - not only their discussions and debates, but their witness as well. I think Jack mentioned that for most people, it's easier when you're surrounded by a support network of believers. I'm sure that's true.
The hypocrisy and neglect on the part of church officials in the multitude of abuse crises has wounded the faith of many people - perhaps because those officials constituted part of the support network. They are the face of the church that is visible in the media.
There is more than one pathway to finding God
DeleteAmazing. Previously you have told the people in your pews that they need to bring back the missing relatives because they can’t otherwise hear the word of God. I guess they must all be illiterate and can’t read for themselves. Or maybe just too stupid to come to their own interpretations of what Jesus taught. You have often scoffed at the “spiritual but not religious”. If you have happened to have a few of thé NR/ “lapsed” Catholics in your pews when you have made such comments from the pulpit, they might not even show up when visiting their still Catholic family members at Christmas. You still seem to insist that only those baptized as christians - using the precise wording approved by the RCC - can be ‘ saved”. Even those folk who were baptized in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest who used the “ wrong” pronoun. So much of Catholicism still borders on using the “right” magic words. You did express a “hope” that God would still save those whose baptisms weren’t done with the precise magic words of the RCC.
(You can skip the link to the catechism btw)
Sometimes I have to wonder about human beings who make God into their own image. Who see God as being more like a petty, rules- bound human being (such as the members of the RC hierarchy) than like a loving, rules- breaking Jesus.
I do hope, Jim, that your comment may mean that at some point you will stop looking down at those who have chosen a different spiritual path than yours. As you have finally admitted- There is more than one pathway to finding God. Enjoy your next walk in the woods on a lovely spring day. Read and reread Margaret Renkl’s column, which I see has now also drawn the condescending scorn of a couple of Commonweal writers.
Maybe you should read Lewis’s books yourself before deciding that he didn’t really “ reason” his way into Christianity. Although I agree that few people do. And certainly if christians actually acted like followers of Jesus, more people would be attracted to Christianity. Sadly the institutions of Christianity seem to have largely failed to model what Jesus taught. Most are models of love of wealth and power rather than Christian love and simplicity. Maybe some of the small sects like some Quakers have held on to what Jesus taught. The vast majority of Christians are Christian, and the vast majority of Catholics are Catholic because they were born into the tribe and have simply gone with the tribal religion of their birth.. The same can be said of Hindus, Muslims etc. Few reason their way into any religion. It’s primarily a family/tribal identity.
I know that you mean well. But you are convinced that only those baptized using specific trinitarian wording can be eligible for “ salvation “. Unless God makes an exception for those who are not. You really do care about them. You “ hope” that CP will help me find God. It is CP and “ nature” that are the pathways that have helped me to begin to believe that God is love.
I have hopes for you too. Someday I hope that you will encounter God in the woods, or in the desert, or in the silence of CP, or in poetry or music - and come to an even broader understanding of the God of love than you have gained from liturgy and organized religion. . I don’t doubt that you encounter God in liturgy. But not everyone has the same experience. God does provide a path for everyone.
I really don't care for interlinear discussions. But as virtually every single sentence in your first paragraph accuses me unjustly, I'm going to make an exception here.
Delete"Previously you have told the people in your pews that they need to bring back the missing relatives because they can’t otherwise hear the word of God."
I've said here before - and I'll say it again - that our faith is meant to be lived communally. But no idea what you're referring to re: "can't otherwise hear the word of God." You'll have to cite where I've ever said anything like that.
"I guess they must all be illiterate and can’t read for themselves. Or maybe just too stupid to come to their own interpretations of what Jesus taught."
Again, no idea what you're talking about. I've said no such thing.
"You have often scoffed at the “spiritual but not religious”."
I don't believe I've ever scoffed at them. I've said, several times, that I'm skeptical that go-it-alone spirituality is the best way to live out Christian discipleship. Discipleship is, by its nature, communal. I hope one can express skepticism without scoffing.
"If you have happened to have a few of thé NR/ “lapsed” Catholics in your pews when you have made such comments from the pulpit, they might not even show up when visiting their still Catholic family members at Christmas."
As I've never said any such thing from the pulpit (nor, to the best of my knowledge, anywhere else), it's a moot topic.
"You still seem to insist that only those baptized as christians - using the precise wording approved by the RCC - can be ‘ saved”."
No - I've made a point which the Catechism makes quite succinctly: that baptism is the only way the church knows of by which people can be saved. I trust the distinction between "the only way (period)" and "the only way we know of (but there may be other ways we don't know of)" is clear.
"Even those folk who were baptized in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest who used the “ wrong” pronoun. So much of Catholicism still borders on using the “right” magic words."
I have never used the phrase "magic words", and I don't think of sacraments as magical - no idea why you attribute that to me. But I've noted that words matter, and inasmuch the words we pray express what we believe, it's worth ensuring that we say what we believe (rather than things we don't believe). A minister of the church exercising his ministerial function on behalf of the church should use words expressing what the church believes, as opposed to words that don't express what the church believes. If he can't say those words in good conscience, then...he is experiencing a spiritual crisis, and my recommendation to him would be, Stop acting in that ministerial capacity until you can say the church's words in good conscience.
"You did express a “hope” that God would still save those whose baptisms weren’t done with the precise magic words of the RCC.""
I certainly never used the phrase "magic words". I do hope God saves people who aren't baptized. Uttering a word salad in someone's presence followed by pouring water over their head isn't the same as baptizing them.
Sorry, Jim, got tied up. I can't take the time now to go back and try to find the homily in which you said in so many words that the absent Catholic friends and family who aren't in the pews on Sundays miss hearing the "word of God". I remember it well, and I remember also that I commented on it at the time, with similar sarcasm as I did here. I had assumed that it was obvious that the words about illiteracy and "magic words" were mine and not yours, and that it was also obvious that it was sarcasm. I'm sorry if anyone, including you, misunderstood.
DeleteHowever,one would have to admit that Jesus' own baptism would not be acceptable to the current church management. He was a Jew - he was baptized by a Jew, Both were Jews until they died. They were never Roman Catholics. In re-reading the scriptures about this I do not see any evidence that John the Baptist used the approved words. Perhaps it didn't matter since it was a Jewish baptism/purification ritual and not a Catholic one. In reflecting on the meaning of the current prayer for baptism, it seems to be theologically unsound. But since only the PTB determine these things, it will stay that way until some kind of enlightenment occurs down the road.
I see that now a couple of Commonweal writers are also unable to imagine that Margaret Renkl (and many others) might find walking in the woods brings her closer to God than does liturgy.
I should add that I am very grateful for the basic Christian foundation the RCC gave me - much of it was good. Far better than what most evangelicals, (or Calvinists) receive that’s for sure. God will show them mercy too though.
DeleteThere are great thinkers in the Catholic tradition. And even a few of the “saints” have deserved the honor, although very often it is the everyday, non-consecrated/ non-ordained who deserve being called "saints”. Popes - not so much. I have been blessed to know a few saints, not all of whom are Catholic nor even Christian. I pray that someday the RCC institution will truly model the teachings of Jesus more closely than it does the Roman Empire, and emphasize especially the teachings that didn’t require words.
The RCC is the most powerful part of Christianity, the most influential. It does a lot of good, but it has also done a huge amount of harm over the centuries.
If you get away from dogma and doctrine, from the imperial church, its potential to change the world might still be realized. As noted, the RCC and its members do a lot of good - at least the ordinary Catholics, and even many priests do. The nuns have often been the best lived examples of following the gospel, although they have also been too often abusive. I studied the major world religions (rather superficially) before deciding to continue to define myself with a religion, and decided that Christianity is still the best match. Perhaps I simply couldn’t overcome the indoctrination I was immersed in from birth. But I figured that since maybe God had chosen the Christian tribe for me, so I maybe should accept that, even though truth and God are also found in other religious understandings. But I have to find the right path within Christianity. I would be back in the pews if the RCC would deal with clericialism once and for all, starting with eliminating the root of a lot the trouble teaching that ordained are "ontologically" superior to all other Catholics. Secondly, the RCC's body of Social Justice Teachings are largely ignored even though they most closely hew to what Jesus himself taught. I am not aware of any major denomination that can come close to what the RCC has developed as its body of Social Justice Teachings - which are really just the gospel messages expanded. The RCC in America might refill some of the pews if it dropped the culture wars, stopped supporting the MAGA/GOP, and emphasized the gospel of Jesus Christ. They already have everything they need to truly proclaim the gospel of Jesus. But priests and deacons seem afraid to preach it because somebody might complain - including some bishops. They have the same fear that moderate Republicans who are afraid to break from trump exhibit.
Robert Greenleaf thought Catholicism had great potential. I suspect because he spent a lot of time consulting for women religious. In his book on Servant Leadership, he says that Catholicism would serve humanity better if it spent more time on articulating what Catholicism is for rather than what it is against. I think that applies to all of us not simply the clergy.
DeleteOne of the reasons why women religious are greatly admired even by those that are not Catholic or have left the church, is that they can be found doing good in so many of the problem areas of the world.
This is nothing new, not something to associated with their current liberal views. A good case can be made that their schools, health, and social services transformed America's immigrant church from one of suspicion into one of American pride. That began as early as the Civil War with their willi8ngness to nurse injuries on both sides of the conflict.
I think one of the reason women religious are so admired - at least a big reason I admire them - is they come across as authentic. They believe what they read (the Gospel), teach what they believe, and practice what they teach.
DeleteBtw, those words at the end of the previous paragraph are from the ritual for the ordination of a deacon. I don't know whether deacons are perceived as living up to that exhortation, but I think many of us perceive that religious sisters do.
"Agatha of Little Neon" by Claire Luchette is a lovely story about tiny group of nuns running a halfway house. It is set in contemporary times when being a nun can be a very lonely row to hoe. It is nice to read a story about sisters that doesn't present them as twisted and weird, and that deals with the joys and frustrations of their lives. No hagiography here, just honest human frailty.
DeleteIt's been a long time since I read Michael Polanyi, physical chemist and epistemologist. One of my favorite quotes from him is "we know more than we can tell". Our explicit language statements never perfectly express the things we know tacitly. I have participated year after year in the drama of the Passion. Somehow, it never made me think of God as cruel. What it DID do is make me think of God as gathering up all the wrongness and failure of the world and fashioning it into something new that can become a new world, a new reality. Perhaps there are better ways of articulating what happened in the passion of the Christ, but the atonement and sacrifice language spoke powerfully to the people of the time. Human sacrifice emerged independently in many parts of the world. What were they thinking? Instead of dismissing them as goofballs, we have to consider the possibility they were very alive, passionate people who were trying to accomplish with human means what only God could accomplish.
ReplyDeleteThese are just my semi-coherent thoughts.
My order of Corsendonk brewed by the monks of Spencer, MA just arrived. I intend to have some tonight. How can you go wrong with the contents of a bottle with a depiction of Madonna and Child on it. I last tasted it in a Dover, NJ restaurant thirty years ago. I'm hoping the yankee monks did as good a job as the Belgians.
"gathering up all the wrongness and failure of the world and fashioning it into something new that can become a new world, a new reality."
DeleteThat is wonderful, Stanley! I wrote it down in my prayer book.
Enjoy your Corsendonk. Raber occasionally brings home a six-pack of some microbrew. It seems to last him a couple months because beer is discouraged on his cardio-diabetic diet. But the poor man has had to change so much in the last year, that a beer once a week seems like small change.
Thanks, Jean. Glad Raber can sneak one in now and then. My friend Lou developed a gluten allergy (not celiac). He can never drink a beer from wheat or barley. He CAN have a sorghum beer.
DeleteStanley, we know that in general different inborn personalities combined with individual life experiences result in people exposed to the same things - events, history, religious teachings - will not only interpret them differently but often in ways that are polar opposite. After many years of enduring the “drama” of Holy Week, especially the focus on the Passion, I realized I had to stop. First I stopped going to the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday. Then I stopped going to Palm Sunday. All of that sustains your faith. It was destroying what little faith I still had. Different people, different personalities, different life experiences.
DeleteWow, I have visions of that being something like a stout that tastes like beer and molasses.
DeleteAbout 20 years ago the Mt Saviour, NY, monks were getting into spinning and dyeing their own wool. I peppered those poor guys with technical questions about staple length, thread ply, weight, and lanolin content until they probably wished I was in hell. I see that their biz has taken off nicely and that all my questions are now answered in their gift shop site. It's very reasonably priced. Thanks for reminding me. I will order some when I get my SS check! https://www.msaviour.org
Thanks for the link, Jean. I sent the link to M. She has two beehives going now. Hasn't tapped them yet. Expensive hobby. I told her she now has $50 per jar honey to go with her $50 garden tomatoes.
DeleteHi Ann. I'm not arguing with you, just talking from my own encounter. I've always been energized by this time of year. I think the closest I come to religious experience is being rather perpetually but pleasantly gobsmacked. Sometimes I wonder, if I've really been following Jesus, why aren't I crucified yet. Those are the sort of things that run through my mind during the Easter cycle.
"Sometimes I wonder, if I've really been following Jesus, why aren't I crucified yet."
DeleteI think that, too! Although, the answer probably is, "Just wait, our opportunity is coming..."
Could be, Jim. Could be.
DeleteHere's an interesting story about the Desert Mothers. atlasobscura.com/articles/the-rebel-virgins-and-desert-mothers-who-have-been-written-out-of-christianitys-early-history
ReplyDeleteInteresting article. I admire their agency and determination, but found their extreme asceticism a bit off-putting.
DeleteOne of my nieces is named Phoebe. I don't think she was a desert mother, but she was a deaconess and saint of the Acts of the Apostles.
Yes, you'd be locked up for self-harm if you tried some of the things the desert mothers and fathers did. My theory is that, as Christians suffered less persecution and people moved away from the idea that the End Times were nigh, they also moved away from asceticism as preparation for martyrdom or the Second Coming. Happened at different times in different places. After that, you saw a gradual adoption of social justice ideas, as in the spiritual and corporal acts of mercy. There was a minor return to asceticism in some places around the first millennium and during the Reformation. The Church still calls for fasting in bad times-- pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine--but I don't think everybody understands the point of it.
Delete