This is my homily for today, the 4th Sunday in Lent, Cycle B. Please note: for parishes with OCIA candidates, this is a Scrutiny Sunday, and the readings for Cycle A may be used. For those parishes, today's Gospel reading would be the story of the man born blind. But our parish, even though we have a pretty big OCIA group this year, is using the appointed readings for Cycle B this year. So the readings upon which this homily is based are here.
When my children were young, I read the Harry Potter books to them as bedtime stories. We’d read a chapter, or part of a chapter, each evening after they were tucked into bed. But there were times when I’d interrupt the flow of the narrative, lower the book, and make a personal comment to them about the story. For example, if we were reading the fourth book, the Goblet of Fire, when we came to the part near the climax where Harry and Cedric are transported to the graveyard, I might turn to the children and let them know, “Ok, this next part is going to be a little scary.” I’d be preparing them for what was to come.
Something similar happens in today’s Gospel reading: the narrator of the Gospel, who has been recounting the words and deeds of Jesus, interrupts the narrative, turns to us and speaks directly to us. He gives us a brief discourse: in effect, a short homily. He’s helping us understand the meaning of what has happened so far, and of what is to come, in the narrative. So you’re actually going to get two homilies today, his and mine. I fear mine isn’t as brief as his!
This discourse passage is pretty well-known, even in the general culture. It was made famous by a guy of whom many of us probably are aware, at least if you’re my age or older: during the 1970s and 1980s, he used to travel around the country each fall, attending nationally-televised football games. He would try to get seats in the end zone, directly behind the goal posts, because he knew the television cameras would be trained on the goal posts – and on the fans in the background, seated behind the goal posts – whenever there was a field goal or extra point attempt. And at those points in the game, when he knew he’d be on-camera, he’d hold up a sign. And all the sign said was, “John 3:16”.
How many of you are familiar with that guy?
And how many of you, when you saw that sign on television, pulled out your bibles to see what that passage referred to?
It turns out, today’s Gospel reading includes that verse. Here it is: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”
I haven’t spoken with the guy with the sign, so I can’t say for certain why he thought that verse was so important that it had to be on national television, but it’s not a bad verse to highlight. He may have thought that it summarizes the whole life and ministry of Jesus.
The discourse passage in today’s Gospel reading isn’t only about Jesus. It’s about God the Father and Jesus: both Father and Son. It attributes Jesus’s ministry and mission to the Father. It helps us see that Jesus didn’t say and do what he did on his own; he was fulfilling his Father’s will.
Jesus was given to us as an act of mercy on the Father’s part. In fact, all three of today’s readings focus on God’s mercy.
To fully appreciate God’s mercy, it helps if we understand a bit about the character of God the Father – his personality, if we might describe God as having a personality, as indeed I think we can. Most of us tend to be nice people, and we humans can have a tendency to try to construct God in our own images. If we’re nice, we imagine God must be nice, too.
But as we immerse ourselves more and more in the bible, especially the Old Testament, we might find that “nice” isn’t really the most apt word to describe God the Father. He’s good, and he’s great, but I don’t know that I’d describe him as “nice”.
In one of his books, The Problem of Pain, CS Lewis memorably described this misconception of God: he wrote,
What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven — a senile benevolence who, as they say, ‘liked to see young people enjoying themselves,’ and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all.'
Today’s first reading gives us some valuable insight into God’s true personality. This is God as he actually is: not as a benign, overly-indulgent grandparent, but as a parent who cares deeply about us – cares enough to set a high bar for us. This God is demanding, with a clear moral code which he expects us to adhere to. To be sure, he loves us as a parent loves his or her children, and therefore is prepared to put up with a certain amount of nonsense from us; and even is ready to forgive us over and over; but his patience isn’t bottomless. This real-life, actual God is slow to anger, but it’s possible for us to overstep so far, so egregiously, and so often that at last his anger is kindled, as it is in today’s first reading. That is the dynamic the Chronicler describes: God kept sending prophets to call his people back to faithfulness, but his people wouldn’t listen; they blithely ignored him and kept sinning, over and over again.
And so God, in his just anger toward his people, permitted disaster to befall them: the Babylonians conquered them, burned down the city of Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and carried off their leaders into captivity for decades.
But – and now we’re coming to the main point – even when God’s anger has been kindled, it doesn’t last forever. Because even if he’s not infinitely patient with our wickedness, he’s not unrelentingly cruel to us, either. After a time, his anger runs off, and is replaced by mercy. And that was the case with the Babylonian captives. The Chronicler sees the hand of God in the king of the Persians, Cyrus the Great, permitting the people of Judah and their descendants to return to Jerusalem.
This is God’s mercy. It’s not the cheap forgiveness of a nice guy. It’s a just and mighty God allowing his anger to run off and be replaced by mercy. The idea of mercy is: strict justice isn’t meted out. In other words: even when we’re punished, we don’t get as bad as we deserve, which is very fortunate for us.
In fact, it’s fortune beyond our wildest imaginations: because, in sending us Jesus, God takes mercy to a whole new level. His Son was sent to us, not to punish us, but rather to reconcile us to his Father. And it goes even beyond that: he reconciles us by taking all of our wickedness upon himself and suffering and dying in our stead.
What kind of a God would do such a thing for us? There is only one word I can think of to describe such a person: Love. It turns out that the chief characteristic of God’s personality is: he loves us.
We are blessed beyond imagining that God has shown us such mercy. Obviously, the first thing to do is thank him – and that’s just what we’re here for today. But then the next thing is to do for others what he did for us. Just as he has shown gratuitous mercy toward us, we must show gratuitous mercy toward others. We should forgive the debts of those indebted to us, because God forgives our debt to him, which otherwise we’d have no hope of repaying. If someone needs our help, let us not withhold it in anger; let us offer our help – even more help than the minimum. If someone needs our forgiveness, let us offer it freely, before the other person must beg for it.
Considering how much God has done for us in giving us Jesus, it seems the least we can do is to try to be Jesus to others.
It was the weekend for the deacons to preach here, too. Kelly also mentioned that guy who holds up the sign at football games.
ReplyDeleteHe spent more time on the Ephesians reading. I remember my mom, who grew up Baptist, quoting from Ephesians 2: 4-10, "By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves...lest any should boast". She could recite a lot of Bible quotes, learned from the KJV in her youth. But K continued the next part of that Ephesians quote, which is not so often memorized: " For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them." He emphasized that both faith and good works are important in our growth in the Christian faith.
Seeing Nicodemus' name made me think of a children's story that I once read. The family had a cat named Nicodemus. He was named that because he came to them at night. He just meowed at the door and they let him in.
DeleteAnother quote that I remember from John 3 ( there is really so much packed into that chapter) was John 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth...so is everyone born of the Spirit." I liked the King James language of it.
DeleteYes, mentioning the guy with the sign is de rigeur. I wasn't sure I should mention him because it's kind of a preaching cliche, but I decided to run with it.
DeleteRe: quoting bible verse: I don't know how many I've memorized. Not as many as some Evangelicals. My nephew, who attended a Christian school, was expected to memorize large chunks of the bible as part of his schoolwork. And it tended to be passages from books like Proverbs which Catholics don't really focus on as much as some Evangelicals apparently do. But I was reflecting earlier today that some Evangelicals view the bible as a handbook for living. Catholics don't view the bible in quite that same way. We tend to see it as a source of revelation and a fount of wisdom, and we reverence the bible for those reasons, but I don't think we are as likely to draw a straight line between, "The bible says A, and so therefore I must do B in my life." Certainly, I don't know many wives who are prepared to subordinate themselves to their husbands as a biblical principle.
DeleteI regret to say that I've memorized very little Scripture on purpose. I think the only part I was required to memorize in school was the 23rd Psalm in 7th or 8th grade (plenty of catechism questions though!) By now I know a lot of passages by osmosis from the Book of Christian Prayer and the liturgy. The Evangelicals put us in the shade as far as having read the entire Bible. As you said, they don't view it the same way, and follow a different mode of scholarship.
DeleteFundamentalist kids get prizes for memorization. It was a whole thing when my Baptist nieces and nephews were kids.
DeleteMaybe Catholic kids get prizes for memorizing prayers? There was a bag of Catholic swag The Boy got from the Church Ladies for First Communion--plastic rosary, holy cards, certificate of completion, Holy Family medal, little crucifix for the wall.
I remember getting some swag, a little purse with a child's missal and a rosary, and a little pin in the shape of a chalice. And a brown scapular. I managed to break the ribbon on it the first time I put it on, but Sister was prepared and fixed it with a needle and thread. I never wore it very much though.
DeleteThe main thing I remember about my first Communion day was that the priest nearly died of a hemorrhage and had to be taken by ambulance to Denver after Mass. But that's a story for another day.
I am uncomfortable with anthropomorphizing God as angry or forgiving. My probably heretical notion is that God came to live as one of us to a) better understand the human nature that he himself created and b) to show us how to live in peace with others. People latch onto the everlasting life bits as the ultimate reward on offer, as if living in peace is not a reward in itself. I do believe that some privileged souls are enjoying eternal union with God right now. I wouldn't be praying to the saints if I didn't. But I don't think Christians generally think enough about how their admittance into Heaven is directly related to their treatment of others right here. To pick up on Katherine's point, faith without works is dead.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in God as wrathful or punishing us with wars and disasters. But I do believe in natural consequences, that he lets things happen that are a consequence of human bad behavior.
DeleteI agree that living in peace should be a reward in itself. Would be nice if we would try it sometime, collectively speaking.
Letting things happen that are a consequence ... Yes, I agree. That's the free will part, I suppose. Sin and you'll have to eat the consequences, and likely make things worse for the people involved with you.
DeleteI don't think the Chronicler agrees that God just sits back and lets consequences unfold. I think he (she?) saw God's hand in the geopolitical developments in that first reading.
DeleteIf we don't accept that view as true literally, then how should we understand it? I'm not asking that question rhetorically. If we accept that the bible has things to tell us, what is it trying to tell us in this passage?
I'm sure the writer of Chronicles did see God's hand in the events he records. But do we believe that God plays geopolitical chess games? I think we can understand that God isn't going to bail us out of things we bring on ourselves through selfishness and sin. But that he will help us if we turn to him, even though it might not be the solution we asked for.
DeleteFor some reason I saw this passage as very poignant: " Until the land has retrieved its lost sabbaths, during all the time it lies waste it shall have rest while seventy years are fulfilled."
I truly am not sure how God "picks his spots" as to when to intervene in the affairs of humans. I suspect that, when he does so, more often than not it's to mercifully shield us from the consequences of our own sin and stupidity.
DeleteI do believe that God had a special care for his chosen people, and therefore perhaps was more likely to intervene in their affairs. As Catholics, we're also asked to believe that this vast sweep of geopolitical history recounted in the bible was, in some fashion, preparation for the coming of Jesus and all that followed (which we will celebrate during the upcoming Triduum). In other words, these things didn't just happen: they were part of a plan, and/or were somehow incorporated into the plan.
"I do believe that God had a special care for his chosen people, and therefore perhaps was more likely to intervene in their affairs."
DeleteBoy, I sure don't believe God has favorites. And I don't believe the Jews (or any other faith group) have a special place in God's heart just because the Jews write a book that said they did. And, yes, I understand that most Jews and Christians would vehemently disagree with me. But as a convert to Trinitarian Christianity, I sorta have to believe that God is concerned not just with the good little boys and girls but with the little monsters on the margins.
I think he (she?) saw God's hand in the geopolitical developments in that first reading.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't accept that view as true literally, then how should we understand it? I'm not asking that question rhetorically. If we accept that the bible has things to tell us, what is it trying to tell us in this passage?
First I would question the idea that "the bible has things to tell us," especially if we are going to look at the Bible as a text in which every isolated passage has a decipherable message. That would reduce the Bible to a huge collection of proof texts. The Bible may have things to tell us, but the only reasonable approach (in my humble opinion) is to take the Bible as a collection of ancient religious literature. The Bible may have things to tell us, just as any other collection of religious literature does, or any time-tested literature at all (e.g., Shakespeare). I would be very skeptical that the Bible is trying to tell us that, because those who lived over 2000 years ago believed God directed geopolitic events, God did indeed direct geopolitical events and does so today. Take a look at Russia and the Ukraine, Haiti, Israel and Gaza, and numerous other ongoing catastrophes, and let me know how it appears God is directing events. Why would God permit Evangelical Christians to support Trump, or Jews to slaughter Palestinians? Did God send the Black Death to kill as many 50 million people in Europe? What about the First and Second World Wars? Such a God might be almighty, but not merciful.
Right. I don't claim insight into whether, where and to what extent God is intervening in geopolitical events today. He may be, and it is not visible to me.
DeleteI agree with you that the Bible isn't just a huge collection of proof texts. I try to read the Bible as the church reads it (which itself is a tremendously complicated subject). But I don't think it's an unfair question to ask, "As the church reads it, what is the purpose or message of that passage in 2nd Chronicles"? It's recounting history that may have happened as that passage summarizes. (Certainly, Cyrus the Great was a real person.)
And of course the Catholic viewpoint, which has a lot to be said for it, is that the Bible is a creation of the Church. The Church had the authority to judge which religious writings were to be included in the canon, and so it has the authority to say what those writings mean. That is why (theoretically, anyway) you can't quote the Bible to criticize or try to correct the Church. It's because the authority of the Church supersedes scripture, or in any case, the authority of the Church to interpret scripture supersedes any individual's or group's authority to interpret scripture. So on questions like whether or not God is arranging geopolitical events, it is not a matter of what the authors of scripture believed. It is what the Church teaches. But what is that?
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, it is my impression that the Church does not look kindly on the interpretations of some Protestants who interpret natural disasters and other calamities as punishments for human misbehavior (for example, homosexuality, abortion, exclusion of prayer in the public schools). On the other hand, given that prayers of petition for almost anything one can imagine are deemed appropriate (outcomes of elections, cease-fires in wars, rerouting of hurricanes), there is the impression that God can intervene in almost any earthly set of events, whether he does or not. Perhaps in more modern times there is a tendency to think of positive developments (such as fine weather for farmers' crops) as blessings, but not to think of negative developments (droughts and consequent famines) as punishments.
In asking how the church interprets the passage in question, it seems notable that the church selected the passage to be read on the 4th Sunday of Lent (in certain circumstances). In making this selection, it situated the reading in a relationship with the Gospel reading, the second reading (which runs on its own independent cycle during Ordinary Time but not during the high seasons such as Lent), the Responsorial Psalm and the Gospel Acclamation text. (They're all here in case anyone wants to see them together: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/031024-YearB.cfm).
DeleteAs I mentioned in my homily, I see the common thread among them as being God's mercy. Undoubtedly, other interpretations are possible.
I suppose one could claim, "God's mercy became evident at that time in the history of the Jewish people when he didn't intervene to prevent Cyrus from defeating the Babylonians and giving the captives permission to return to Jerusalem." That's sort of a passive, non-interventionist way of viewing God's providence for his chosen people. I suppose many of us would be more comfortable with that view than with the notion that God somehow brought about the Jewish people's defeat, captivity and eventual release through active intervention.
Jim, yes, because I can't see how God could directly intervene in those situations without negating free will. And it seems evident that he doesn't do that.
DeleteGod might intervene by, to put it in cartoonish terms, sending an angel to whisper in Cyrus's ear, "Free the Jewish people! Let them return to Jerusalem!" Cyrus is still free to listen to the angel or not.
DeleteTrue enough!
DeleteWhen in the realm of God interfering in geopolitics, I tend to think more in terms of God saving us from ourselves. After decades of confrontation with the Soviet Union and close calls, we came out intact. Many times, lunatic Air Force General Curtis "bombs-away" Lemay loved to have planes make incursions into Soviet air space. Of course, there was the Cuban Missile Crisis and the false nuclear attack warning the Soviets got in the 80's. I'm amazed we're still here. Will God save us from the stupidity of climate change when there is an obvious path forward and we're not taking it? If so, it means God loves stupid people a lot more than I do.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I haven't been posting much because, since I switched from an Android phone to an Iphone, it asks me to log in with Google but keeps sending me to square one when I want to posf. I'll try again soon to straighten it out. In the meantime, I use my PC and my old phone with WiFi.
Stanley, I'm glad to see you back again. Sometimes it seems like my electronics are getting so secure they don't even let me in to my own stuff. FWIW I prefer posting on our PC more than my Kindle Fire, and I don't even try to on my phone; though I do comment from my Kindle and occasionally from my phone.
DeleteI do agree with you that God must love us , otherwise we wouldn't still be here.
Gen Curtis LeMay! There's a blast from the past. Remember when he ran for VP with George Wallace as a third party candidate?
DeleteI guess God saved us from that travesty. But then there's Trump and 300 years of Haitian history, which doesn't exactly speak to God's merciful intervention in geopolitical affairs.
We need to stop thinking of God as the cosmic Lone Ranger riding in to save us and more as the teacher who tells us how to save ourselves.
Good luck with your phone. The Boy and I are trying to find one for Raber that just has phone and text capabilities, maybe a camera. He is now so confused with tech options on things that it's not even funny. Jitterbug here we come!
Rodney Stark, a prominent agnostic sociologist, has written a book, Discovering God, on historical and comparative religions.
ReplyDeleteHe maintains that the history of religion can be seen either as the progressive evolution of religious ideas (i.e. that we have invented better ideas of God) or as the progressive revelation of God to humanity as we ourselves evolve. He thinks both are equally probable explanations of comparative and historical religious data. If he had to chose, he would opt in favor of the progressive revelation of God.
Stark thinks the Christianity, i.e. God as human, is a better end point for religious development than Islam. That is partially due to the Moslem belief that God is not rational but can be arbitrary.
In The Victory of Reason, Starks sees Christianity’s belief in God as Logos, as rationality, as an important development in human history which aided the development of science and the modern secular world. Stark greatly values theologians (Origen, Augustine, Aquinas) along with philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and scientists such as Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Darwin, etc. as founders of the modern world.
Progressive revelation has its modern form in Catholicism in the notion that although revelation may have ended with the Apostles, the development of doctrine through theological thinking has continued. How much of that occurs through decisions of the popes and bishops or through the thinking and writing of theologians is up for debate. A much neglected area of thinking has been the development of Catholicism through prophetic witness (the martyrs, the desert solitaries, Benedictine monasteries, the Franciscans, the Jesuits). Rahner maintains that we canonize saints rather than defining more dogma because each saint is a fresh way of imitating Christ. Congar maintains that every life of a saint is a fresh commentary on scripture.
Sounds like an interesting book.
Delete"Congar maintains that every life of a saint is a fresh commentary on scripture." I'd agree with that whole-heartedly. Jesus provides us with the precepts for a holy life. The saints provide the concrete examples for how to live it.
Delete