symEthics

Good. Good? Good!

2012-01-23T01:09:00.002-05:00

What is good? This question opens my discussion of Christian Ethics each semester with students who are required to take the course. How that question is answered shall be the on-going subject of this post (which I shall revise and edit throughout the course of the semester).

Where is the promised parousia?

2011-05-21T13:09:00.002-04:00

Scoffers in their scoffing have come in these last days

- worldly people,

driven by deep distorted desire, divisive, devoid of the Spirit.

Jesus said

“You are not permitted to know the times or periods

that the Father has set by his own authority.

But you will receive power

when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,

and you will be my witnesses ...

to the farthest parts of the earth.”

After this,
he was lifted up while they were watching,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were still staring into the sky while he was going,
when suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them
and said,

"Men of Galilee,

why do you stand here looking up into the sky?

This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven

will come back …"

The Greatest Commandment

2011-01-30T19:10:00.003-05:00

Consider the question: what is the greatest commandment. What do you think yourself concerning this question? Does your answer have some other reference other than your own thoughts? What is your primary reference for thinking about this question? If Scripture, why? Where does Scripture support what you think about the greatest commandment?

The following is somewhat representative of what a number of students answered in class: Love God above all else and love others as yourself. How is this statement like or unlike what you think? Consider something I said in class the other day - it is good to be able to turn one's face towards God. Following from this will be the ability to face others as well (see the story in Genesis recounting the renaming of Jacob after he struggled with God prior to his reconciliation with his brother Esau).

One perceives oneself properly by giving priority first to God, then others:

GOD<--(SELF)-->OTHERS

Read Mark 12:28-34.

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"

Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.' And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Why do you believe what you believe? To what cultural community does your conception of life conform? Might there be some need for transformation so that such conception can be renewed so to give priority to what God considers to be good? Read Romans 12 (consider this chapter within the context of the whole book, especially verses 16-21 of chapter 1, verses 13-25 of chapter 7, verses 24-28 of chapter 8, and verses 8-10 of chapter 13).

RANT: Using the f-word ...

2011-01-08T15:18:00.004-05:00

It disgusts me how quite a number of you (you know who you are) use the f-word so much. Doing so is mindless a best, perversely obscene at worst. It does not matter that what you write may be a snippet of some stupid pop song lyric - need you spell it out? Can any of you explain this to me?

- ME:
  Please don't go researching what someone else may have written on this subject - I can do that myself, thank you. Why do you do it? I dare say that most of you have no clue - you just do it, much like the way you blunder through life in other ways. For those of you who take delight in using such language, for shock effect perhaps, why does it matter to you? What are you accomplishing?
- FRIEND A:
  ‎"Fig" is my f-word. "Fish" works too, but when I hear "shut the front door" as an exclamation, I get figgin' angry.
- I said "fig" a lot this morning, too. I rescheduled the Fun(d)raiser, by the way. Sunday, Jan 30. Too many folks driving, rather be safe than sorry.
- FRIEND B:
  Overuse of any rhetorical device, not just profanity, is indefensible, and profanity is a particularly strong spice, easy to overuse. When onstage performing purely for adults, I sex up my jokes quite a bit. Even then, I pretend someone couldn't get a babysitter and there are two pre-teen girls in the front row. The resulting innuendo plays stronger than profanity. So I avoid profanity completely when on stage.
  
  That being said, sometimes it IS called for, and one must say "f[edit]".
- When performing magic as a Christmas elf, I say "Awww frostbite!"
- FRIEND C:
  It shows a lack of tact and poor communication skills on the part of the individual. It's a cheap way to vent, IMHO
- FRIEND D:
  
  Shock does seem to be one part of it, and perhaps another part is a demonstration to the other party that I refuse to be constrained by the thoughtless rules of society---that I recognize and will fully exercise the` freedoms of my society, and that I'm not likely to allow someone else's sense of propriety dictate my behavior. In fact, giving others so much power because we fear their judgement is to my mind one of the greatest problems facing our society today. So I don't really plan to give up use of the word anytime soon, but I do tend to be rather judicious in its use.
  
  Help me understand something, by the way: why is the word 'f[edit]' obscene and not to be allowed on television but the word 'kill' is AOK?
- FRIEND B:
  ‎@FRIEND D: That bothers me too. To put a finer point on it, why is "f[edit]" obscene but "rape" is just swell? One describes an act that can be jolly good mutual fun, the other is an act of pure evil.
- FRIEND E:
  
  It demonstrates a perversity of mind which is at once misogynous, rebellious and crass lewdness; the Bible, Old and New Testament, describes and condemns this sort of habitual speech; the consequence is not only the coursening of our society but the demeaning of young men and women, and their nascent idea of sex and marriage; such speech becomes habitual with the speaker self-righteously offending critics by defending, and rationalizing, their ugly habit as they often find even sharper ways to deliberately offend others as if it were their duty to do so. I would warn any women in the vicinity that such pornographic speech should be a red flag concerning the character, and probable lecherous imagination and even intentions, of the one caught in this sad habit. At the very least it is discourteous and impolite, and offensive as I am certain this statement will be to those who read it. Good news: Jesus can clean up our speech as well as our imaginations and life through a renewing of the mind and heart by the Spirit of Christ Jesus Who, as the Bridegroom, will someday return for His Bride and the consummation of His Kingdom.
- ME:
  Thanks for the comments. Some of my own thoughts in response:
  - "Fear" can have the meaning of respect - one constrains how one speaks in respect for others. The presence of another defines the ethical boundaries one sets for oneself.
  
  - Performance presents a whole host of issues that are worthy of further discussion. How and how much does one consider one's audience as an "other" to be respected as would be expected in human relationship?
  
  - The words "rape" and "kill" are not used in the same way as the f-word. That argument does not address my question. As I understand it, "evil" describes a basic breach of relationship between persons - an act is evil when it cannot be ordered to the good of the other person. Using a word is an act of communication; what is being communicated and why?
  
  - Why is it that the term "adult" so often describes what is actually immature? For example, an "adult" bookstore caters to those who lack the maturity to be sexually responsible [sexual responsibility meaning developing a mature relationship properly so that the persons therein may freely participate in "an act that can be jolly good mutual fun"]. I understand how an adult audience is expected to be mature enough to choose how to respond to information presented to them and mature enough as well to resist becoming malformed by that information. My concern is that too many people are NOT resisting such malformation more and more, becoming conformed to what is other than good.
  
  - I am aware of my own cultural bias [see my brother's comments above] in how I respond to the f-word. Given my desire to remain friends with those from diverse cultures, I am willing to risk being exposed to what other friends of mine may not be willing to tolerate. However, toleration has its limits and this discussion is intended to explore those limits. In writing that "It disgusts me how quite a number of you (you know who you are) use the f-word so much" I suppose I mean that I find it intolerable.

TO INTERVENE OR IGNORE: RESPONDING TO APPARENTLY IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS

2010-10-14T21:09:00.003-04:00

The following "conversation" happened on-line over a few days following a walk in a National Park with a friend:

ME:

Per our discussion in the park regarding responsible intervention - I am still pondering what you had to say, wondering whether it is ever right to ignore apparently irresponsible behavior. Acting to intervene is always risky, depending on one's relationship to the other. It often is a question of power and authority, is it not? Is one ever wise enough to determine how responsible another one might be?

March 23

- MY FRIEND:
  What's apparently irresponsible behavior? Every action is risky. It tramples on human dignity to take responsibility for their actions, unless they have given you that authority. By entering the park we gave the guards that authority. Were I a guard, I would prefer to warn instead of command and help people learn their limits rather than dictate limits.
  
  I think there's more dignity for us in that.
  March 24
- ME:
  How would "warning" be preferable to "commanding," especially if one is in a position of command? Helping people learn their limits is laudable, but is it possible without some determinative dication that is decisive in defining limitation? How can one be helpful if one's decisions are merely ideally-based opinons unrelated to real limits? The law of gravity is not subject to opinion; one falling from some height may get hurt.
  
  Help is related to humility. One humbles oneself in order to accept help. On the other hand, pride goeth before a fall.
  March 24
- ME:
  Pun intended.
  March 24
- MY FRIEND:
  Right. So I would accept the help after I broke my arm from the fall. The limit is defined by my mental and physical ability, which he does not know.
  
  He should have told me to put my shoes on too. I might have hurt my feet.
  March
- ME:
  I suppose it really is a matter of trusting those in positions of authority. Judgment is the duty of one trusted with authority. You seem to have found the judgment of this Park "person of authority" to be faulty in that he failed to judge us responsible enough to continue our apparently irresponsible behavior without some authoritative intervention. One wonders why he made that judgment, but more the wonder is why we should be so quick to second guess his authoritative judgement?
  
  Might the fault be more in our arrogant conceit than his authoritative command? Believe me, Lord knows I am no mild-mannered milquetoast always ready to be subject to those in authority - but meekness can be a virtue when one's heart is truly humble. To be able to submit to authority is something to which Christians are all called. To everything there is a season - a time to submit, a time to resist subjection.
  March 24
- ME:
  I suppose it is just frustrating to consider oneself fully responsible, then have to confront someone else who seems to not share that same consideration. My father taught me the following statement that may be relevant to this discussion: "Evil is the tertium quid of two autonomous minds." What good can come of a conflict of wills? How is compromise with integrity possible?
  March 24
- MY FRIEND:
  Is meekness submitting to authority?
  March 24
- ME:
  Meekness is being wise is one's action, considering well one's strength and weakness. The one who is strong must take care in how to exercise one's strength; the one who is weak must take care in exerting oneself. For example, just because one can act with great strength, does not mean one must - I have a loud voice, but I can control my volume so that I do not speak too loud (anyone who knows me is aware of how I continue to struggle with this - getting older doesn't mean I've matured as much as I've aged!). The more mature one becomes, the more one can control one's capabilities, constraining one's actions in accordance to one's conscience. Meekness is a sign of maturity.
  
  Our model for meekness, of course, is Christ Jesus himself. "He could have called ten thousand angels, but He died alone to set us free." Constrained by His great love for us, God in Christ considered death by crucifixion over conquest by human might. Philippians 2:8 tells us: "Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
  
  Imitating His example, we die to self so that we may love the other. Meekness helps us be wise in how we might heed the Word in Romans 13:1-5, which tells us:
  "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
  
  "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
  
  "Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."
  
  The chapter ends with these words:
  "Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts."
  
  Following the flesh is folly for we, created in the image of God and re-created according to the character of Christ, are more than flesh. By grace we can overcome the furor of the flesh to act responsibly toward others who provoke us, especially those in authority. That is what it means to be meek.
  March 25
- ME:
  Pray for me that I may learn meekness myself.
  March 25

Tolerance rather than hypocrisy

2010-09-27T20:00:00.002-04:00

Any public performance taking place in a pluralistic milieu presents one with the challenge of coping with differences of opinion concerning what is to be affirmed or opposed. Intolerance cannot stand opposition; the consequence is inevitably social conflict, that is, unwholesome relationship. Tolerance acknowledges opposition without causing social conflict, giving one the opportunity to remain in wholesome relationship with another who may not affirm that which one affirms oneself.

“If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.” This scriptural injunction (Romans 12:18, New American Bible) emphasizes how one, professing to be Christian, is to live with others. One continually considers how one is to be with another now. Such consideration demands that one decide whether or not one will remain with another or not; love answers, “yes, I will remain with you in peace.” Toleration is a loving way for one to remain with another when the other holds to different affirmations and oppositions. Others are to be “… accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives … .” This particular excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which happens to be taken from section 2358 giving the Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of homosexuality) may be considered an apt definition of tolerance that any Christian is called to follow.

Such relationship has risks involved, as any relationship will; one may influence the other over time so that one’s affirmations or oppositions are less firm than at first. This riskiness then requires that one remain in careful communication with the other so that both can come to a fuller understanding of what is being affirmed or opposed. In my own experience presently in the theatre community, I have had ample opportunity to practice tolerance in that I find myself at odds with dear friends whose lifestyle choices do not square with my Christian conscience; by being open in communication with them, I believe I have proven myself tolerant without being a hypocrite. I understand tolerance to be the ethical alternative to hypocrisy. To publicly affirm some virtue and oppose some vice without privately practicing that virtue or abstaining from that vice is hypocrisy.

The way of love (the way taught in Christian Ethics) involves toleration in that love hopes for what can be better in a relationship and works to bring what is better to pass. Intolerance terminates wholesome relationship, presuming that one’s own judgment is final, pronouncing a verdict one has no authority to make. Toleration opens the opportunity for something better to come to pass. One’s faith defines what one believes, one’s hope looks forward to that belief becoming reality, and one’s love enables one to tolerate life in the meantime.

Reflecting on "Borges and I"

2010-05-25T11:19:00.000-04:00

In a brief piece entitled "Borges and I," the writer points out how the other self turns one's own preferences "into the attributes of an actor." What is it, however, that one prefers?

The problem is not the acting but the objective of one's action - we are called to become "imitators of God." Without God's grace to breathe life into what we do, our imitative action is an empty performance, essentially absent rather than present. To say "I am" is presumptuous. There is only One who can truly utter those words. Rather we are called in Scripture to imitate the Pauline self-identification by saying, "By the grace of God I am what I am."

Truth may be the key. Perhaps when what one writes is true, than that which has been written may have been inspired by the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from God. All truth being God's truth, even the atheistic writer whose words are true may be breathing the Word of God, albeit unwittingly.

Fiction need not be falsehood. One’s story of seeing a sparrow may still carry truth in its telling even if one is pretending to have seen the sparrow. The pretense is problematic if one’s intention is to lie rather than to tell the truth. Consider the difference between acting in theatre and hypocrisy in personal presentation. Is one concealing rather than revealing what is true? This is what matters.

In the case of "Borges and I," the writer is careful to remain mindful of the difference between his person and his persona, the "me" of one's self and the "not-me" of the mask his words may have made from this same self. The confusion comes when one is confronted with the "not-not-me" created over time when the multitude of words remaining in one's memory begin to define one's personal image of oneself. This is where intimate relationship with others becomes very significant; those who know one best are most beneficial for revealing who one really is apart from who one may present oneself to be.

Truth identifies itself. One either recognizes truth or not. Truth may be concealed and then must be revealed in order to be known.

The elemental property of truth is coincidental with the ultimate authority of the Creator Himself. All truth is derived from what is ultimately and absolutely true. (The same can be said for all that is good, all that is beautiful, etc.) I do not mean some Platonic Ideal though it may seem like it. Right relationship with God really matters in making one's ideal correspond with what is real. Yet even when one may not be in right relationship, one may still, by the grace of God, express what is true.

The problem comes when one and others do not recognize why it is true. The consequence that may very well follow from this misrecognition will be something less than true. Thus is it possible that the quality of what one creates is commensurate with one's perception.

I believe truth is that which does the defining. What is the purpose of definition except to truly describe something so that it may be known? If a definition fails to describe something well, there is something false about the definition. Perhaps this has something to do with recognition – a definition makes most sense to us when we recognize it as describing something we have perceived/conceived ourselves. This object upon which I sit is a chair, a chair being an object designed/used for sitting.

Consider one's own face – each of us carry some idea of what we look like as an individual. Seeing oneself in a mirror presents one with as exactly true an image as one can have; representing that image becomes more and more problematic depending on the medium of representation, whether posed photograph, candid snapshot, painted portrait, quick sketch, or cartoonish caricature. One may more or less recognize the representation of oneself as being true. Others may agree or disagree with our assessment of the representation depending on how well they know us – again we see the significance of relationship in regard to truth.

Perhaps I am too taken with the idea of mimesis. Our call to become imitators of God is to be understood in the light of our being created in the image of God. This ultimate truth about ourselves defines who we are and who we must strive to present ourselves as being.

Disguise often depends on socially recognized conventions – even if one is unconventional. Social convention is often why someone may be presented as someone else; to discover the truth about such an imposter can be quite difficult (consider the movie CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). In this way it is interesting to re-read the essay writers complaint, "... my life is a flight and I lose everything, and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him."

THE DRAMA OF DOING WHAT CAN BE DONE ... HOPING IT OUGHT TO BE DONE

2010-05-20T16:46:00.000-04:00

I do what I can, hoping it is what ought to be done – therein lies the drama. This is what I posted as my FACEBOOK status on May 15, 2010. It sparked a number of comments from others.

I said in reply to a friend who asked about “the comedy” that the comedy can be seen in the folly of my ridiculous acts of self-righteousness. He responded, “hey – me too!”

A student then posted the following: “Who decides what ought to be done?” I found this to be an interesting question. My reply: If something OUGHT to be done, is such ought-ness defined prior to the deed or at the moment of the deed?

Priority implies order - toward what end is the deed to be done ordered? Christian moral philosophy contends that all moral action must be ordered to God. So one who would do what ought to be done will have decided to act in accordance with God's will. However, given one is a free moral agent, the one who decides what ought to be done is the one who wisely does the rightly-ordered deed or unwisely does otherwise. The actual deed will then be judged accordingly.

One's conscience comes into play as one considers what is just about to be done, what one is now doing, and what one has done already. Ideally, conscientious consideration will be critically consistent with the ultimate judgment to come to pass on the Last Day after all is said and done.

My son, Vincent, wrote, “I agree with you metaphysically, but my poor human brain doesn't think like that on a daily basis. ‘Ought’ is really more mundane. It seems that it's based on relationships. If we're honest with ourselves, we can see what the best thing to do is. And we know that if it isn't, then there is grace and we are ready to talk it out. Our conscience is wiser than we give it credit. Also, I find that it's important to be ready to admit that we, too immature, might not be able to decide and seek help in decisions. I mean, I only feel at peace when I feel my decisions are centered on Christ."

My immediate reply: “Exactly, Cenzo.” I think he have expressed it very well.
What we ought to do is indeed based on relationship.

The basic relationship to being human is, of course, one's relationship to God. Basic as well, however, is one's relationship to others; as I have often said before, there is always way to have a right relationship with anyone. What ought to be done depends on what is right for one's relationship with another.

Our conscience is wiser when well-formed. Relationships with others form who we become. One's conscience strives to conform one's actions to one's being. As one relates rightly with others, one will discover one's conscience is more consistently wise. Making wise decisions makes one more mature, more able to do what one ought to be done.

The student wrote that he agreed “nearly completely.” He wondered, however, whether we can “interpret His will without bias?” Going on, the student asked, “How can we know what He wills as the flawed beings that we are?” Then a qualified question, “can we assume to know the will of God?” The qualification, “barring divine intervention,” provoked this response from the first friend who responded to my original post, “Good thing barring divine intervention is unnecessary.” He continued, “You can't barr it or except it. Having a fallen human nature, knowledge of the will of God comes only through divine revelation – often through the mechanism of his Word and always through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.”

I answered that we can, by means of each one's conscience, always know our own will. Will we or will we not want to follow God's will? Being willing to do God's will puts us in the right mind to know God's will. We then trust God to help us discover what His will might be for us who are so willing. (Scripture speaks of this in a variety of ways - cf. John 3:21; 7:17; 8:43; also Daniel 12:10; Psalm 25:9; Hosea 14:9.)

One way to discern God's will is to seek the wise counsel of others. This helps counter whatever bias one may have in the effort to interpret what is right. God's grace keeps us alive despite the deadly folly towards which we are prone – that is sufficient intervention, don't you think? Expecting divine intervention to be the means of prevention is irresponsible. Flawed as we may be, we are still responsible for each thing we freely choose to do.

The student clarified his question by writing, “how can we do God’s will in the times when there is no obvious intervention?” Then he went on to write, “Seeking wise consul and being true to oneself, while also being true to the scripture ... this is the best route through which we flawed beings can attempt to do His will?”

To which I stated that God's will be done. That is a given without exception.

We have the opportunity to participate in doing God's will. That is grace. Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, our participation is impossible. Sin sets the bar before us, blinding us from seeing the way we ought to go; the crucial part Christ plays is essential to breaking through that sinful barrier so that we can play with Him before the throne of God. This is what the Word of God reveals and what we need to know so that we can live.

RIGHTS OF RELATIONSHIP

2010-05-03T15:51:00.000-04:00

To speak of rights is to bring into consideration relationship. Being human is to be in relationship with another. The responsibilities of relationship define the rights each person in that relationship can expect to have. Such expectation becomes the basis for demands one makes on the other in a particular relationship. Right relationship considers rights and responsibilites adhering to living in the same world with another living person. All power must be directed at promoting life lived well. The less well another is able to live, the more those more able to live must consider how well they are able to respond. The healthier a society, the more able all can share in acting responsibly toward those less able to live well.

Coming to a common understanding of marriage and the family must be a priority for anyone hoping to comprehend human rights. Human rights are much less abused in a society which does not fail to foster healthy marriages and families. Families function best in such a healthy society. Humans living together as a family have more intimate expectations of one another than will be found in other relationships found in human society; healthy families bond through how well these expectations are communicated and met. Marriage is central to human family - healthy society will have the best environment possible for any marriage to flourish.

Ethics is the way one lives with others. Christian Ethics is the way one lives beyond one's own ablity in living with others. The demands of Christian Ethics require one to be more responsible in relating rightly with others; one may even forego one's own rightful expectations in order to live well with others. Such self-sacrifice imitates the sacrifical life of Jesus Christ, who gave Himself up for the life of others. The Christian hope is that a life lived sacrifically for the sake of Christ will bring satisfaction beyond what can be expected from a more self-indulgent life that is much less considerate of others. The expectation of Christian ethics is that this way of life leads beyond death to eternal joy in the presence of God, in whom all humankind has been created.

A PERSONAL PAUSE FOR PONDERING

2010-05-03T09:02:00.000-04:00

Here he sits --

hat in hand,

heart on sleeve,

foot in mouth,

-- and hopes for grace ...

STANDING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER YET REMAINING APART

2010-05-03T08:50:00.000-04:00

A friend wrote that he was re-organizing his library and put Where We Stand, an Assemblies of God's textbook on doctrine, next to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He figured I would enjoy the humor in that shelving juxtaposition.

I responded:
Nice juxtaposition! I am mostly familiar with Freire through my study of August Boal (THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED) - Paulo Freire was a major influence on Boal’s teachings.

It is interesting to note that the A/G and Freire worked with very similar populations of people. The main difference was the perception of oppression. The A/G insisted and insists still that the major source of oppression was/is neither political nor educational but spiritual. I happen to agree and thus continue to prefer the A/G over other more politically-oriented institutions.

Why I like Boal's THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED is the practical approach to working with oppressed populations. I can apply my theological theory of theatre using his program of workshops and interactive performance. It is challenging not because of Marxist theory behind Boal's theatre but the "Marxists" who put Boal's program into practice - in working with these practitioners I have to call on God's grace to help me not be the one who brings too much friction into our working relationship. I have come to appreciate what they can teach me and hope that they have learned something reflecting God's grace from me.

My friend commented:
While I agree with elements of Freire's "praxis," I don't necessarily agree with his world-view. I found his concept of teacher as facilitator and fellow student quite profound. The symbiotic relationship of student and teacher as co-learner and co-educator is, in my opinion, a better philosophy of education than the teacher as expert.

I responded:
I, too, find the cooperative nature of teaching and learning to be profound. Willi Marxen, commenting on Philippians 3:17 [in which is found Paul's Greek coinage summimetai from which I coined symmimesis to describe my theology of theatre],considers mimetes as "one who shapes further" and reasons the "only people who have been shaped themselves and pass on their received shape through their own acts of shaping are mimetai." This idea is behind my concept of symmimesis, performance in the company of one another whereby one's performance shapes the persona of the other while becoming shaped personally by the other's performance, the whole peformance being done before an audience of One who shapes all things according to His own will.

Perhaps this is the difference between a mimete and a hypocrite. Both Greek words could refer to an actor but the latter word came to be associated with deception, action which concealed rather than revealed character. Might one's willingness to be shaped by another matter in how one acts in the presence of another? The less I am willing to be open to you knowing/forming/reforming who I am, the more I will tend towards hypocrisy. Teachers unwilling to learn from students or stubborn in refusing to step aside while another teaches may well be the worse for it.

A post that looks at "e-books" and real books ... e-vil vs. good?

2010-05-03T08:22:00.000-04:00

I am one who likes the looks of books,
is amused by amazing music,
and finds fellowship

with friends and family

refreshing!

How can anyone who does love books
consider the faddish phenomenom of

"e-books"

a good thing?

Let's resist the lure of "convenience"

and "portability" and "capacity"

with which we are being tempted

to go and buy into

this bibliotechnical masquerade.

I know my quest is quixotic (even my own brother has succumbed to e-vil e-books), but I am ever hopeful that the practice of buying real books at real bookstores will not become extinguished by the convenience of buying "books" bit by bit so that some screen becomes one's illusory "library."
As a public service, I offer the following link:
MOBYLIVES » Do ereaders harm your eyes?
mhpbooks.com

Consider this as well:
Devices like the iPad and the Kindle are a wholly new kind of thing—they function like bookshelves that reject all books except those the manufacturer has blessed. Publishers today worry that retailers like Wal-Mart might control too much of their business—and rightly so. But imagine how much more precarious things would be if Wal-Mart sold bookcases that were programmed to do what the iPad and Kindle do—refuse to hold books bought in other stores, and by canceling Wal-Mart's account, your publishing house would lose access to any customer who didn't have the desire to throw out their Wal-Mart bookcases or Wal-Mart–approved books, or room to add another brand of bookcase. http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/456751-Can_You_Survive_a_Benevolent_Dictatorship_.php

A friend responded by writing:
"Totally agree. I hate reading books on screens, not only can I feel my eyes slowly falling to pieces, but I love the feel of having a book in my hands... cracking the spine for the first time or the smell of a well-loved favorite... all necessary parts of the book-reading experience in my opinion."

I found interesting the phrase "book-reading experience." Also interesting to consider -- what is necessary to be part of "the book-reading experience"?

Anyone who has visited anywhere I have ever lived knows how books figure prominently in my life; the house where my family now lives is certainly no exception (as my witty wife -- long-suffering as she has been for 25 years putting up with my book habit -- likes to quip, "We need no insulation in our walls - the bookcases lining every wall in the house have enough books to do the job just as well!"). I cannot imagine some "e-book" kindling in my heart the joy real books bring to me. My experience of books goes beyond reading, so my response to the cybernetic simplification of "the book-reading experience" comprehends much more than merely "reading" the written word. I understand how some are thrilled by economic convenience, but is there not more to life than that?

INSPIRATION & THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

2010-04-30T12:05:00.000-04:00

Visit this web-site, then post your response here. I challenge you, however, to be charitable in what you write.

McNaughton Fine Art

www.mcnaughtonart.com

I found this painting through a web-site that ridiculed it. The ridicule troubled me but so did the work of the artist - by work I mean both the visual and written aspects. I am not ashamed to be fervently in favor of the idea of America articulated so well in our Constitution.

I do wonder, however, if this piece of work crosses the line between idea and idolatry. The idea of America must not be what one worships.

RESPONSE FROM A FRIEND:

I don't see it as idolatry...I did question his remark that the constitution was inspired of God...but I think it is rather a matter of semantics. The whole painting is symbolic and I think it gives a pretty good picture of where we've been and where we could be going. At least it gives food for thought! Thanks for posting, Craig.

Craig Tavani wrote:

I have wondered myself whether or not "the constitution was inspired of God." This brings into question what "inspiration" means.

I believe right relationship is the means by which God's breath is fully present - one on one, we each are responsible for inspiring the other, like a perfectly functioning lung system. Our first act as a human being, once we are born, is to breathe. Why should the new birth be any different? Breathing is what those born again are called to do - new life, new breath (once choked by sin, now free from death). Breathe in, breathe out - me, you. If our relationship is not right, we slowly suffocate one another.

The letter is dead, the Spirit is life. What is written in the Constitution codifies the freedom that ought to be the atmosphere in which we live and move and have our being. The Constitution does not grant us freedom; freedom is a gracious gift of God to all humanity - this is what is declared in the charter that initiated what became the United States of America. The Constitution must be understood in that context.

Misunderstanding this will choke us to death.

"US" & "THEM"

2010-04-30T11:10:00.000-04:00

The "us" and "them" mentality troubles me.

We have got to come to grips with

the relational implications of being "in the world, but not of it."

To be friends with sinners yet not sin was exemplified in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. What it means to be a friend is as significant to faithful doctrine as anything else in theology; we are foolish to think we understand the word "fellowship" if we fail to comprehend "friendship."

I wonder if the "holiness" movement suffered from this sociological flaw, being so intent on teaching separation from sin that it sowed seeds detrimental to healthy society. The proper pursuit of holiness challenges us to consider personal relationship with God AND others - we are to love the One God in Heaven AND the many others God has created to be in the world with us.

One result is that we, who may participate in some faulty concept of holiness, group ourselves together apart from "worldly" society, then are faced with the human task of ordering the society of our separated group. We may speak about the Spirit moving us to order ourselves to God, but the politics involved in our particular polity sure seem similar to how politics play out in the world. I am sickened by this apparently inevitable process that has played itself out throughout Church history.

Will we never learn? I do not want to play by the rules of this world, but we must figure out a better way to participate in the political ordering of our society. It is not "us" versus "them" but all of us before God who loved the world in coming among us to live, die, and be resurrected to new life so that we can be with Him to live without death determining our destiny.

My brother quipped:
"How far did Jesus chase that rich young man?"

My reply:
Cute, Nick. However, consider how Jesus behaved while the young man was with Him.

Why must every human encounter be viewed from the perspective of what happens after people leave? Should we not rather study what is going on while people are together? Society is not made up of a group of strangers because any number of persons stop being strangers once they encounter one another. This encounter then begins the relationship of which society is the consequence.

We fail to keep a coherent society because we operate from a position of estranged enmity rather than friendly fellowship. This is not good.

POLITICAL POTSHOTS

2010-04-29T09:46:00.000-04:00

A friend’s recent post on FACEBOOK caught my attention, (as such postings usually do). I followed the link (http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/rush-limbaugh-questions-glenn-becks-objective-in-keynote-speech/) and discovered the following posted under comments to the article and post it here because the writer articulates better than I can a frustration I have with the Democratic Party (I am uncomfortable with using the word "hatred" on such a public forum, but I must admit that I have spoken like this in private, so I leave it unedited - please forgive me any offence):

Azarkhan says: February 23, 2010 at 10:51 am

For those on the left who “can’t figure out the point” Rush and Mark Levine are making, let me explain it to you.

Like me, they have a deep and abiding hatred of the Democratic Party and its sympathizers. Over the years we have seen the Democratic Party lie, cheat, deceive, and exhibit outright contempt for the law, all the while exhibiting a sanctimonius, “holier then thou” attitude. In their arrogance, the Democrats refuse to even entertain the notion that perhaps, just perhaps, some of their prescriptions for America may be wrong.

The words of a professor who witnessed the 1968 student takeover at Columbia University are equally valid today:

“Again and again one is struck by the posture of complete self-righteousness and of unyielding moral absolutism in the attitudes and actions of the radical leaders. “I am totally right and completely moral, and you-if you disagree with me-are absolutely wrong and wicked….You have no rights that I must respect, and you must agree to accept everything I demand….” ”

These same radicals later disrupted the Democratic convention in Chicago and finally, in 1972, with the McGovern candidacy, took over the Democratic Party. Although they have grown older, their juvenile insistence on moral absolutism has never left them. This secular fanaticism is displayed by the radical Democrats in the House and Senate and their allies in various media outlets, ranging from the New York Times to the Daily Kos.

This is why many conservatives do not agree with Glenn Beck’s attack on Republicans. While the Republicans may indeed be corrupt, they are not a threat to the Constitution or our individual freedoms.

On the other hand, the Democrats are “true believers” who will stop at nothing in their drive to impose their values on American society. For the Democrats, the Constitution is a hindrance, a mere scrap of paper to be ignored whenever circumstances dictate. And the only individual freedoms they recognize is their “freedom” to do whatever is necessary, legal of illegal, moral of immoral, to impose their will on the majority.

My friend, in reply, wrote:

“… it truly amazes me, how similar both sides rant at each other. Liberals "fee" that Conservatives are the ones who try to ram their moral, "holier than thou" beliefs on the rest of us. I find the comment almost satirical, though I realize it was meant to be serious.

I seldom meet a Liberal or Progressive who is sure of anything, that is the problem, there is no "one" way, opinion or any kind of "group think", unlike the litmus test being touted by Conservatives.

It is the Democrats who insist on preserving our personal liberties and rights. Republicans preserve the liberty and rights of those they agree with or want to change.

To clarify, I was not confused by what Limbaugh was saying, but HOW he said, the sentence lacked substance, was confusing and seeemed to use circular syntax.

To feel "hatred" for a political party seems to me a very sad thing. I may disagree with conservative politics, and I certainly dislike bush, cheney and the rest, and feel they were disrespectful of the American people and our Constitution, but I blame each of them for their personal actions not the "party".

There is no room for conversation across a chasm, and beck, limbaugh, rove and the rest have no interest in building a bridge, it is their way, or no way. That is why they spend all their time spreading falsehoods and attempting to discredit the logical and diplomatic efforts of our President.

President Obama is the repudiation of 8 years of conservative politics. The economic collapse is the culmination of "small government, less taxes". I hope that enough Liberals will stop sipping their chardonny and remember that and get out and vote. Unfortunately, history tells us that the mid-term election after a Presidential election almost always goes to the opposition.

Here is my reply:

You and I seem to agree on the common goal of "preserving our personal liberties and rights." We, without doubt, disagree on which political party is more insistent on doing so. Hypocrites and fools populate all parties, so all can be targets of satiric critique.

Personally, I would rather our discussion be more focused on coming to a better understanding of what is implied in "preserving our personal liberties and rights." Sniping at political opponents muddies the waters. Caring conversation calls for clarity rather than discombobulative wisecracks and ad hominem attacks.

My point in posting the previous comment regarding my frustration with the Democratic Party was to give some historical perspective to my contemporary views. You continually complain about the last 8 years prior to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. My complaint comprehends a time beyond that back to the 60's when I first became involved in the political process with my parents in Richard Nixon's first presidential campaign (it is interesting to note that the catch-phrase at the time to describe "us" was "the Silent Majority"). I went through a hyper-conservative phrase in the '80s while serving as an Army officer under President Reagan while he led the world against the evil of communism and shook up the political establishment with his popular conservatism; at the time I was an avid suscriber to the National Review and even had very close connections to those in the Christian Reconstructionist movement whose Dominion theology dominated much Evangelical political thought.

What happened, however, was that, while stationed in Germany, I became very close friends with non-Americans whose philosophy and politics differed greatly from my own. These intimate friendships eventually reformed how I thought and how I communicated my thinking in conversation. My reformation continued as I worked in the Episcopal Church while a seminarian at a Pentecostal institution - the wide variety of my relationships required much further reformation of thought and character in me.

I can go on, but let me just say that I like to think I am still undergoing reformation. I am very hopeful that my desire for right relationship disciplines my drive for righteous society. Athough sometimes my sympathy for certain political viewpoints may seem repulsive to you, please realize that I DO NOT allow politics to be the grid according to which I live and move and have my being. I hope I am always ready to reform myself according to what is right rather than remain rooted in some wrong-minded reputation of my own making.

WikiCatachism

2010-04-27T11:41:00.001-04:00

This idea of a WikiCatechism fits well with the Catecatch-as-you-can theological chaos of contemporary society. I continuously challenge my students to consider carefully a "me-oriented" magesterial mindset that insists on following a malformed conscience.

WikiCatechism — The Curt Jester

www.splendoroftruth.com

WikiCatechism is a collaboratively edited catechism to which you can contribute your own theological viewpoint. Wiki is a piece of server-based software that allows users to create and edit catechism pages using any web browser.

JUDGMENT = GRACE/TRUTH

2010-04-26T16:32:00.000-04:00

In class today we discussed some of the ethical issues which students found provacative. I reminded the class before-hand to keep in mind that all judgment must incorporate both truth and grace. Our class discussion did well in modelling this - everyone showed one another friendly respect in considering all that was said.

The intended end of judgment is joy. Gracious truth/true grace infuses all aspects of righteous judgment. According to Revelation 20:11-15, at the Last Judgment when all humanity appears before the Great White Throne with One sitting there ready to judge everyone from the great to the lowly, there will be two books. All will be judged according to their deeds as recorded in the Book of Deeds; however, anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life is to undergo what Scripture calls "the second death." Consider the Book of Deeds as a record of Truth which discloses all things with nothing remaining hidden from being known; consider the Book of Life as a guarantee of Grace which is made possible through the Crucified Christ now resurrected to sit on the throne of judgment (cf. Revelation 3:5; also Matthew 10:32-33).

We carry the power of judgment with us in living now. When face to face with another, the subseqent relationship must reflect the righteous judgment to come - gracious truth must define the interaction that takes place and true grace must remain foremost in provoking one another, not to wrathful wickedness, but to loving-kindness.

[See Hebrews 12-13 for one way Scripture describes such a lifestyle.]

Fool of Wisdom

2010-04-01T00:21:00.000-04:00

MOROSOPHIA

(foolosophy: foolish wisdom of God)

This fellow's wise enough

to play the fool.

TWELFTH NIGHT, IIIi:61

I turned my mind to understand,

to investigate,
to search out
wisdom

and the scheme of things.

I turned my mind to understand
the stupidity of wickedness and
the madness of folly.

Applying myself to the understanding of wisdom

as well as of madness and folly,

I learned that
this is a chasing after the wind.

My mind still guiding me with "wisdom,"
I tried cheering myself with wine,
and embracing folly.
Loose laughter, however, is foolish.
What does such pleasure accomplish?

wisdom.

OUTWEIGHS

A little folly

Was ever one wiser than one's own weak wit?

Why would one ever dare to think, "Try it?"

When one's world is found empty,
God's word proves itself full.

Was one ever so wise to not fail as a fool?

There is more hope for a fool

than one wise in one's own eyes.

A proverb in the mouth of a fool

hangs limp.

Answer not a fool according to his folly

lest you become

like a fool yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly

lest, in his own eyes,

he become wise.

Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning

and

even among fools

she lets herself be known.

Folly is loud

undisciplined

without knowledge.

Sitting at the highest point in the city,

Folly calls out to those who pass by:

"Let all who are simple come here! "

To all who lack judgment,

Folly says,

"Stolen water is sweet;

food eaten in secret is delicious!"

But little do they know

that the dead are there;

the guests of Folly

are in the depths of the grave.

The wise in heart accept commands,

but a chattering fool

comes to ruin.

The wise store up knowledge,

but the mouth of a fool

invites ruin.

Whoever conceals one's hatred

has lying lips,

and whoever spreads slander

is a fool.

The lips of the righteous nourish many,

but fools die for lack of judgment.

The one who brings trouble on one's family

will inherit the wind,

and the fool will be servant to the wise.

The way of a fool

seems right to him,

but a wise man listens to advice.

A fool shows his annoyance at once,

but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself,

but the hearts of fools blurt out folly.

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge,

but a fool exposes his folly.

A longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul,

but fools detest turning from evil.

He who walks with the wise grows wise,

but a companion of fools suffers harm.

The wise woman builds her house,

but with her own hands

the foolish one tears her house down.

A fool's talk brings a rod to his back,

but the lips of the wise protect them.

Stay away from a foolish man,

for you will not find knowledge

on his lips.

The wisdom of the prudent

is to give thought to their ways,

but the folly of fools is deception.

Fools mock at making amends for sin,

but good will is found among the upright.

Even in laughter the heart may ache

and joy may end in grief.

A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil,

but a fool is hotheaded and reckless.

The simple inherit folly,

but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

The wealth of the wise is their crown,

but

the folly of fools yields folly.

A patient man has great understanding,

but a quick-tempered man displays folly.

A fool spurns his father's discipline,

but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.

The lips of the wise spread knowledge;

not so the hearts of fools.

Death and Destruction lie open to the LORD

- how much more the hearts of men!

The discerning heart seeks knowledge,

but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Folly delights one who lacks judgment,

but a man of understanding keeps a straight course.

Understanding is a fountain of life

to those who have it,

but folly brings punishment to fools.

For a fool

HONOR

is unfitting.

A longing fulfilled

is sweet to the soul,

yet the fool is determined

to return to his folly.

PLAYER IN THE WAY

2010-03-29T23:49:00.000-04:00

(written July 1984)

touch their eyes, player

let them see the truth

watch their mouths

to see they understand

stand up there and wave

draw their full attention

be jealous, player

grab them 'til they have no choice

they want to pay for pain or pleasure

make them wait in line

tell them what they think they want

then give them what you have

stand in front now, player

they're already watching you

they would chase you if you ran

you lead them either way

you die at either end

player, tell the people what you know

what they don't yet understand

what words have made seem obvious

as though the truth was simple

yet when the time comes to decide

all the choices trip them up and so a player acts it out

showing how its done but not quite why

player, you are different

what you say and do is new

people are surprised to hear this news

and shocked to watch you act it out

the others never bled before

the others never died like that

but that was then, not now

not after one man died and lived like God.

you're the player now

they're watching you

words are not enough for them

there's too much noise to hear them

not that they matter

you have a new priority

its in the script

this new play starts with death

what you play has been done before

but always by somebody else

this time, the act is yours

your play starts with death ...

that's where life comes in.

ARE YOU WILLING TO SUFFER EVIL RATHER THAN DO IT?

2010-03-29T15:08:00.000-04:00

Jesus "suffered evil rather than do it" (as William Mays comments in the chapter on VERITATIS SPLENDOR in his book AN INTRODUCTION TO MORAL THEOLOGY). The emphasis is on how one's moral act, what one actually chooses to do, defines one's moral being, who one really is. Deciding to suffer evil is morally superior to deciding to avoid suffering. One who enjoy's doing God's will is always conscientiously willing to do ONLY what is good given one's hope to remain in the joy of the Lord on the Day of Judgment (cf. Hebrews 12:1-29). Such joy is evident in how Jesus overcame ANY temptation to not go through with the crucifixion by consistently praying to his Father God, "Not my will, but Thy will be done" (see the Passion Narratives in the Gospels).

We read in Acts 17:16-34 how Paul preached Jesus and the Resurrection among the idolatrous Athenians. It is especially interesting to note that Paul quoted a pagan philosopher to make his point that "In him [God] we live and move and have our being." This God is unknown apart from the person and work of the resurrected Christ (cf. Acts 17:22-23, 30-31).

Given who we are in God ("created ... in his image," Genesis 1:27), we ought to do what is consistent with such a character. Christians consider the character of Christ to be the perfect example to which we can conform by faith enacted through each thing we decide to do. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to enjoy God's grace, being and doing that which is pleasing to God.

CHRISTIAN ATHEISTS? or rather "IGNOSTICS"?

2010-03-23T11:35:00.000-04:00

Recent discussion has considered the phenomenon of "Christian Atheists," described as those whose professed belief has little or no bearing on how they actually live.

Belief always has a bearing on one's life. What one believes is not determined by adjectives but actions. Calling someone/something "Christian" is merely nominalism. The proof of piety is in the performance - what one actually does defines what one really believes. If one examines one's conscience, one will be confronted with any discrepancy between alleged belief and actual behavior. The Holy Spirit cooperates with such self-examination to lead one to repentance and on to perfection in Christ.

Rather than labeling them "Christian Atheists," perhaps one might call those who profess to be Christian yet ignore this leading of the Spirit "Ignostics."

SURELY NOT I?

2010-03-22T10:28:00.000-04:00

RATHER THAN BEING FOUND FULL OF FICKLE FOLLY,

LET US BE FORTIFIED BY THE FULNESS OF THE SPIRIT

TO FOCUS ON BECOMING

A FAITHFUL FOOL FOR CHRIST

Maundy Thursday

April 1st, 2010

[Narrator tells what is taking place,
quoting the account of the Last Supper in Matthew’s Gospel (26:20-25)]

NARRATOR: Now … [Several robed figures enter to take places around altar table.]

when evening came, [Last figure enters, hooded in white, centered before the table with back to congregation.]

Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.

As they were eating, He said, [HOODED FIGURE gestures toward others.]

HOODED FIGURE: "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."

NARRATOR: Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him,

"Surely not I, Lord?" [This same line is spoken by each one in turn.

Figures on stage then exit, except hooded figure. ]

HOODED FIGURE: [Turns to face congregation to reveal MINISTER wearing red nose.]

"Surely not I?" [MINISTER removes red nose before continuing.]

What a strange form of question!

A negative answer seems not only hopefully expected, but fervently requested.

The disciples each appear to plea, “Please, Lord, assure me of my faithfulness!”

Such sad disbelief!

The deep sense of vulnerability surrounding this question was tragically exposed as true in the last hours of Jesus’ life.

No disciple of Jesus was much of a model for faithfulness.

Each disciple failed in some way to follow faithfully.

Judas betrayed Jesus.

Peter, having boldly boasted with such bravado about his fervent faithfulness, denied knowing his Lord three times.

Not one of the Twelve even attended to Jesus’ body after the crucifixion!

All of them had fled from the Garden of Gethsamane, finding out just how foolish it was to base their faith on the false foundation of their own fickle fortitude.

These fallen followers had yet to realize their utter need for the fullness of the Spirit.

"Surely not I?" Was this a faithful question … or a foolish boast?

[Suddenly someone wearing a jester’s cap appears in the back of the sanctuary.]

CLOWN: "Surely not I, Lord?"

[CLOWN continues, sometimes humming on kazoo, marching about energetically.

MINISTER responds at will.]

Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.”

He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.

There you have it. Plans were made to kill me as well as Jesus.

[Throughout the following, there will be interplay between CLOWN & MINISTER]

You may call me Laz, or even Lazzi, if you like. My given name is Lazarus – yes, the same Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. Ever since that day, it seems to me that God has put me on theatrical display. I have been made a spectacle to the whole universe!

MINISTER: Why?

LAZ: Because I was foolish enough to give a true account of what Jesus did for me. People were going over to Jesus because I told them that he had raised me from the dead. You may think I am a fool and so I am. I am a fool for Christ! Whose fool are you?

[MINISTER may respond.]

LAZ: I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness.

MINISTER: But, we are already doing that.

LAZ: You, however, are looking only on the surface of things.

MINISTER:* Some here are saying, as wordy as you are, you really are unimpressive in person; even if you are Lazarus, all your talk doesn’t amount to much.

LAZ: I may not be a trained speaker, but I do know what is what.

Don’t deceive yourselves: If anyone of you think you are wise, by what standard are you making such judgment? If by the standards of this age, then you, too, should become a “fool” so that you may become wise!

The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.

MINISTER: So what are you doing here? It surely looks like some boastful masquerade.

LAZ: What I am doing here is not intended to be some boastful masquerade. I make no deceitful claims; this is no mere act. Let no one take me for a fool.

MINISTER:* It’s way too later for that.

LAZ: But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting myself.

MINISTER: You’re starting to sound a bit worldly as well as wordy.

LAZ: Since so many out there are boasting in the way the world does, I’ll boast, too.

MINISTER: You expect us to put up with that?

LAZ: You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!

In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face.

To my shame I admit that I am too weak for that!

MINISTER: Point well taken.

LAZ: Yet, what anyone else dares to boast about – I am speaking as a fool – I also dare to boast about.

MINISTER: Do you know what you are up against?

LAZ: Whatever they say they are, I am more.

MINISTER:* You’re out of your mind!

LAZ: I am out of my mind to talk like this.

MINISTER: But look what they have going for them.

LAZ: Are they servants of Christ? Are they “Christ’s ambassadors”? I am.

[CLOWN breaks into song.]

We are Christ’s ambassadors, and our colors we will unfurl.

We all wear a spotless robe, clean and righteous before the world.

We know we’ve been cleansed from sin, and that Jesus dwells within.

Proving duly that we’re truly, Christ’s ambassadors!

Proving duly (slap knees, snap fingers, clap hands) that we’re truly (repeat slap, snap, clap),

Christ’s ambassa -, Christ’s ambassa-, Chri-i-i-i-st’s am-bas-sa-do-o-o-o-rs!

[Pause for applause … or not.]

MINISTER: So, what else can we expect from a true ambassador of Christ?

LAZ: You can expect me to be BOLD, … especially toward those people who think it’s fine to live by the standards of this world.

MINISTER: Don’t forget that you still live in this world.

LAZ: However, just because I live in this world, I don’t go about waging war as the world does. No, the “weapons” with which I fight are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, I have the power to demolish strongholds! I demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God; I take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

In this self-confident boasting, I know I don’t sound like one following the true way …

MINISTER: You sound like a fool.

LAZ: If I sound like a fool, so be it. And do you know why?

MINISTER: Because you are a fool?

LAZ: No! Because of the Gospel message! The message of the cross!

MINISTER: So that’s your excuse?

LAZ: The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. God was pleased through the foolishness of the gospel to save those who believe, since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom cannot know him.

MINISTER: You are beginning to sound a bit ant-intellectual.

LAZ: Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Did not God say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent will I frustrate”?

MINISTER:* What about those who came here expecting to be shown something?

LAZ: Some of you may demand something spectacular, some demand a witty show of wise words. But what I have to say is simply this:

death is overcome through Jesus Christ.

MINISTER: That sounds simple enough.

LAZ: This simple message is a stumbling block to those demanding miracles, foolishness to those wanting wisdom.

MINISTER:* But what is it to us?

LAZ: To those of us whom God has called, just as Jesus called me from the grave, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

MINISTER: That’s not fooling around!

LAZ: Indeed – for the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

MINISTER:* So we go around looking like weak fools and that’s supposed to be good news?

LAZ: It is good news, because in our weakness God is strong.

MINISTER:* And we end up troubled on every side!

LAZ: Yet not distressed.

MINISTER:* We become perplexed!

LAZ: But not in despair.

MINISTER:* We’ll be persecuted!

LAZ: But not forsaken.

MINISTER:* Cast down!

LAZ: But not destroyed.

No, while we live we can expect to always face death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus might be manifested in our own mortality. I know that, just as the Lord Jesus raised me from the dead, God raised Jesus after dying on the cross, and so shall all who receive His Spirit, as my sister Martha confessed, be raised up in the Resurrection.

MINISTER:* So folly and death becomes a daily part of life?

LAZ: It already has. Now, however, because of the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of expecting deadly folly, everyone of us can fully experience His Resurrection as a Way of Life.

[singing] I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me though he were dead,

Yet shall he live, yet shall he live; For whosoever liveth and believeth in me

Shall never, never die!

Do you believe this? [CLOWN exits. Further remarks per speaker’s discretion.]

MINISTER: Paul wrote to the church in Corinth [1 Corinthians 1:18-31]:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. …

…consider your calling, brothers and sisters, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

Surely not I, Lord? [Pause.]

“Surely God is my salvation;

I will trust and not be afraid.”^{(Isaiah 12:2)}

Amen.

REMARKS:

The presentation should be playfully performed with serious intent. The theme is FOLLY & FOLLOWING JESUS.

The presiding MINISTER plays the part of the HOODED FIGURE. It is up to the discretion of the MINISTER as to how many others are to participate in the performance. It may be preferable to have others speak lines of the MINISTER (marked by *) from the congregation. The presentation requires a minimum of two people, including the MINISTER. With only two, the beginning can be modified to have only the HOODED FIGURE present on stage while lines of the NARRATOR are spoken by the CLOWN off-stage.

The CLOWN claims to be Lazarus, the same person raised from the dead by Jesus. Prior to his death recorded in the Bible, Lazarus may well have been quite a serious person. After being raised, however, might his perspective have been greatly tempered by a hilarious sense of humor? Though he seriously reveres the truth of what he proclaims, the hilarity of his proclamation may seem irreverent to those who hear and see him.

Imagine that, after Jesus called him out of the grave, Lazarus never died, but lived on and on through century after century. Adjusting to changing times, Laz’s way of survival may have been to play the part of the fool, associating with other clowns, jesters, and troupes of traveling actors in every period of history since the time of Christ. This would imitate the reputation Jesus had himself, who was said to eat with publicans and sinners, just the type of folk reputed to fool around in theatre!

ZanniTAVANI, stands above all for truth

and the right to laugh

in the foolish face of failure.

a prating fool

2010-03-22T10:25:00.000-04:00

… a prating fool shall fall.

Pr 10:8

Is there one who talks idly at length,

chattering on and on to little or no purpose,

uttering empty trivialities,

excessive babble bubbling forth

like froth on the ebb and flow of ocean tides,

talking, talking, talking,

with no consideration for common courtesy nor prudent perspective,

ignoring any signals of objection from those doomed to audit

this endless stream of vapid consciousness,

each clacking word crowding into the next bit of twaddling palaver

which happens to gab nonsensically from one’s ever-moving mouth

making jabbering sounds of gibberish,

blab, blab, blab,

naught but gabble, chat and twaddle?

That one is a fool.

What is Just War Theory?

2010-03-15T10:41:00.000-04:00

Friday, October 2, 2009 at 9:20pm

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=158627274752&id=1276092212&ref=nf

What is Just War Theory?

By Kenneth Richard Samples

Through the centuries Christian thinkers have taken different positions on the controversial subject of war. Three broad theories concerning the morality of war for the Christian can be identified: activism, pacifism, and selectivism. Activism asserts that it is virtually always right to participate in war. Strict pacifism insists that it is never morally right to partake in war. Selectivism argues that it is sometimes right to take part in war.

Just war theory is a type of selectivism contending that while war is always tragic and often evil, it is sometimes morally right, just, and practically necessary. Some leading Christian advocates of just war theory have included Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and Francisco Suarez (1548-1617). Just war theory involves two main moral categories of evaluation.

Jus ad bellum (Justness of War)

Concerning the moral justness of waging war, a just war must conform to the following moral considerations:

A Just War will:

* Be waged by a legitimate authority (government or state, not private individuals)
* Reflect moral deliberation (last resort after sincere diplomacy)
* Have probability of success (reasonable belief that victory can be achieved)
* Have a just cause (e.g., defense of innocents and freedom against direct aggression)
* Be just in intent (establish peace, freedom, justice; not unlimited destruction of the enemy)

Jus in bello (Justice in war)

Concerning the conduct of war, strategy and tactics must be just:

A Just War will be conducted:

* With proper proportionality (sufficient, but not excessive force will be used; good should outweigh evil)
* With proper discrimination (noncombatants [civilians or innocents] should not be targeted)

Just war theory has been criticized for various reasons through the years (e.g., by failing to appreciate the benefits of a preemptive strike, being unrealistic in its moral expectations, being practically unworkable), yet it nevertheless remains the most commonly accepted position among Christian thinkers when it comes to evaluating the moral considerations of waging war.

For further study on the ethics of war, see John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 3rd ed. (P&R Publishing, 2004) and J. P. Moreland and Norman L. Geisler, The Life and Death Debate (Praeger, 1990).

DEEP DESIRE RIGHTLY ORDERED TO GOD

2010-03-10T10:39:00.000-05:00

Disordered desire becomes the seed of sin. It is when by one’s own deep desire [epithumia] one is carried away and enticed, that one is then tempted (see James 1:14-15). The deep desire is not the sin; even Jesus had such desire. We read in Luke 22:14-20, "With desire I have desired [epithumia epithumāsa] to eat this Passover with you before I suffer ..." Jesus was not, however, driven by such desire; he, the ever-obedient Son, rather ordered his desire toward doing the will of God the Father.

This right ordering of desire is put in particular perspective in Luke 22:39-46, where we read:
Jesus …proceeded as was His custom to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples also followed Him.
When He arrived at the place, He said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation."
And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."
...And being in agony He was praying very fervently ... .
When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow,and said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation."

Jesus gives us the perfect example of "One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). We read in Hebrews 5:7-8, "In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered."

Fervent Prayer was the life-long practice of piety by which Jesus became able to suffer temptation without yielding to temptation. Essentially what Jesus simply said was this, "Father in Heaven, not my will, but Yours be done."

ONLY US, KEPT ALIVE BY GRACE

2010-03-09T13:04:00.000-05:00

Diverse as we may be, there ought be no division. We must be careful not to let whatever we may think we know excuse our stubborn separation, but rather let the way we love overcome our enmity towards one another. There is no "us" and "them" - only us, kept alive by grace. God keeps us in this world together until the Day of Judgment, when our destiny thereafter will fully be revealed. Until then, life remains darkly mysterious except for what light may be revealed to us through the word and work of Christ. That word is spoken as the Holy Spirit gives utterance, and the work is done as that same Spirit enables our cooperation.

Becoming more mature by wisely willing to do what is good

2010-03-02T15:25:00.000-05:00

Wisdom functions as a matter of maturity. The wise person is one who conscientiously chooses well continuously for this is what will make one more mature (cf. Hebrews 5:14). Maturity comes with time and experience. Over time, one’s experience is accumulative – choice after choice is made with certain consequences following. The immature fool chooses poorly, resisting wisdom’s discerning drive for doing good. Thus is doing what is good related to being wise. One hopes that age will fix the folly of youth, but one need not wait on age to begin acting wisely now. It is the way of wisdom to be determined to discover and remember what is good so that one may rightly choose to do only that which is good.

Consider Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden: the Tree of the Knowledge of good and bad/evil appeared desirable for gaining wisdom. Appearances can be deceiving if one’s attention is fixed on the wrong thing. It would have been good to keep attending to the Lord's quite explicit word regarding to do. Yet, the serpent slyly focused attention elsewhere so that they acted in contradiction to conscience - in how they hid in shame when the LORD came looking for them!

The attempt to know the thoughts of another person is merely speculative without the other’s cooperation. One must depend on what the other reveals, trusting the other’s word to be sincere. It is impossible to judge the intentions of another person, for we can only observe one’s actions, not one’s thoughts. The function of one’s conscience is to observe one’s own thinking so that it can be compared with one’s actions. We cannot make any claim for another person’s conscience.

The Word of God is the measure for what good means. What is good is good because God declares it to be good. To see things from God’s perspective requires that such perspective be revealed by God. This is the function of the Word of God, given so that we can know the mind of God (cf. 1 Cor 2).

Hopeful change, diverse unity

2010-02-24T23:40:00.000-05:00

"Hope and change" cannot remain a mere slogan. We must define that for which we hope so that we can wisely manage the process of change. In defining our "hope," we discover who we are through the relationship that comes in such communication. In wisely managing "change," we help protect the integrity of our relationship with one another.

One problem with any reform effort is to remain unified. Being united by what we are against will not be a lasting unity. We must discover something in common that we can be for. By we, I mean all of us who live in this society, this polity composed of a diverse population. To continually distinguish between "us" and "them" will make potential friends appear to be foes (and vice versa). You and I may have differences of opinion on any number of issues, but we still can manage to maintain cordial relations with one another. Perhaps this is why Tip O'Neil (remember him, fighting tooth and nail with Ronald Reagan) insisted that "all politics is local."

What can we do here and now to build our community? I admire those businesses that work to integrate business activity with community affairs, modeling what is economically possible in the real world. Such businesses have ideals that they are sincerely trying to put into practice.

Perhaps this is what true community is all about - all of us trying to make real some common ideal. How we come to share a common ideal is through communication, staying together long enough to listen to one another and letting our words/actions be instruments of understanding rather than weapons of division.

We need to discover how our polity may find unity within inevitably normal diversity. It is important how we frame our questions concerning what the problems are. It is unhelpful to introduce blame and shame while trying to communicate with one another. Leave the labels off the table when laying out one's argument. Let this issues be described by definition rather than derision. It seems that we bomb one another with buzzwords than attack when our correspondent fails to reply with the politically correct answer. I am not interesting in defending or attacking the legacy of imperfect politicians past or present. I am interested in creating a society which functions well in healthy community. How can this come about?

REMAINING RATHER THAN RESISTING

2010-02-24T23:28:00.000-05:00

Is one who “argues” much ever open to being led to a conclusion other than that which one insists on proposing? It is doubtful that, in such “argument,” some set of propositions is continuously being presented while logically leading, formally or informally, to a declarative conclusion. More likely are one’s questions an attempt to lead the other to one’s own predetermined answers.

How, then, can one ever learn something new? Resistance to persuasion is often rooted in distrustful fear rather than determinative love of logic. Maturity puts logic in service of love, which lets trust and truth temper one another. The immature fool fears learning something new, even if it be true.

The logic of friendship is such that Truth is acted out in Love, letting trust turn away doubt that may otherwise drive a wedge between one and another. When truth reveals some offensive hurt or betrayal of trust, friends find healing in forgiveness. Confrontation need not be a hindrance to friendship; in fact, it may be essential – face-to-face relationship confronts oneself with another, at which moment each one's humanity can be revealed.

Friendship means not turning away from the one who confronts us. To turn away is to make the other one's enemy. To remain with another person is profound.

CONFORMED TO THE PATTERN

2010-02-15T22:16:00.001-05:00

“Be not conformed to the pattern of this world,

but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”

The main character in the movie, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, was obsessive in how his mind found patterns. One wonders how this may be like any of us cope with the world as we find it - patterns emerge or on imposed in such a way as to mediate our encounter with reality. Some patterns are merely ideal with little or no correspondence with the real. Others correspond so well that we ascribe to them TRUTH.

Conscience keeps us connected to what is real - or should do so if it is well-formed and clear. Conscience that has poor correspondence between the ideal and real can make folly seem to be wise. Thus have many become fools.

CONSCIENCE AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

2010-02-15T20:00:00.000-05:00

Christian Ethics can be understood through the Great Commandment, the Ten Commandments, and the Beatitudes. The "the kingdom of God" is the realm of right relationship, first with God, from which follows relationship with any other person. One's conscience is significant for discerning right relationship, which is why it is so important that one's conscience be well-formed as well as clear. A mature person takes care to examine one's conscience, questioning both formation and clarity.

The word "conscience" is derived from the Greek syneidesis. I find it significant that eidesis is the root of our words for "ideal", "idea", and "idol." One's idea of reality presents a false ideal if that idea contradicts what has been revealed by God, who created all that is real. Such a false ideal is then an idol. When one's conscience is formed by false ideas, this idolatry leads one away from right relationship with God and others. Without a true God-image, one cannot go on to imagine how one ought to live - the conscience is too malformed to be trustworthy.

Christianity claims that one may clear one's conscience through confessional repentance, submitting one's imagination to the Word of God revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ who perfectly expressed right relationship with God. With the clear conscience that comes from such Christian confession, one may move on to practice right relationship in how one lives thereafter.

Consider Hebrews 9:9 (describing how there are religious practices that are not enough to clear one's conscience) and Hebrews 9:14 (describing how Christ is able to "cleanse our conscience"). Consider also Hebrews 5:14, which shows how Christian maturity is proven by practice.

The kingdom of God is found in the Body of Christ of which we prove we are a part as we live a life of love toward God and others. As long as we are alive, we can choose this way of love, initiated by God's ultimate act of love in giving Christ Jesus to suffer and die on the cross, then be resurrected to new life which is ours to share.

PHILOSOPHIC LEGACY OF JP2

2010-02-06T13:13:00.000-05:00

The following is adapted from an interview with Mexican philosopher Rodrigo Guerra López, regarded as one of the major experts on Karol Wojtyla's thought. In this interview (found at http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2041), Guerra López speaks about Wojtyla's intellectual legacy.

One of Karol Wojtyla's most original contributions

in the area of morality consists

in the rereading he does of Kant's ethics in several articles

and

in the book Love and Responsibility.

In these texts we are able to appreciate how Wojtyla holds that

there is a concrete and primary categorical imperative

for the conscience of every human being:

The person must be affirmed for himself!

He must never be treated as a mere means!

This idea has been explicitly formulated

in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Another philosophical contribution is the way Wojtyla expresses that

action gives a special moment of knowledge of the truth

in his book entitled Person and Act [The Acting Person].

BECOMING WHO WE ARE MEANT TO BE

2010-02-04T10:49:00.001-05:00

Life is a struggle to become who God means for us to be. Faith is the means by which we realize that we struggle with God. Without faith, we cannot please God because we cannot know God. Faith is no mere idea; faith is how our belief plays out in reality. Ideal belief is tested by real life. The truth of what we believe becomes manifest in what we choose to do. In our struggle to live, we may struggle with or against God. If we live to please God, than God is with us in our struggle. The life of Christ set the pattern for pleasing God - willing to do what pleases God, and wanting others to be with us in doing so. The struggle of life always includes others in the struggle; how we help or hinder that struggle matters.

THE RULE OF NOW AND THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

2010-02-04T10:48:00.001-05:00

Now is the moment in which we freely choose to act. What we do is informed by what we know. We have some knowledge of what came before now, given by our own experience or by the experience of others (knowing with others = CON-SCIENCE = communal knowledge, knowing with one's community). We have no knowledge of what will come after, although we may imagine that we do know what to expect given what we or others claim to know.

Every act we choose to do is subject to the judgment of our conscience. It is by our conscience that we know whether some act is good or bad. It is wise to follow one's conscience and foolish to do otherwise. Wisdom would then require that we be careful in the formation of conscience. Ignoring what we know will provoke our conscience to make us aware of our act of ignorance.

Acting contrary to one's conscience will confuse one's identity; one who acts in such a way must actively ignore this contradiction of conscience in order to present oneself otherwise to another person - this is hypocrisy. Community cannot continue if hypocrisy is left unchecked. Rather than sharing common knowledge, the community will suffer debililative ignorance. The lies that follow from ignoring one's conscience will ultimately dissolve the bonds of community are formed by true relationship. Rather than allowing truth to form the conscience of those in community, hypocrisy let's guile be the ground for given knowledge.

Without truth, one cannot live freely. The deformed conscience that comes from hypocritical community lets lies be the rule which will only keep those under such rule in bondage.

FORMED BY FORGIVENESS

2010-01-21T20:05:00.000-05:00

God gives life, forming each person in the womb of one's mother. Each person, however, is born in sin, deformed from the failure of our first father, Adam. Reformed by baptism in the name of the crucified Christ who rose to live again, we can begin to become mature as Christ is formed in us by faithfully following his Way of Truth through life. Moving on in maturity from the experienced love of eros on to the shared love of philos and the learned love of storgos, we die to self to become alive in Christ so that we can love like Christ Himself loved us, fully expressing the love of God in his ultimate act of agape, death on the cross. Secure now in being loved oneself by God, we live by the resurrection power of Christ to love others as we have been loved ourselves. Always intending to act justly, we continually love mercy in imitating the forgiveness of God before whom we humbly walk. Doing the truth in love, we find justice fulfilled in forgiveness.

Each choice we make follows from this absolute commitment to being like Christ, ordering all we do towards God. Every relationship with every person we encounter is an opportunity to make manifest the love of God. Being bound by the bodily reality of concupiscence, we find we fail in our following, our conscience standing as witness to such failure.

Yet God's grace does not fail, being given freely as we repent, renewing our baptismal commitment to be faithful followers of the Way. No longer in hiding because of our failure, we are ready to reveal who we are to others, unashamed of what our lives may show. By God's grace, every aspect of our lives make known to others the loving truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

FAITHFUL FANTASY: THE CONSCIENCE POLICING THOUGHT

2010-01-21T20:03:00.000-05:00

One's conscience judges one's thoughts as well as one's actions. This is why one is morally responsible for one's fantasy. To dwell on impure things is not good. Such is unfaithful fantasy. The faithfully mature person learns to guard one's thoughts, taking care to dismiss rather than entertain impurity. It is the transforming work of God's grace that helps one do this.

THE MYSTERY OF THE PERSON

2010-01-21T20:00:00.000-05:00

Here is Karol Woytyla (later John Paul II) in a letter to his friend, the theologian Henri de Lubac, from behind the iron curtain in 1968:

I devote my very rare free moments to a work that is close to my heart and devoted to

the metaphysical sense and mystery of the person.

It seems to me that the debate today is being played out on that level. The evil of our times consists in the first place in a kind of degradation, indeed in a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person. This evil is even more of the metaphysical order than of the moral order. To this disintegration planned at times by atheistic ideologies we must oppose, rather than sterile polemics, a kind of “recapitulation” of the inviolable mystery of the person.

COMMUNITY / COMMUNICATION / COMMUNION

2010-01-21T19:50:00.000-05:00

Relationship between oneself and another continues in community through communication bonded by communion. Community is composed of persons called together to cooperate in diversely living life in common.

com = with /uni = one

SELF --> OTHER

(We are born into a world of others.)

LOVE =

eros (experienced) -->

philos (shared) -->

storge (learned) -->

agape (expressed)

Living person =

immaturity-->maturity

HOLY SPIRIT (Life [US <--> THEM] Death) HOLY SPIRIT

LOVE / like-----------unlike...dislike / HATE

FREEDOM & TRUTH

2010-01-21T19:43:00.000-05:00

Freedom and truth are significantly related. Freedom is the performance of truth. Jesus said, "The truth shall set you free." It is interesting to note how the Greek word translated as "truth" helps us understand something about truth: aletho-, aleth- + "true" "nothing concealed" "real" [from a-, "no, nothing" and letho-, "forgetfullness, oblivion"]

The word for truth, aletheia, is a composite: the prefix a which reverses the meaning of the word to which it is attached; the verb letho, “to cover up,” “to hide,” “to keep matters forgotten.” aletheia literally means “that which reveals what has been hidden or covered up”.

“To live the truth” (cf. Eph 4:25) involves a process of uncovering what has been unclear, hidden or camouflaged. Truth is not always obvious, not always self-evident, not always easy to know. The truth of a particular situation may be obscure. Getting at the truth frequently requires a process of uncovering, of unveiling what has been concealed.

A PASTORAL STRATEGY OF ACCOMPANIMENT

2010-01-21T19:26:00.000-05:00

Srodowisko

Karol Wojtyla’s pastoral practice of working with lay people, as priest, bishop and cardinal (and to some extent even as pope), has been described by George Weigel as a "pastoral strategy of accompaniment." Wojtyla’s play, The Jeweler’s Shop, was a partial payment of his debt to what he himself referred to as “my srodowisko,” a Polish word that can be translated as environment or milieu.

Those involved in the srodowisko (many of them married couples with grandchildren, and numbering about 200 Polish lay people by the time Wojtyla, whom they called “Wujek,” meaning “uncle,” became Pope) spent much time together, including holidays skiing, kayaking and hiking. Srodowisko discussions were characterised by friendliness and openness with no subject and no problem being off limits.

Coincidental with the development of the srodowisko was Wojtyla’s continuinually progressing academic career studying and teaching philosophy:“Srodowisko was, in a sense, the empirical tether for Wojtyla’s emerging skill at philosophical reflection.” Crucial in shaping Wojtyla’s ideas and ministry, his srodowisko facilitated a detailed understanding of how ordinary people, trying to be mature Christians, lived their everyday life. One of those people, Stanilslaw Rybicki, recalling the experience of the srodowisko, said of Wojtyla, “He lived our problem. He knew life from this side – the side of people who really have to work for their living.”

Five themes from a student retreat in 1954 suggest ideas that Wojtyla tested with his srodowisko:

1. There is no dividing life up into the serious and the frivolous, the true and the unimportant.

2. Christianity is not for the sacristy and the sanctuary alone nor was it an abstraction.

3. Jesus Christ was not God pretending to be man but the incarnation of God entered fully into the drama of the human condition.

4. Love is not fulfilling oneself through the use of another. Love is giving oneself to another, for the good of the other and receiving the other as a gift.

5. The lethal paradox of the age is that, for all its alleged humanism, it had ended up devaluing the human person into an economic unit, an ideological category, an expression of a class or race or ethnicity.

Wojtyla told his people,

“You are great because you are God’s creation.”

BELIEF SYSTEM

2010-01-21T19:25:00.000-05:00

I would like to clarify what I mean by "belief system." It is not necessarily related to "religion" per se. Your belief system is that which determines what you recognize/accept to be true. Your apprehension of all that transpires in your life is filtered through your belief system. You are motivated to take action because you believe such action is necessary, even if you may not be able to articulate why you believe it to be so. Your affective response to events in your life is measured by what you believe. Your concept of truth is essentially a function of your belief system.

You may not be very systematic in articulating what you believe. but you do have some belief system. The way you use language to articulate what you believe may or may not be congruent with how others use similar language. This is why communication is so important in relationships. Knowing what another person believes is not a simple matter. It may be very difficult, if not impossible, to discover what someone believes unless that person chooses to reveal such belief. Even with any revelation of belief comes the need for each person to clarify one's understanding concerning that belief; faulty assumptions lead to misunderstanding that can have quite a negative impact on a relationship.

THEOLOGY IS THE STORY OF GOD

2010-01-21T19:23:00.000-05:00

In class we discussed how theology (theo-logia), rather than being some mere "study" of God, is the "story" of God.

God, in giving His Spirit, reveals Himself so that His story can be faithfully told. There is more to this story than any single telling discusses. Although other tellings may be possible - very many more - the whole story rests completely in the mind of God. God become man in Jesus Christ, whose unique life truthfully tells God's gracious story.

One cannot tell what one does not know. No one but God's Spirit knows the mind of God. God is unknowable without the Spirit's anointing, the active presence of God in one's very life. Jesus Christ, full of the Spirit (CHRIST = MESSIAH = ANOINTED ONE), lived his life on earth completely faithful to God, obedient even in death; God raised Jesus from the dead to ascend into heaven in order that the Spirit of God might descend to dwell in the people of God.

To be a Christian is to be one born again in Spirit and Truth, able now to be a faithful witness to God's true story in Christ. Each Christian depends on the Spirit to lead the way of telling the story truthfully. Without the Spirit, one is ignorant and the telling becomes less than true.

In the beginning was the Word/LOGOS, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).

Our story must be told with more than merely persuasive words of wisdom. What we proclaim ought to be true a demonstration of spirit and power. Our faith rests not on human wisdom but on the power of God. "What eye has not seen and ear has not heard and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love Him, this God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:2-16).

Writing along the Way

2010-01-21T19:09:00.001-05:00

This blog considers ethics as an expression of faithfully following the way of Jesus Christ. I have just begun another semester teaching a course in Christian Ethics at Immaculata University. My intention in keeping this blog was to post as content that which I found of interest in class discussion. Perhaps this semester I'll actually keep the blog up to date.

Pornea

2009-06-27T19:59:00.001-04:00

“I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.”

– Job 31:1 (NIV)

http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/toc.php

FROM THE INTRODUCTION:

As the pastor of a large and growing church filled with strong men, many of them young, I have seen the secret sins of pornography and masturbation paralyze many men with shame, guilt, and embarrassment. I have written this booklet to discuss these matters in a manner that is both theological and practical, in hopes of contributing to each of you experiencing the power of the gospel to forgive, renew, and empower you by grace. Because I am speaking to fellow men, my tone may not be well suited for some women and, therefore, I would request that they not read this booklet, unless they are a wife whose husband has read it first and he can discuss its contents with her in love. For men wanting to encourage other men to lives of purity, I pray this booklet would be a useful and readable piece of literature that you could pass on to as many dudes as possible as a pedagogical tool for cranial-rectal extraction.

HOW JESUS FACED THE TEMPTER

2009-05-08T09:45:00.000-04:00

(Luke 3:21-22; 4:1-13; John 13:1-2; 14:26-31; 22:39-46; John 13:15)

After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came upon him in bodily form. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days, to be tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were over he was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’ ” Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, “I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it had been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me.” Jesus said to him in reply, “It is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.’ ”

Then he led him to Jerusalem, made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and: ‘With their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”

Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’ ”

When the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him for a time.

Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to pass from this world to his Father. He loved his own in the world and he loved them to the end. The devil had already induced Judas, Son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over. So [Jesus began to teach them, saying,] “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.

“You have heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me, but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me.

“Get up, let us go.”

Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. When he arrived at the place he said to them, “Pray that you may not undergo the test.” After withdrawing about a stone’s throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.” … When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. He said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not undergo the test.”

“I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.”

The temptation narrative in Matthew’s Gospel (4:3) identifies the devil first as “the tempter.”

In his first epistle to the Thessolonian church (2:17-3:8), Paul also mentions “the tempter”:

“I sent to learn about your faith,

for fear that somehow the tempter had put you to the test and our toil might come to nothing.”

Brothers, when we were bereft of you for a short time, in person, not in heart, we were all the more eager in our great desire to see you in person. We decided to go to you – I, Paul, not only once but more than once – yet Satan thwarted us. For what is our hope or joy or crown to boast in the presence of our Lord at his coming if not you yourselves? For you are our glory and joy.

That is why, when we could bear it no longer, we decided to remain alone in Athens, and sent Timothy, our brother and co-worker for God in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, so that no one be disturbed in these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. For even when we were among you, we used to warn you in advance that we would undergo affliction, just as happened, as you know. For this reason, when I too could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had put you to the test and our toil might come to nothing.

But just now Timothy has returned to us from you, bringing us the good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us and long to see us as we long to see you. Because of this, we have been reassured about you, brothers, in our every distress and affliction, through your faith. For we now live, if you stand firm in the Lord.

To the Corinthian church (1Co 10:10-14), Paul gives this confident word of encouragement:

“God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength.”

Do not grumble as some of them did, and suffered death by the destroyer. These things happened to them as an example, and they have been written down as a warning to us, upon whom the end of ages has come.

Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.

James (1:12-18) writes of temptation in this way:

“Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved

he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him.”

No one experiencing temptation should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers: all good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. He willed to give us birth by the word of truth that we may be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

See the teaching regarding “Lead us not into temptation” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2846-2849).

“We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin.

We are engaged in the battle ‘between flesh and spirit’;

this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.”

The catechism goes on to teach concerning “deliver us from evil” (2850-2854):

“In this petition, evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One,

the angel who opposes God.

The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who “throws himself across” God’s plan

and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.”

Deliver us, Lord, we beseech you, from every evil and grant us peace in our day,

so that aided by your mercy

we might be ever free from sin and protected from all anxiety,

as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

DUNG or DISCIPLESHIP

2009-05-08T09:40:00.000-04:00

In another class I teach, THE PASSION OF CHRIST, I mentioned how the all-encompassing significance of Christ's Passion makes everything else in comparison merely "B.S." This is shocking to hear in a theology class. The term "B.S." may not seem like something one would associate with scripture, but Paul does give some precedent for thinking so. In Philippians 3:8 we find a word which may very well be traslated as "B.S.":

I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.

The word is translated in this verse as "dung" is, in Greek, skuvbalon. According to Daniel Wallace (see his word study below), "it takes little imagination to see a derivative and metaphorical sense from the original notion of crap or s**t. One can easily imagine someone saying, 'We were starving and so we went to a man’s field, but since the harvest had recently occurred, all that was left was skuvbala!' ... the word-play seems to be intentional and the meanings of the terms in hellenistic Greek do indeed reflect their roots."

The full word study that follows may be found at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5318:

A Brief Word Study on Skuvbalon

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

(neuter noun, used once in the New Testament [Phil 3:8])

This essay is a basic diachronic word study on a rare term, found only once in the New Testament, in Phil 3:8. The NET Bible renders this verse as follows: “More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!–that I may gain Christ…”

Most other modern English versions have ‘rubbish’ (ESV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, REB) or ‘garbage’ (TEV, NJB, TNIV) for the term. At issue is more than whether slang is used in the NT; the sense of Paul’s view of is former life—his life apart from Christ—is involved. If mere ‘rubbish’ is the force, then a sense of worthlessness is in view; if ‘dung’ is the force, then both worthlessness and revulsion is in view.

Rather than be fully explicit, this study will address the meaning in more genteel terms and use asterisks where the more sophisticated (or perhaps less sophisticated!) can supply the appropriate letters.

Range of Meaning

This word is used primarily for excrement, especially human excrement; secondarily for rubbish, dirt, leavings, etc. It is a NT hapax legomenon (Phil 3:8).

1. dung, (human) excrement

(especially in the plural, as in Phil 3:8); or with a stronger emotive connotation (and the concomitant shock value), crap, s**t. NT: Phil 3:8* (debatable; may belong under definition 2); Other: Plu. 2.352d; Alex. Aphr. Pr. 1.18; Aret. SD 1.15; Artemid. Onirocr. 1.67; 2.14; Str. 14.1.37; J. BJ 5.571; 5.13.7; PFay. 119.7 (i/ii AD).

Illustrations:

Josephus’ description of the conditions within the walls of Jerusalem during the final siege of the Romans in the Jewish War (66-73 CE) is intended to evoke the strongest reaction by his readers (Josephus, Jewish War 5.571):

. . . the corpses of the lower classes thrown out through the gates amounted in all to 600,000; of the rest it was impossible to discover the number. They added that, when strength failed them to carry out the poor, they piled the bodies in the largest mansions and shut them up; also that a measure of corn had been sold for a talent, and that later when it was no longer possible to gather herbs, the city being all walled in, some were reduced to such straits that they searched the sewers and for old cow dung and ate the offal therefrom, and what once would have disgusted them to look at had now become food.

In Strabo’s description of the rebuilt Smyrna, he lauds the plans and efforts of Antigonus, Lysimachus, and the citizens, noting however one glaring flaw (Strabo,Geography 14.1.37):

But there is one error, not a small one, in the work of the engineers, that when they paved the streets they did not give them underground drainage; instead,excrement covers the surface, and particularly during rains, when the cast-off filth is discharged upon the streets.

Proportionately, the word seems to have occurred in the papyri and other non-literary documents far more frequently than in the literature. A good illustration is found in PapyrusFayum 119.7 (c. 100 CE) in which Gemellus informs his son that the donkey driver has bought “a little bundle and rotten hay, the whole of which is decayed so that it is like crap.”

2. rubbish, dirt, scraps, leavings

NT: Phil 3:8* (debatable; may belong under definition 1); Other: Jul. Or. 5.179c; PCairZen 494.16 (iii BC); PSI 3.184.7 (plural, AD 292); Sirach 27.4; PRyl 2.149.22 (AD 39-40).

Illustrations:

In Sirach 27:4 the word bears emotive force, though it is not as dramatic as a vulgar rendering would suggest: “As when one sifts with a sieve, the refuse remains; so also the filth of man in his speech.”

But even in the first century CE the word was used occasionally with no shock value connotations. For example, in the collection of the Rylands Papyri 2.149.22 (39-40 CE) the writer speaks of animals grazing “on the gleanings of my vegetable-seed crop.” Thus “gleanings” or “table scraps” is a legitimate (though admittedly rare) nuance in use during the time of Paul.1

By the fourth century CE, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off, so much so that it is even seen as a proper name—cf. P. Oxy. 1.43, verso iii.25 (295 CE). Nevertheless, Chrysostom can refer to skuvbalon as bearing the meaning of “manure” in Phil 3:8, but he seems unaware of its emotive force—even arguing that there is some value in manure! (Cf. Chrysostom’s commentary on Philippians, MPG 62:263-265, where he mentions the word twelve times).

As well, in the fourth century CE, the emperor Julian can use the term to describe the earth, though with intent to evoke some sense of disgust by way of contrast (Julian, Orations 179C):

But is not this Logos Attis, who not long ago was out of his senses, but now through his castration is called wise? Yes, he was out of his senses because he preferred matter and presides over generation, but he is wise because he adorned and transformed this refuse [our earth] with such beauty as no human art or cunning could imitate.

Related Terms

Words from the skubal- root:

skubalivzein: to regard as dung, to treat contemptuously (D.H. Orat.Vett 1)

skubaleuvein (a derivative from skubalivzein): to regard as dung, to treat contemptuously (Schol. on Luc. Nec. 17)

skubalikov": scorned, filthy (Timocr. 1.6)

skubalwvdh": waste, dung-like (Anon. Londinensis 29.39)

skubalismov": contemptuous rejection; table crumbs (Polyb. 30.19.12; Ps.-Phocyclides 156)

Terms not from the skubal- root:

koprov": excrement, manure—especially as used in animal husbandry (i.e., not as a vulgar term) (Od. 9.329; Hdt. 3.22; Thphr. HP 2.7.4)

skw'r: dung, excrement (Ar. Ra. 146; Stratt. 9)

perivttwma, perivsswma: excrement—apparently used as a medical term in particular (Arist. GA 724b26, HA 511b9; Epicur. Fr. 293; Meno Iatr. 4.35)

cevzw: to empty one’s bowels, to ease oneself (Stratt. 51; Id. Ach. 1170)

Summary

That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang inTDNT 7:445);³ (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov" and the medical term perivsswma);⁴ (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well.⁵ Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE) the word was also used on occasion for “gleanings” or “table scraps.”

Authorial Usage

The usage of this term in Phil 3:8 has been taken in two different ways (each with two variations of their own):

1. (Human) excrement

a. dung (without strong shock value)

b. crap, s**t (with strong shock value)

2. non-excrement

a. rubbish, refuse

b. table scraps, leavings

Some scholars feel that skuvbalon in Phil 3:8 means “table scraps,” pointing to the connection with “dogs” in 3:2 (so Lightfoot [1881 commentary, p. 149]). But not only is the connection somewhat distant, and overly subtle, but the absolute negation of any value to the apostle’s former life outside of Christ would seem to require something stronger than “table scraps.” For this reason, others have suggested that “rubbish” is the best gloss for our term (so, apparently, Beare [116], and several modern translations). As Lang points out, however, “To the degree that the Law is used in self-justification, it serves the flesh and is not just worthless but noxious and even abhorrent. The two elements in skuvbalon, namely, worthlessness and filth, are best expressed by a term like ‘dung’” (TDNT 7:447).

Moises Silva, whose expertise in lexical studies is well known, sees emotive connotations wedded to the word in Phil 3:8 (Philippians, 180):

And yet the apostle goes even further: what he once regarded highly he now finds revolting. There is no need to downplay the meaning of skybala with such equivalents as “rubbish” (NASB, NIV); while such a meaning is attested (cf. Sir. 27:4—the Greek term could be used of various kinds of filth), a specific reference toexcrement is not uncommon and the KJV rendering “dung” is both appropriate and probable.

Silva goes on to say that the gloss “crap” would certainly communicate worthlessness, but is probably not strong enough to communicate revulsion (ibid., n. 20). He thus leaves the question of appropriate translation to the reader’s imagination.

Besides the reasons we have given for seeing shock value in the word (under “Summary” mentioned earlier), there is one other reason why the intertwined notion of worthlessness and revulsion seems to be related to human excrement. The context of Phil 3:1-8 is both polemical in tone and contrasting flesh vs. spirit in content. As Lightfoot pointed out, v. 2 refers to Paul’s opponents as “dogs.” But it does more than that—it also refers to them as “the mutilation.” This term is a play on words with “circumcision” (v. 3) and is only euphemistically translated as “those who mutilate the flesh.” The etymology of both words reveals the apostle’s true intent: “circumcision” (peritomhv) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting around” while “mutiliation” (katatomhv) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting down” or “cutting off.”⁶ Thus Paul is accusing his opponents of botching the job of circumcision so badly that the victim is left with mutilated genitalia. There is strong shock value in the apostle’s words here.

This statement is followed immediately by a diatribe on the lack of value of the flesh. Thrice in vv. 3-4 is “flesh” explicitly mentioned; it is further implied in references to circumcision (vv. 2, 3, 5). In this section Paul is essentially arguing that if his opponents could claim that the flesh had some value, he would be in a better position to do so. Yet he himself acknowledges that the flesh and his former life as a devout Jew are worthless; he counts them as nothing (v. 8). The crescendo of his argument is at the end of v. 8 where he says “indeed, I regard them as skuvbala that I might gain Christ.” Having said this, he launches into a positive presentation of his new life in Christ. If skuvbala is translated “s**t” (or the like), a word picture is effectively made: this is all that the “flesh” can produce—and it is both worthless and revolting. That the apostle is not above using graphic and shocking terms has already been demonstrated in vv. 2-3. The reason for the shocking statement in v. 8, then, may well be to wake up his audience to the real danger of his opponents’ views. It is not insignificant that there is precedent for the apostle’s white-hot anger over a false gospel being couched in not-so-delicate terms: his letter to the “foolish Galatians” is replete with such evocative language.

Conclusion

In Phil 3:8, the best translation of skuvbala seems clearly to be from the first group of definitions. The term conveys both revulsion and worthlessness in this context. In hellenistic Greek it seems to stand somewhere between “crap” and “s**t.” However, due to English sensibilities, and considering the readership (Christians), a softer term such as “dung” is most appropriate. The NET Bible, along with a few other translations, grasp the connotations here, while most modern translations only see the term as implying worthlessness. But Paul’s view of his former life is odious to him, as ours should be to us. The best translation, therefore, is one that picks up both worthlessness and revulsion, and probably a certain shock value.

¹ Even here it takes little imagination to see a derivative and metaphorical sense from the original notion of crap or s**t. One can easily imagine someone saying, “We were starving and so we went to a man’s field, but since the harvest had recently occurred, all that was left was skuvbala!”

² None of the related terms occurs in the NT.

³ This would be expected if the term especially had an emotionally-charged force to it. Its paucity can be seen by a computer search of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (1990 version). Out of 3165 authors and over 65 million words (from Homer to 1453 CE), there are only 178 instances of skuvbalon (for comparisons, see the following footnote).

⁴ A TLG search revealed 1736 instances of koprov" and 2858 of perivsswma (or perivttwma).

⁵ I recall reading a papyrus fragment some time ago in which sailors used this term as an exclamation of disgust when seagulls overhead emptied their bowels, but I have been unsuccessful in relocating the reference.

⁶ I am not here arguing for etymologizing as a legitimate approach to lexicography; however, the word-play seems to be intentional and the meanings of the terms in hellenistic Greek do indeed reflect their roots.

US & THEM

2009-05-08T09:31:00.000-04:00

The goal of Christian Ethics is to live along the Way of Christ Jesus. This life includes all we do and everyone we meet. There exists tension in following the Way because individuals along the Way will have their individual way of following. To continuoulsy follow the Way together demands that we be able to tolerate things we may find disagreeable; the Christian way of doing this is to first love God as revealed in Christ Jesus so that we can love others as ourselves in faithful imiation of Jesus himself.

In love, then, we can communicate with one another without turning away from one another. Any distinction between "us" and "them" need not be an excuse to disrupt community. Christian ethics defines Christian community, so there will be those who choose to remain outside such community; however, those within Christian community must continually act to invite those outside of Christian community to become part of the Christian community.

The Christian hope is that God is working to reconcile all things to Himself, having decisively done so already through the Person of Jesus Christ, and that our actions in this life cooperate with the way God is working. By the grace of God we can be tolerant, imitating God's own gracious forbearance in withholding his sure judgment against us for our own transgressions. Thus we pray,

Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. AMEN!

BEING BAPTIZED

2009-05-08T09:29:00.000-04:00

In class the term "being baptized" is often used in some way. Since baptism is an important concept in Christian Ethics, I probably should have spent more time teaching how to understand what baptism means. There is so much to say about this, but I think the writer in the following essay describes very well why baptism is no mere ritual. What follows is just the opening of an excellent review essay written by an acquaintance of mine, James K.A. Smith, who was working on his doctorate in philosophy at Villanova University when the events he described took place. I encourage you to read the whole review at http://www.calvin.edu/~jks4/philchristi.pdf

Epistemology for the Rest of Us: Hints of a Paradigm Shift in Abraham’s Crossing the Threshold

James K. A. Smith

Department of Philosophy / Calvin College / Grand Rapids, Michigan

I would like to invite you to a tiny little mission church in north Philadelphia. It is the site of one of my most treasured memories of ministry, but also an event that constantly challenges my inherited paradigms in philosophy of religion.

It is an early winter evening, so darkness presses against the windows of the rented sanctuary as a small group of believers are gathering; light and song push back against that darkness and oozes out of the cracks of the aging, tiny structure. We have gathered for an evening service of celebration as several members of a neighborhood family, new to the church, have presented themselves for baptism. Over the past several months we have witnessed a transformation in the mother and some of her children and tonight they make public profession of their newfound faith by dying and rising in the waters of baptism. The father and some uncles have come for the service to honor those being baptized, but as with previous visits to Sunday worship, they remain aloof, distant, and unengaged. But tonight that will change.

Baptism in a Pentecostal church brings together the charismatic and the sacramental: their baptism is situated in a narrative enacted through song and sermon, echoed in the story of their testimonies as they present themselves for baptism. And as they are baptized, Pastor Billings draws upon the materiality and physicality of the sacrament as a picture of the Gospel itself. Tonight it’s not just a matter of telling, but a matter of showing. As the mother emerges from the water it feels as if we are witnessing the resurrection itself. Pastor and parishioner embrace in tears as the congregation can no longer contain its “Hallelujahs!” and shouts of praise; their songs and prayers become the sound track of resurrection. He is risen! She is risen! As the teenagers are baptized, they each renounce the Evil One and pledge allegiance to the coming King. They have a new story, a new love, a new desire.

And then we notice that slowly the father has made his way to the front of the sanctuary. He has been gripped by something in what he has witnessed. As others notice, a hush comes over the congregation. His brothers with him, we see the father quietly but urgently speaking with the pastor, and then a laugh of surprise and joy breaks across the pastor’s face as he embraces the father and assures him, “Of course!” The men have come asking: “Can we be baptized, too? Can we become Christians?” The waters of baptism stir once again and the sound track of resurrection becomes even louder as an entire family is enfolded into the family of God.

Just what happened there? More to the point, to what extent can the regnant paradigms in philosophy of religion think or make sense of a scene like this one? This father’s desire to embrace the Christian story—and be embraced by Christ—was not an instance of intellectual resolution. Christ was not the “answer” to a “question.” Jorge was not drawn to “theism,” and when he, too, emerged from the waters of baptism he did not rise with a new “perspective” or “worldview.” He didn’t die to skepticism and rise to “knowledge” (cf. Rom. 6:1–14). Something other, something different, something both ordinary and extraordinary was witnessed there. Are the dominant frameworks in philosophy of religion able to do justice to what happened there in that tiny sanctuary on a winter night? Or are they plagued by a kind of reductionism and rationalism that is poorly calibrated to understand a scenario like this one? What picture of the “believer” is assumed in our philosophies of religion?

Abstract:

William Abraham’s “canonical theism”calls into question standard strategies in philosophy of religion

which

(1) strain out the particularities of Christian faith, distilling a “mere theism”

and

(2) position Christian faith within a broader, “general” epistemology.

I evaluate Abraham’s call for a philosophical approach that honors the thick particularity of Christian faith

and makes room for the unique epistemological status of revelation.

I conclude that

Abraham’s promising project could be extended to more radically call into question

the “intellectualism” that characterizes contemporary philosophy of religion.

BECAUSE IT SHOWS

2009-04-24T12:53:00.000-04:00

A Brief Consideration of Pornography

in light of “The Theology of the Body”

February 2004

In a course examining John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” each student was to designate the following statement as being true or false: “Pornography is wrong because it shows too much of people.”

The following essay is a brief consideration of my initial response to that statement, with further discussion regarding how the whole course affected that response and how some pertinent concepts in the Theology of the Body shed light on the question.

The question, as posed, immediately elicited two responses when I first read the statement. The statement begins, “Pornography is wrong”, then continues “because it shows too much of people.” Responding initially to the beginning portion of the statement, I thought, “True, pornography is wrong.” After reading on, I figured this response was intentionally provoked by how the statement was framed rhetorically. I immediately had to revise my initial response in order to consider whether I agreed with the reason given for why pornography is wrong; that is, was showing “too much of people” the reason why pornography is wrong? My response changed due to obscurity of the phrase “it shows too much of people.” I could no longer consider the whole statement to be true. That phrase provoked further consideration.

Having already considered the question of pornography prior to taking this course, I would immediately agree with the statement, “pornography is wrong.” Having been raised in a family for whom Scripture was the moral compass, I have an inbred aversion to anything condemned in Scripture. If one defines pornography as “the graphic representation of fornication,” then I am led to conclude that pornography is to be condemned because it involves one imaginatively in fornication, filling one’s mind with lustful thoughts. Rather than being “transformed by the renewal of [one’s] mind,” one becomes “conformed to the world” as it is portrayed pornographically (cf Romans 12:1-2;. Ephesians 5:1-5).

But how was I to interpret the phrase “it shows too much of people”? Regarding pornography, I had to first ask what “it” is. And again, what does it mean to say “it” “shows” something? The statement presumes that pornography “shows” something “of people” and merely declares that what pornography “shows . . . of people” is “too much.” What is it that is being shown? Is one assumed to already know what pornography is? One recalls the man who, when asked to define pornography, said, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it!”

My initial response, therefore, was to disagree with the whole statement as it was worded. Called upon to elaborate on that response, one could very well venture the following counter-statement, “Pornography is wrong because it shows too little of people.” In other words, pornography is deceptive because it conceals rather than reveals; pornography is a superficial showing of people, hiding what is deeper than the skin, disguising what is below the surface of sexual activity with a manipulative masquerade of explicit, and even illicit, bodily behavior. There is more to what is shown in pornography than what meets any of the senses being titillated. Pornography is wicked on account of its denial of there being more to one’s body than mere sensation. That denial perversely imitates the wickedness of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, wickedness that led, and continues to lead, to deadly shame (cf Genesis 3:1-8).

Further study of the “Theology of the Body” reinforced my initial response. I discovered that the “Theology of the Body” presents a vision of the human person that integrates body, soul, and spirit. This integration is a much-needed corrective to the disintegrating influence of pornography, influence that has adversely affected me, as a person in community with others, and society, as a whole. During the course, class discussion and reading assignments provoked me to consider how I need to integrate my own thinking so that it is consistently conformed to the revelation of God’s creative order, especially in relation to Jesus Christ. God is love and expressed his love bodily in Christ Jesus (cf 1^st John 4:7-11), being born of a woman, living as a man, suffering and dying, then rising again, showing himself alive to his followers. Showing himself, Christ showed God’s love. Such graphic expression of love is the essence of Christianity.

Pornography intentionally confuses love with concupiscence. Christopher West discusses the source of this confusion in his Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s “Gospel of the Body” (Boston: Pauline, 2003; pp 183-186, “The Grave Error of Manichaeism”):

Manichaenism particularly devalues all things sexual. . . . Hence, [John Paul II] firmly and repeatedly stresses that “the Manichaen way of understanding and evaluating man’s body and sexuality is essentially alien to the Gospel.” . . . This assignment of the Manichaen “anti-value” to the body can be seen in the tendency to describe sex or certain body parts as “dirty.” . . . While it may be unconscious or unintentional on the part of [one scolding another viewing pornography for looking at “dirty pictures”], the assignment of evil is [put] on the body . . . instead of on the evil of lust behind the production and the viewing of pornography. As John Paul says, pornographic portrayals of the body “arouse objection . . . not because of their object, since the human body in itself always has its inalienable dignity – but because of the quality or way of its reproduction,” which is intended to incite lust.

It is pornographic to present lust as love. Pornography is a concupiscent contradiction to the nakedness without shame that is expressly intended by God (cf Genesis 2:25) to be experienced uniquely by husband and wife: “the concupiscence of the flesh . . . distorts the truth of the ‘language of the body’ ” (quoted by West in Theology of the Body Explained, p 446). The word “pornography” was derived from the Greek, pornea, which is also the root of the English word “fornication.” One particularly pertinent text can be found in Ephesians 5:1-5 (New King James Version):

Therefore be imitators of God as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ also has love us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

But fornication and all uncleaness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints: neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.

Jesus Christ “is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15, NAB); yet, embodied in flesh, God in Christ did not despise the body: “though he was in the form of God, . . . he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:6-7, NAB). He then lived just as humans must live, suffering the limitations of the body yet still able to please God. Those who follow Him are called to do likewise: “I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do” (John 12:15, NAB). Having such a graphic role model, Christians must become “imitators of God” by living their lives as Christ did, as “an offering and a sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1-2, NKJV). Rather than walking in lust, as do those who “are alienated from God” (Ephesians 4:17-20, NAB), Christians are to “walk in love, as Christ also has loved us” (Ephesians 5:2, NAB).

What pornography shows is not merely too much or too little of people; pornography deceitfully shows an image of the human body that is indubitably false. It is this false showing that is wrong, making pornography have no place in the theater of Christianity: “we have become a spectacle [Greek theatron] to the world . . .” (1 Corinthians 4:9, New American Bible). The Christian show must not be pornographic, but philographic, or rather agapographic, showing in how we live with one another, not the lust of man or woman, but the love of God in Christ. Others, seeing our witness, can then come to know God’s love in which we share through Jesus Christ, because it shows: “For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily” (Colossians 2:9-10, NAB, italics mine).

THE PROTECTION OF CONSCIENCE

2009-04-24T11:44:00.000-04:00

Cardinal Francis George met with President Obama to discuss some of the current ways that the Church can help promote the good of the people of America … as well as some of the serious “challenges” the current administration is presenting.

The effort to “remove” the protection of "conscience” is a matter of consequence for everyone.

This is Cardinal George’s brief “you tube” clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoCRwMqVzQ

Notes re MORAL THEOLOGY according to VERITATIS SPLENDOR

2009-04-24T11:11:00.000-04:00

Christian Ethics

Moral Theology

The moral life, has an essentially teleological character,

since it consists in the deliberate ordering of human acts to God,

the supreme good and ultimate end (telos)of man.

(n. 73) cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10 re: "Last Judgment"

Moral action concerns human will, the act of free choice.

A moral object is the object of human will.

Moral actions are those freely chosen acts that are ordered to the goods of human persons.

Human actions have an existential and religious significance

and are primarily specified by the object chosen.

The morality of the human act

depends primariliy and fundamentally on

the 'object' rationally chosen by the deliberate will.

(n. 78)

In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally,

it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person.

The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior.

To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason,

it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally....

By the object of a given moral act ... one cannot mean

a process or an event in the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of

its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world.

Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision cf. Romans 3:8

which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person

(n. 78).

The "object" primarily specifying an act morally is precisely

what one "chooses."

It is the "object" of one's choice,

of what one freely wills to do

and, by freely willing to do this specific deed,

one makes oneself to be the kind of person willing to do this.

Thus, if the object of my choice is knowingly to have intercourse with someone other than my spouse,

I freely choose to commit adultery and make myself to be an adulterer.

The "object" is not a mere physical event, a "piece" of behavior in the external world.

It is a moral object

only because

it is the object of human will,

the act of choice.

A human act is not a "thing" having a nature of its own independent of how any human will act.

A human act, precisely as human and moral, flows from a person's "heart,"

from a person's will.

How do moral norms protect human rights? cf. n. 96

Moral norms prescribe the free choice of acts ordered to the goods of human persons.

Human personhood holds inherent human dignity which is upheld by human rights.

Human rights are inviolable; if it is absolutely wrong to violate a person’s human rights,

than it is apparent that some objects of human choice are intrinsically evil.

Thus, the moral norms proscribing intrinsically evil acts must be absolute and without exception. cf. n. 80

Were there no absolute moral norms proscribing intrinsically evil acts, there would be no inviolable human rights

How does the Crucified Christ provide the answer to

why we must obey “universal and unchanging norms”?

Through His Crucifixion, Christ Jesus suffered evil rather than do it.

As Christians, we must be willing to be witnesses of His perfect example in our own lives.

Such witness can very well lead to martyrdom (martyr being the Greek word for witness).

Martyrdom is senseless unless there are absolute moral norms prohibiting evil acts.

It is false and illusory to attribute “human meaning” to an act morally evil in itself, even in exceptional circumstances.

To do so is a violation of any person’s “humanity.” cf. nn. 90-94

It seems humanly impossible, at times, to avoid doing evil to prevent some alleged greater evil.

At such times, what the Church teaches may appear to be harshly rigoristic.

How is the Church's teaching on human dignity and on moral absolutes NOT rigoristic or harsh?

The grace of God which has been made available to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Church's teaching on human dignity and, precisely because of the inviolable dignity of the human person, on moral absolutes always and everywhere prohibiting the free choice of acts intentionally opposed to the goods of human persons is not, as some maintain, rigoristic or harsh.

God never abandons us and will give us the grace to resist any temptation. cf. nn. 84-87

We are called to imitate Christ through faithful Christian witness.

Christ Jesus suffered evil rather than do it.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes the grace of God available to us.

God promises that He will give us the grace to resist the temptation to do evil

even when doing so is intended to prevent some alleged greater evil.

cf. nn. 102-105

Evangelization ... involves the proclamation and presentation of morality.

DON'T BE UNBELIEVING. BELIEVE.

2009-04-24T11:05:00.000-04:00

In class I read from THE MESSAGE, Eugene H. Peterson's translation of the Bible in contemporary language. In explaining why he had undertaken this task, Peterson, a long-time pastor and teacher, said, "I had taken on as my life work the responsibility of getting these very people [in the congregation] to listen, really listen to the message in this book." The passage I read came from the Gospel of John, beginning at 5:19 through the end of chapter 6, then 20:18 through the end of that chapter.

See http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65 for Peterson's full answer and also for links to the actual passage in THE MESSAGE.

The following is the last part of what I read in chapter 20:

^24-25But Thomas, sometimes called the Twin, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples told him, "We saw the Master."

But he said, "Unless I see the nail holes in his hands, put my finger in the nail holes, and stick my hand in his side, I won't believe it."

²⁶Eight days later, his disciples were again in the room. This time Thomas was with them. Jesus came through the locked doors, stood among them, and said, "Peace to you."

²⁷Then he focused his attention on Thomas. "Take your finger and examine my hands. Take your hand and stick it in my side. Don't be unbelieving. Believe."

²⁸Thomas said, "My Master! My God!"

²⁹Jesus said, "So, you believe because you've seen with your own eyes. Even better blessings are in store for those who believe without seeing."

^30-31Jesus provided far more God-revealing signs than are written down in this book. These are written down so you will believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and in the act of believing, have real and eternal life in the way he personally revealed it.

A VIEW TO ACHIEVING SOMETHING ... GOOD

2009-04-02T10:14:00.000-04:00

I recently read the following quote from Aristotle's POLITICS:

"Men do all their acts

with a view to achieving something

which is, in their view, good."

It reminded me of what I have said after one of the many times I did something incredibly foolish:

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

WORSHIP & ETHICS

2009-04-02T10:04:00.000-04:00

Worship is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of Christian Ethics.

Worship is what Christians do - faith is worked out in worship; worship is the work of our faith.

Without worship, one’s conduct will not please God.

Christian ethics describes conduct pleasing to God.

Thus, the conduct of Christianity, Christian ethics, is worship.

The Catholic understanding of worship is described by the word “liturgy.”

Liturgy refers to more than mere ritual. [This is often how the word is misunderstood, as it was in my own upbringing.]

The word comes from the Greek word λειτουργία (leitourgia) meaning "public work".

It is derived from two Greek words, leitos , the word from which we get “laity”, i.e., people or public,

and ergo, the word from which we get “urge”, working power to do.

The word had a different sense in the Greek city-states:

some public good which a citizen arranged (at his own expense, if wealthy), either voluntarily or by law.

Through Christian theological development, liturgy became associated with worship.

Liturgy – the work of the Church, the people of God – is our worship before God.

cf. .Romans 12 “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.”^latreian

Let us define worship as that which one finds worth doing. What then, is worth doing? Doing that which is pleasing to God is always worth doing. Those who do not worship cannot please God in that what they find worthy falls short of what is worthy in the sight of God [see discussion of THE LAST JUDGMENT].

Being free to choose what to do, we need to decide which of many options can be considered worthy of our time and energy. Others judge us by what we do; if we are observed doing something, others will assume that we consider that which we do as worth doing.

Perhaps this why we are exhorted as follows in Colossians 3:17: "And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

Read the whole chapter from Colossians here: http://usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians3.htm

All we do is proper worship as it brings glory to God in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the primary claim of Christian Ethics!

DISCUSSING ETHICAL ISSUES

2009-04-02T10:02:00.000-04:00

As part of our class discussion, the following items were listed on the board as being ethical issues:

abortion; stem cell research; environmentalism; capital punishment; rendition ;gay marriage / same-sex marriage; racism; separation of church and state; pre-marital sex / cohabitation; evolution vs creation(ism); abstinence only education; education; nationalism; institutionalism

In reviewing all these items, the class discussion became quite energetic. Once again the question of opinion was raised. This led to the larger question of authority. We then considered the question of authoritative teaching in the Roman Catholic Church:

MAGESTERIUM = SACRED SCRIPTURE (being the Word of God) & SACRED TRADITION (being apostolic teaching)

We began to review Willam May's consideration of VERITATIS SPLENDOR (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/may.html)

CUTTING THROUGH THE SPIN

2009-04-02T09:55:00.000-04:00

A video was shown in class, entitled "CUTTING THROUGH THE SPIN: on Stem Cells and Cloning." It is available in the Gabriel Library as DVD 205.64957 P116 2005. According to the presenter in the video, the Rev. Dr. Tadeusz Pacholcyk, this presentation is summarized in a brochure: for more information, visit http://www.donumvitaecenter.org

HOW TO THINK ETHICALLY ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH

2009-04-02T09:52:00.000-04:00

In class our discussion focused on how to think ethically about stem cell research. The following notes are taken from what appeared on the board by the end of the class:

STEM CELL RESEARCH

[proponents highlight possible benefits: tissue regeneration through “genetic imitation” (?)]

What is stem cell research?

Stem cells – developmental term describing undifferentiated cells [these are living cells]

Some ethical issues focus on where these stems are found:

- umbilical cords

- embryonic cells

- adult cells [problematic because of differentiation possiblities]

Questions to be answered?

Some discussion considered the role propaganda plays in presenting issues.

- What is propaganda?

- Can propaganda be used ethically?

A major question is “Where/when does life begin?” [define “life”]

How is an embryo alive?

Donated eggs and sperm are used to develop embryos outside of a mother’s womb.

How is “embryo related to “child”? [Does this constitute human life? a human person?]

Define “personhood” = anyone with a random capacity to …[this phrase was left unfinished; see Catholic Church’s definition]

Who has authority? [Who has the authority to determine what is true?]

What is truth?

Class AGAIN ended up discussing the issue of holding an "opinion" and articulating opposition another's opinion. One student suggested that one may be offended by such opposition when one may have doubts about one's own opinion. I modified that to include having long unanswered questions lingering in one's mind (but then again, how is doubt related to questioning?). The Roman Catholic Church has been careful to articulate what is to be believed by faithful Christians through Magesterial teaching drawn from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Essays related to VERTATIS SPLENDOR

2009-04-02T09:49:00.000-04:00

I recommend the following essays:

Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Veritatis Splendor

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/veritas.htm

Pope John Paul II’s encyclical VERITATIS SPLENDOR and Bioethics

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/VS-bioethics.htm

Charles E. Curran’s Grossly Inaccurate Attack on the Moral Theology of John Paul II

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/curran.htm

The “New” Evangelization, Catholic Moral Life in Light of VERITATIS SPLENDOR, and the Family

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/new-evangelization.htm

DISCUSSING TELEOLOGY

2009-04-02T09:43:00.000-04:00

Class discussion focused on how TELEOLOGISM is inconsistent with the Church's teaching on TELEOLOGY?

The definition given by one student for TELOLOGY was"the study of purpose and design." I highlighted the word "end" to be significant for understanding TELEOLOGY, in that the teleological doctrine considers THE LAST JUDGMENT which comes at the end of time. Consider a timeline on which there are three points: the beginning (when God created everything), and the end (when God will judge all creation), and in between the point describing the Incarnation (when God became Man in the Person of Jesus Christ); the OLD AGE describes the time after the Fall of Man, the NEW AGE describes what was intiated because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. When the END OF TIME comes, the OLD will pass away, and the NEW will continue.

I read from the Book of Revelation where THE LAST JUDGMENT is described. See Revelation chapter 20. There we read about Satan (the name comes from a word meaning "accuser") and about how Satan is finally thrown into the lake of fire, as will be death itself. We read of two books, one a record of all deeds done by everyone, "both great and small," and the other, "which is the book of life." According to the last verse, "... if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

A question was raised about taking such Scripture "literally." I answered that, literally or figuratively, the text revealed the concept of final judgement for which each person is to be held accountable. The focus of Christian Ethics is on our need to critically consider everything we do in light of such judgement, and on the advocacy available to us through the Spirit of Christ Jesus (the One who determines whether or not our name will be found in the book of life).

I read also from Paul's Epistle to the Romans to describe how everyone will be accountable and why. See Romans chapter 1. It bothers some to think that everyone will be judged; I emphasized that we should first be concerned how each of us will be judged. Having taking this class in Christian Ethics, no one of us has the excuse of not having heard; each one of us must choose belief or disbelief. Questions of belief may come up even if one chooses to believe, and this is not a bad thing unless one is unwilling to heed true answers (pray that the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth). Disbelief, however, leads one, not toward Truth, but away; no answer will be found satisfactory to one who disbelieves.

TELEOLOGY deals with the whole truth about the purpose and design of life. TELEOLOGISM just considers periods of time, each with a particular beginning and end, but without any care given to the END OF TIME when all things will undergo THE LAST JUDGEMENT.

See discussion in section IV of the second chapter in VERITATIS SPLENDOR, especially nos71-75 which specifically addresses Teleology and Teleologism.

ACTING REPONSIBLY

2009-04-02T09:40:00.000-04:00

In class, we considered the following:

- intrinsically evil acts: an act that is wrong in itself cannot be justified for any reason (rationalizing why it wasn't really wrong does not make it right!); it takes merciful grace to overcome the guilt of such an act.

- teleology vs. teleolologism: the Last Judgment, not contemporary opinion/expediency, is the end toward which all action must be directed

- the bondage of guilt and the freedom of forgiveness: not acknowleding one's guilt is to lie to oneself; the burden of living such a lie weighs heavily upon the one who is guilty. Confession unburdens one of guilt by placing one's faith in the work of Christ on the cross; repentance puts one on the path of following the way of life in Christ.

- working to justify oneself vs. working out one's faith: if one senses that one has fallen short of being a good person, one may strive to do things that seem good so that one is accepted as a good person; however, no amount of doing things that seem good can make one good, because only God is good. God has proven Himself to be willing to overlook one's human shortcomings by becoming human Himself in Christ Jesus and doing what is right in living and dying in a way pleasing to God. God showed His pleasure by raising Jesus from the dead; this resurrection power is available to every person whose faith is firmly placed in the person and work of Christ. One then faithfully goes on to do good in living as followers of the Way which is the focus of Christian Ethics.

- serving others: See John 13:1-17 Teachers are responsible for teaching what is true and hold high status because of this; however, Christian teachers are called, as are all Chrstians, to hold on lightly to their own status and be always ready to lower their status in order to raise the status of others. Such servanthood was perfectly modeled in the example Jesus set for His disciples when He washed their feet.

BODY & GIFT

2009-04-02T08:35:00.000-04:00

All human relationships involve the body in some way. Those in right relationships take on the responsibility to respect one another’s body. How then are human beings to act responsibly in such embodied relationships?

• God is the giver of life and gives the Law which guides how life is to be lived.

• God is pleased to give each human being a body for living one’s life.
Each human body is either male or female, created in God’s own image:

God said, “Let Us make humanity in Our image, according to Our likeness …”

• This gift of life is God’s gracious act of love towards all human beings.

• All human beings are called by God to give oneself over to God – this “self” includes one’s body.

• This obedient giving of oneself to God is an act of love exemplified perfectly in the life of Jesus.

• All human life is lived in the context of relationship with God and other human beings.

• The one God, who is Spirit, is revealed as a relationship of three persons: Father, Son, Spirit.

• The Son has been revealed as Jesus Christ:

Having existed in the form of God, Christ Jesus did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself taking on the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of human beings. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason, God highly exalted Him

• In the fullness of time, the Son, begotten of the Father, became embodied through the action of the Spirit in the womb of Mary, a young virgin engaged to the man, Joseph.

[A virgin is a woman who has had no bodily intercourse with a man.]

Mary and Joseph, obeying the command of God’s angel, Gabriel, named their son Jesus.

• Jesus, anointed by the Holy Spirit, lived wholly submitted to the will of his heavenly Father.

• While Jesus was still a child, His parents carried out for him all that was required of God’s Law; Jesus then continued in obedient subjection to his parents as he kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and other human beings.

• All other human life has been bodily conceived through procreative intercourse between a person’s mother and father

[in whatever manner possible]

(except in the case of the first two human beings, both of whom were made directly by God)
– Adam, [called the son of God in the geneology of Luke’ Gospel] into whose nostrils the LORD God breathed the breath of life after forming him from the dust of the ground; and
- Eve, whom the LORD God made from a rib He had taken from the body of Adam.

• All human beings are embodied persons who have been given their body by God.

• All human beings are persons who, at birth, have no other material thing but a body.

• A person’s body is inviolate – no one can take a person’s body against that person’s will.

If a person is not pleased to give one’s body to another, the other cannot take that person’s body

[this would be rape]

• Marriage is God’s way of giving one’s body to another

(exemplified in Adam’s relationship with Eve).

• The giving of one’s body to another is appropriate only within the context of marriage.

• Sensation is all that a person can experience bodily – one senses either pleasure or pain.

• Any human activity will involve bodily pleasure or pain.

• Sexual activity is sensual experience focused on bodily pleasure.

• The pleasure of giving one’s body to another is open to life as one’s mind conceives what is in the mind of God.

• If one has given over one’s body to God,

[All human beings are called by God to give oneself over to God – this “self” includes one’s body]

then masturbation will be transgressive against God; this act takes for oneself that which belongs to God.

• Adultery transgresses the marriage relationship – this may be other than bodily transgression.

• Fornication is a transgression of the body – i.e., any inappropriate bodily interaction (including unfaithful fantasy).

A VIEW TO ACHIEVING SOMETHING ... GOOD

2009-02-20T12:30:00.000-05:00

I recently read the following quote from Aristotle's POLITICS:

"Men do all their acts

with a view to achieving something

which is, in their view, good."

It reminded me of what I have said

after one of the many times I did something incredibly foolish:

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

LAW DEFINES BELIEF; BELIEF REVEALS RELATIONSHIP

2009-02-20T12:09:00.000-05:00

"Breaking the law" is a breach of relationship. One who does not acknowledge the law of another is in enmity with the other. Enemies do not usually recognize one another's laws except if they have made some agreement with one another in order to limit the potential of conflict. Such agreement recognizes the need for law to guide living with one another. "Breaking the law" is what happens when one resists acknowledging the priority of the other.

Given that God is prior to all others, God, as the Creator of all things, is the ultimate Lawmaker/Lawgiver. All Creation is bound to keep God's law because of God's priority. Any Creature who does not acknowledge the Creator is in enmity with God; unbelief does not exempt one from the consequences of breaking the law.

Belief may be considered to be the revelation of relationship; one who does not believe in God reveals oneself as an enemy of God. Ignorance of God's law is no excuse, for belief is prior to knowledge. One of the functions of law is to help define belief. Law may be considered to be the language of belief.

A plurality of beliefs becomes problematic for any community to function. Persons who desire to live with one another must abide by some common basic belief; laws follow from this. Law codifies what persons in community commonly believe. When relationship between those persons is good, there is no call to codify the laws governing that relationship. Laws follow from a breach in relationship or concern for the potential of a breach (as in the case of God's command to Adam not to eat of the Tree of Good and Evil).

WHAT IS LAW?

2009-02-20T11:54:00.000-05:00

In class we continued our discussion of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS by considering what "law" is. Recalling how Scripture introduces the Ten Commandments by referring to "the LORD your God," I emphasized that law implies obligation, a concept which may offend someone's sense of "freedom." I asked whether one's resistence to the law (any law, but especially the law of God) may be related to one's unwillingness to be obedient. Recognizing the authority of one's Creator over His Creation is vital to any understanding of one's responsibility in regard to the law. Any law is ultimately derived from and grounded in this relation of Creation to the Creator.

Read CCC 1950-1986 to learn what the Church teaches concerning THE MORAL LAW (in class we only read 1950-1953). Consider what it means to abide by the law; what is the most important thing? Think about what Jesus said about those Pharisees whom he called "hypocrites." Think also about the connection between law and relationship.

Class began with the question "What is law?"

It ended with the question "Who is judge?"

Between those two questions came much discussion.

The following is what appeared on the board (with some ammendment):

What is law? [students handed in their written responses]

Read Romans 2:12-14 - used to judge

[written] set of rules & regulations - many kinds

--> used for references

guide - the way we live

[implies boundaries, like the banks of a river;

law defines society

(outlaw = one living beyond the borders defined by law)]

In taking action, a person makes a judgement to do so:

judgment --> action

A person' action is judged by others;

Christians believe God ultimately judges everyone:

action --> judgment

The Ten Commandments present the law as given by God to the COMMUNITY of believers who acknowledge Him as "our LORD." Christians understand God through Jesus CHRIST, who is revealed in the CANON of Scripture. This class, as a COMMUNITY, is in agreement to accept the CANON of Scripture as taught in particular by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in order to come to an understanding of Christian Ethics which purport to follow the way of CHRIST. Such agreement reminds us of the Covenant of Law made between God and Israel - law faciliates right relationship with one another.

Reading Scripture

2009-02-06T12:26:00.002-05:00

I read aloud from the Gospel of Luke in class the other day and had students write down their thoughts. Read it yourself (in particular, Luke chapter 4:1-30; 13:18-20, 22-30; 21:1-4; 22:39-47; and 24:13-50), preferably aloud, then write down whatever comes to mind. No right or wrong way to do this - just articulate in writing what you may be thinking in the context of having read the Gospel of Luke.

In class I emphasized the importance of reading scripture to Christian Ethics. Christ, Canon, and Community provide the framework for Christian understanding. Reading Scripture applies to the Canon portion of this framework; we understand Scripture to be the Word of God, which makes it applicable to Christ as well; reading the Scripture together lets us share a common experience, which makes it applicable as well to community.

I encouraged the class to make scripture reading a regular part of daily life. Doing this will let Scripture be significantly formative for how we imagine life to be. Such an imagination is essential for practicing Christian Ethics.