One of the things I've been meditating on lately is the universe, particularly: Is there other life out there, and if not, then what is the purpose of the universe being incomprehensibly "big".
First of all, let me just give a little background for those of you who have never studied how big the universe is... Our Galaxy, the milky way, is one of millions in the universe. Even if we could channel the science of Star Trek and travel at "above light speeds" (in a sense), we could never hope to physically explore more than a fraction of the universe. Furthermore, the universe is bigger than we can even observe, and its constantly expanding. To use theological terms, the universe is somewhat like a mystery... we can begin to comprehend its vastness, but there's things we just don't even know we don't know about it.
So why did God make a universe that is so big? I have a few theories, and if you as a ready have others, or agree with one or more of these, please feel free to let me know.
1) Mystery: The reason God made the universe a mystery is exactly that--to give us something that will always be a mystery, even to the realm of science. In some sense, it puts humans in their place, reminding us of how small, finite, and powerless we are compared to the rest of creation. It helps us to be OK with mystery... we can keep trying to understand it, but ultimately, much like some of revelation, we must be OK with not understanding it completely. It enables us to continually be amazed at the beauty of creation--it's nearly impossible to meditate on the universe and feel awe at its beauty and complexity. Finally, this also helps us be a bit more humble.
2) A Purpose Unknown: It's possible that the universe is so big because God has it purpose for it that we just don't even begin to realize. While this is much like the first reason, this theory postulates that there is a reason beyond just being a means of exploration and beauty for the universe.
3) Other Life: This is the most commonly believed theory as to the universe, and it's the one that I personally struggle with the most. As far as I know, the Church holds no definitive teaching about whether alien life exists, or even if believers shouldn't believe in it. I remember reading something about JPII saying it was up to the choice of the believer, but don't quote me on that. Anyway, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I know C.S. Lewis, in his sci-fi space series, posits a very believable scenario in which alien life could exist on other planets. Furthermore, from a statistical standpoint, it's very hard not think that intelligent life could exist on at least one other of the millions of planets in the universe.
However...from a theological standpoint, it would seem that believing in other beings would compromise the state of human persons as the crown and center of creation, Christ's sacrifice for human's of all time, and our unique relationship with God.
I haven't made my mind up about reason #3, but the first two seem completely reasonable. Am I missing anything? No matter what the reason why the universe is so dang huge, it's still one of the most fascinating things in existence, and I will probably never grow tired of thinking about it.
Showing posts with label Reflection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reflection. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Adoration Meditation: Loving Your Enemy
The Background
Yesterday the fiance and I went to Adoration for some much needed prayer time. On the way there we had a discussion which left me with a topic to pray about (even though I didn't necessarily want to).
I'm working in a parish again, and it has its stressful moments. The actions and words of various people, inside the parish and out (abortion and HHS debates, rude drivers, control freaks, and just generally uncharitable people), have made me question why some people can even call themselves Catholics (for they in no way act like it), and unfortunately I have started to lose faith in humanity, the Church, and its people.
Worst of all, I have found a growth of hate in my heart, and it was this very thing I wanted to take to prayer before the Blessed Eucharist. It's hard to feel hate in front of the embodiment of love.
On our way there we were nearly hit (and likely seriously injured) by a driver who was at the very least distracted, but most likely made a stupid or selfish decision to turn left (I realized later that I really should give him the benefit of the doubt). I made a comment that I should have hit him as a matter of justice, to which my fiance began to lecture me about God's mercy. So, considering I have, as of late, lost sight of God's mercy, that is how I decided to approach the topic in prayer.
The Meditation
I opened the book of Psalms (one of my favorite books, especially in times of trouble) and started reading from the beginning. After about 7 of them, I realized something--the Old Testament is filled with examples of people calling to God for Justice. In the Old Testament, this was natural and perfectly acceptable, as God was the deliverer of his people, and Israel trusted him to judge their oppressors. Furthermore, it was this belief in justice after life, that the wicked would parish and the good would be united with him, that gives Christians the consolation they need to not kill or seriously maim those incredibly stupid people (I exaggerate...but only a bit).
I realized however, that Jesus calls to more than that--though asking God to rain down judgement on those who have hurt us (my fiance' pointed out the story of James and John) may be acceptable and sometimes just, it not what the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross calls us to. We are called, in fact, to wish that that person is actually received into heaven.
This is hard, because in doing that, we are left with no consolation of Justice, except for our own reception and union with him. I relate it to the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in which everyone, even those who worked less, gets paid the same amount. This parable, and this act of giving up our own consolation of judgment is SO hard for humans because it is contrary to our nature as human beings. Mercy is divine, and thus it can only be given through the help of Christ.
We should all only be concerned with how WE will be judged, and furthermore, be seeking to help others "get paid" by receiving the beatific vision. This is impossible to do ourselves, and thus the only way to truly love, is to let Christ love through you.
Yesterday the fiance and I went to Adoration for some much needed prayer time. On the way there we had a discussion which left me with a topic to pray about (even though I didn't necessarily want to).
I'm working in a parish again, and it has its stressful moments. The actions and words of various people, inside the parish and out (abortion and HHS debates, rude drivers, control freaks, and just generally uncharitable people), have made me question why some people can even call themselves Catholics (for they in no way act like it), and unfortunately I have started to lose faith in humanity, the Church, and its people.
Worst of all, I have found a growth of hate in my heart, and it was this very thing I wanted to take to prayer before the Blessed Eucharist. It's hard to feel hate in front of the embodiment of love.
On our way there we were nearly hit (and likely seriously injured) by a driver who was at the very least distracted, but most likely made a stupid or selfish decision to turn left (I realized later that I really should give him the benefit of the doubt). I made a comment that I should have hit him as a matter of justice, to which my fiance began to lecture me about God's mercy. So, considering I have, as of late, lost sight of God's mercy, that is how I decided to approach the topic in prayer.
The Meditation
I opened the book of Psalms (one of my favorite books, especially in times of trouble) and started reading from the beginning. After about 7 of them, I realized something--the Old Testament is filled with examples of people calling to God for Justice. In the Old Testament, this was natural and perfectly acceptable, as God was the deliverer of his people, and Israel trusted him to judge their oppressors. Furthermore, it was this belief in justice after life, that the wicked would parish and the good would be united with him, that gives Christians the consolation they need to not kill or seriously maim those incredibly stupid people (I exaggerate...but only a bit).
I realized however, that Jesus calls to more than that--though asking God to rain down judgement on those who have hurt us (my fiance' pointed out the story of James and John) may be acceptable and sometimes just, it not what the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross calls us to. We are called, in fact, to wish that that person is actually received into heaven.
This is hard, because in doing that, we are left with no consolation of Justice, except for our own reception and union with him. I relate it to the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in which everyone, even those who worked less, gets paid the same amount. This parable, and this act of giving up our own consolation of judgment is SO hard for humans because it is contrary to our nature as human beings. Mercy is divine, and thus it can only be given through the help of Christ.
We should all only be concerned with how WE will be judged, and furthermore, be seeking to help others "get paid" by receiving the beatific vision. This is impossible to do ourselves, and thus the only way to truly love, is to let Christ love through you.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
One Year After Marshall
Today (Jan 15, 2012) marks the one year anniversary of me quitting my Youth Ministry job in Marshall, MN. I've thought a lot about what happened over the last year, why it happened, who its changed me, and where I am in life now because of it. This post is, for the most part, a reflection and attempt at healing, it is also in part, an apology.
As much as I would like to blame my departure from Marshall mostly on other people, the truth is it had as much to do with me as anyone else. Yes, I was working long hours with what seemed to be very little support from parents. Yes, there were people I didn't get along with. But more than that, I had no friends and I was homesick--four hours away from my now fiance, and 3 from my family. I was spiritually dead--I didn't feel a part of the parish or able to upkeep my spirituality. I missed grad school and the challenge of learning. I was inconfident in my ability as a youth minister and got very little affirmation I was doing a good job. All these combined lead me to be depressed, which lead me to be apathetic about how I was doing. Let's get one thing straight though--I did not leave because of the youth. They were great, and the reason why I stayed as long as I did. The reasons I left were because of the parents, the job itself, and even more so because of my personal inadequacies.
My program started to slip, parents began to meet and decide whether I should stay or go. I think secretly I was looking for a way out, so when the priest came and offered a chance to peacefully resign, I jumped at it, and I was gone two days later. Without saying goodbye to anyone.
This last part is what I regret the most. It's not that I was a crappy youth minister, that I didn't do everything I could have done in the program, or even that I realized that's not what I'm called to do as a job--but what I regret the most is that I feel I both ran away and abandoned the youth.
And it is this regret that I am still trying to get over--did I do the right thing, or was leaving in the manner I did cowardly? I don't really know yet, but i'm working through the answers to some of my questions. Was going to Marshall in the first place the right decision? I'm pretty sure it was. Was leaving Marshall the right decision? I think it probably was. What I do know however, is that no matter how much I regret the manner in which I left, if I'm to evaluate the decision based off of the current status of my life, leaving Marhsall is quite possibly the best decision of my life.
In just a year I've gotten engaged to (I can honestly say) the most beautiful woman in the world (an event that probably would not have happened if I had stayed in Marshall), I've completed a semester of my Masters of Arts in Theology program at Saint Paul Seminary, and I'm two weeks into a job that I absolutely love. I must say, while in Marshall I was nearly miserable, lately I am the happiest that I have ever been.
I still have some healing to do, still have some things to work out in my mind and heart... but now that I'm happy, I can do that.
As much as I would like to blame my departure from Marshall mostly on other people, the truth is it had as much to do with me as anyone else. Yes, I was working long hours with what seemed to be very little support from parents. Yes, there were people I didn't get along with. But more than that, I had no friends and I was homesick--four hours away from my now fiance, and 3 from my family. I was spiritually dead--I didn't feel a part of the parish or able to upkeep my spirituality. I missed grad school and the challenge of learning. I was inconfident in my ability as a youth minister and got very little affirmation I was doing a good job. All these combined lead me to be depressed, which lead me to be apathetic about how I was doing. Let's get one thing straight though--I did not leave because of the youth. They were great, and the reason why I stayed as long as I did. The reasons I left were because of the parents, the job itself, and even more so because of my personal inadequacies.
My program started to slip, parents began to meet and decide whether I should stay or go. I think secretly I was looking for a way out, so when the priest came and offered a chance to peacefully resign, I jumped at it, and I was gone two days later. Without saying goodbye to anyone.
This last part is what I regret the most. It's not that I was a crappy youth minister, that I didn't do everything I could have done in the program, or even that I realized that's not what I'm called to do as a job--but what I regret the most is that I feel I both ran away and abandoned the youth.
And it is this regret that I am still trying to get over--did I do the right thing, or was leaving in the manner I did cowardly? I don't really know yet, but i'm working through the answers to some of my questions. Was going to Marshall in the first place the right decision? I'm pretty sure it was. Was leaving Marshall the right decision? I think it probably was. What I do know however, is that no matter how much I regret the manner in which I left, if I'm to evaluate the decision based off of the current status of my life, leaving Marhsall is quite possibly the best decision of my life.
In just a year I've gotten engaged to (I can honestly say) the most beautiful woman in the world (an event that probably would not have happened if I had stayed in Marshall), I've completed a semester of my Masters of Arts in Theology program at Saint Paul Seminary, and I'm two weeks into a job that I absolutely love. I must say, while in Marshall I was nearly miserable, lately I am the happiest that I have ever been.
I still have some healing to do, still have some things to work out in my mind and heart... but now that I'm happy, I can do that.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Whether "Cliques" are Opposed to Christian Charity
I think this is an especially relative question... should devout Christians belong to a group, in an exclusive nature, and decline interaction with "lesser" or non-believers? This question is raised constantly in Christian circles, especially among teens and young adults, and on college campuses. Should we ignore those who could lead us to sin or who aren't as holy as we... or should we invite all manner of sinners into our midst in an attempt for conversion? What's more Charitable? Most would say that exclusiveness is not loving, and that would should welcome every type of person into our groups to best love them. Let's examine the question further.
For the purpose of this post, the definition of clique will be, an exclusive group of people with shared interests who spend time together.
Now let me say this first, group-forming and cliques are part of the psyche from the human condition. Because we have an innate need to belong, we naturally form groups to fulfill that need, and thus we form "out-groups" to distinguish what we "are not". However, just because we have a disposition to something does not mean its automatically alright.
Now for the issue at hand--as Christians, can we form exclusive groups and still be charitable? Well first, lets look at what Charity is.
Another word for Charity is love, we know that God is love, and that Jesus told us to not only love God with all our being, but also to love our neighbors as ourselves. Aquinas states that love is "benevolence", or willing the good of the other person. Basically this means that to love another person we must want them to be with God, to love ourselves we must wish to get to heaven, and to love God we must want to do his will.
Now we know we must love God with all our being, so it is him that we should love first and foremost. We then must love ourselves, and then others, for we cannot give what we do not have, and so to be charitable to others we must abide in charity to ourselves. This, above all, means avoiding sin, for it is in sin that we are separated from God and reject His Charity. In avoiding sin, we must also be careful not to allow others to lead us to sin, but also must not condone or support the sinful lives of others. If we are to love our neighbor, we must be his keeper.
Further, each person as a varying degree of strength in God, some are strong and others are week, and each person has particular areas of sin that we fall into habitually. If we are expected to help others we must be strong and not fall into sin ourselves, and thus if a person is going to lead you to sin, how can you help them? Yes, Jesus ate with sinners, but in his perfection he need not worry about falling into the sinful acts of those he fell around, nor did he partake in sinful acts as a means for their conversion.
So here it is... it is from this knowledge that I conclude that certain Christian Cliques are not actually (inherently) contrary to Christian Charity, but rather may help to guard it. Sadly there are some people who, for our own well being, we just shouldn't associate with. If someone will lead you to sin, away from God and His charity, you will no be able love them fully while living in that sin, and so to preserve the love for yourself and the love of God, you can "love them from a distance" ie, pray for their conversion and happiness. But the will of God and your purity must come first.
Now, some people are strong in faith or have a particular resistance to certain vices. If this is the case than you should prudently discern if you are called to evangelize to a group or person in that they may be converted. You should only do this if you are strong enough to resist this sin.
Finally, Cliques can be misused. When used as a means of judgment or self-edification they not only hinder charity on all three accounts, but damage the charity of others as they grow contempt for the Church. If an individual is in need of guidance and fellowship, and your "clique" is solid enough to encourage them in that way without falling itself, the charitable thing to do is to invite them into your group.
Consider the groups you are part of, why you are part of them, and if they are exclusive to the detriment or support of Christian Charity.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The Divine Blueprint
Your life is like a building, and God’s plan for you its blueprint. Early in life God lays the foundation through your experiences, personality, and all of life’s little formations. Each and every day is a brick added.
What will you be: A cottage? A mansion? A Palace? Each has their dignity and purpose. Will you be a refuge for many? An emblem of Beauty? Or maybe a house of work. Each house has its style, is built in its own unique way, and yet there are patterns common among types of houses. Are you a priestly house, built to love the world? Or rather are you a marriage house, built to completely love your spouse and children? Are you a house meant to bless the world with humble, manual labor, doing the work that no one wants to do, but everyone needs? Or are you a house that is meant to preach, to teach, to write, or heal? All of these houses have their own ways of being built, their own foundation, and yet, despite all the similarities in these vocations, each is still very much unique.
I suppose what this really all comes down to is discernment. What are some things you look for? Above you listen for the voice of God whispering in your ear and in your heart what he wants you to do. But also we must look at our life experiences and within us to who we are. What foundation has God laid for us, what patterns of love, prayer, etc. do we have in our lives that might point us towards a specific vocation. Many times God does not reveal things to us until we are ready to handle them, so the pattern isn’t always clear, or the goal of the pattern, but if we think and pray about who we are and what God has revealed to us thus far, I believe that we can catch a glimpse of our future and the amazingness God has in store for us.
There’s my 2-cent analogy for the day J
Monday, August 1, 2011
Reflections on Charitability
I was thinking and praying today during mass about what to do concerning a specific situation. I thought it very important to discern correctly what to do as it concerned the well-being of another person. I began to feel overwhelmed because how can I, as a human being with limited intelligence and obscured by sin, be sure that I am right, especially when the other person is sure that the opposite is right?
That’s part of the problem—in today’s world, everyone thinks they’re right, but there are some situations where only one person can be in accord with reality. I see this especially in the Catholic world in the liberal vs. conservative debate. Conservatives think liberals are heretics, removed from the essence of the Church, and just weird. Liberals think the conservatives are uncharitable, lacking the spirit, and close-minded. Both are wrong. Is there only one right answer in liturgy? Of course not, liturgy is the praise of the people, and praise takes different forms. I agree, there is a definite area in which the liturgy must occur to be appropriate, but because something varies from the “norm” does not mean it is illicit, invalid, or heresy. If everything were in the norm then there would be no variety. It is the openness to variety while remaining true to the spirit of Christ and the Church that makes the Catholic Church a universal and global church. I’ll admit, it’s a hard line to walk but it’s possible.
The human condition makes us judge and think we’re right without really first considering the alternative. We want to feel “in” and seek the approval of our peers, so we naturally point out the flaws of the “other” instead of inherently seeing the holy, the Christ, in all things. No matter how far a Church or a Christian is from God, there is still goodness, there is still dignity, and there is still some form of divine work there. This is especially so with parishes and people who are seeking to do God’s will. Sure they may err, we all do, but doesn’t the very desire to seek holiness make you, in some sense, holy? We are too obsessed with condemning and judging the other that we fail to see the good in things that we don’t already agree with.
All this has led me to question whether or not I can ever really know if I’m right. I know that I can, God speaks to me, reveals things to me, and I do possess natural reason that seeks Truth in accordance with the natural order of things. There are times I am right in my actions and my beliefs. Of course, there are many, many, times in which I discern, act, reason, or believe incorrectly. This is what causes the doubt. How can I be sure that what I pray and decide is actually according to the Will and revelation of God. I guess what I end up falling back on is 1) God’s ability to correct me and show me I’m on the wrong path, 2) God’s mercy, and 3) the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
All this pondering and prayer led me to think about the gifts that God has given me. What are they? I’m not an incredibly good-looking person. I’m not strong, or exceptionally eloquent. I’m intelligent but not exceptionally or in a way that other people can’t fulfill that need. I’m musical, but not prodigious. So what has God given me? Basically, He has given me, as he has every human person, a unique capacity to love in a specific way and Charism.
Knowing this, it is now my job to discern HOW best to love. In a general way, I must obviously love as God does. How is this? 1) Meeting people where they are at: God will never turn his back on us because we do not do what he says. His love is unconditional, human love should strive to be that as well. 2) True love must respect free will: I must point out errors, pray, and continue love, but I must never condemn or withdraw my love because someone fails to align their will with the truth.
That’s really all I’ve come up with—in reality I haven’t answered any questions about liturgy or what is right and wrong. The only conclusion that I have come to is that I must be charitable in all things, for that will win more hearts for the Lord than legalistic rules. It’s a fine line to tread, and I will often err on both sides. Pray for me Brethren, and I shall pray for you.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reflection on 1 Cor 10-12
What wonderful readings today! I'm going to focus mostly on how these readings can be used as an aid in Catholic Doctrine Apologetics.
A good portion of Chapter 10 and 11 focus on Christ's Sacrifice and our Eucharistic meal--THE CORE MOST CENTRAL DOGMA OF OUR FAITH! This is pretty much my reason for being Catholic, so I will enumerate on what this passage means for Catholics! In 10:16 Paul reminds us that we are indeed sharing in the "Body and Blood" of Christ. Here, sharing is from the greek "Koinonia", which literally means "to participate in". In 11:24-25 Paul again affirms, in the words of Christ, "This is my body... This is my blood... do this in remembrance of me". Here the greek for "remembrance" is "anamnesis", which literally means to "remember again". This does not mean that this is MERELY a memory, but that it should not be vainly done without remembering the sacrifice of Christ. While being support for the belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the ideas of Partaking and Remembering together hold support for what the Catholic Church holds the Eucharistic Celebration (the Mass) to be--an actual participation in the original crucifixion of our Lord! Whoah! By participating in the remembrance (re-presentation), and keeping in mind that God is outside of time and died for those in all times, we are actually making manifest Golgatha on the Altar. Additionally... why would Christ sacrifice himself, and then celebrate such a sacrifice if he did not want us to be there at Golgatha with him?
The second idea I want to touch on is the focus on chapter 11 and deals with "head coverings" which, for many modern day people, seems to be a point of contention with Paul. However, there is evidence that shows that, with respect to everything else the Corinthians sucked at, this was a relatively unimportant matter to Paul, and the Corinthians probably brought it up themselves. First let me say that Paul was not against women teaching in the Church, for he mentions women praying and prophesying (11:5). Rather, the point of this passage is two-fold: 1) to recognize proper authority within the Church and within relationships, and 2) to celebrate God-Given Differences in Sexuality! On point two: God created men and women different, and complimentary. Though we are equal, we are not the same. It is these very differences that make us compliment each other, and thus we have different gifts and roles (more on that in the next section). On point one: All genuine authority comes from God, therefore though in a traditional sense a man may be the head of the relationship as deemed by God, it does in no way demean the role of the woman. Both are mutually submissive (11:11-12) to each other and, though the man may be the head, the woman is definitely the heart of the relationship. A relationship cannot function without both.
Finally, let me speak on Spiritual gifts and the Body of Christ! This section of Chapter 12 has many implications for Catholic Doctrine. First, it forms the basis of Catholic Social Teaching and Solidarity--because we are all connected, we have an inherent duty to uphold the dignity, health, and well being of all our members. Secondly, I believe this aids in the support of Women not being priests. Paul reminds us that, not all are called be apostles, prophets, healers, etc. and yet it is that very difference that makes us beautiful. In reality, we don't choose our vocation, God does, and it is not our Right to be made holy by following God's will... it is our privilege. Therefore, though some women (and also some men) may have a desire to become a priest, it is not necessarily their calling. We are all called to minister in the way in which God can best use us, and even if that calling may be "lowly" we are assured that greater honor is given to the "inferior members" (12:23).
A good portion of Chapter 10 and 11 focus on Christ's Sacrifice and our Eucharistic meal--THE CORE MOST CENTRAL DOGMA OF OUR FAITH! This is pretty much my reason for being Catholic, so I will enumerate on what this passage means for Catholics! In 10:16 Paul reminds us that we are indeed sharing in the "Body and Blood" of Christ. Here, sharing is from the greek "Koinonia", which literally means "to participate in". In 11:24-25 Paul again affirms, in the words of Christ, "This is my body... This is my blood... do this in remembrance of me". Here the greek for "remembrance" is "anamnesis", which literally means to "remember again". This does not mean that this is MERELY a memory, but that it should not be vainly done without remembering the sacrifice of Christ. While being support for the belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the ideas of Partaking and Remembering together hold support for what the Catholic Church holds the Eucharistic Celebration (the Mass) to be--an actual participation in the original crucifixion of our Lord! Whoah! By participating in the remembrance (re-presentation), and keeping in mind that God is outside of time and died for those in all times, we are actually making manifest Golgatha on the Altar. Additionally... why would Christ sacrifice himself, and then celebrate such a sacrifice if he did not want us to be there at Golgatha with him?
The second idea I want to touch on is the focus on chapter 11 and deals with "head coverings" which, for many modern day people, seems to be a point of contention with Paul. However, there is evidence that shows that, with respect to everything else the Corinthians sucked at, this was a relatively unimportant matter to Paul, and the Corinthians probably brought it up themselves. First let me say that Paul was not against women teaching in the Church, for he mentions women praying and prophesying (11:5). Rather, the point of this passage is two-fold: 1) to recognize proper authority within the Church and within relationships, and 2) to celebrate God-Given Differences in Sexuality! On point two: God created men and women different, and complimentary. Though we are equal, we are not the same. It is these very differences that make us compliment each other, and thus we have different gifts and roles (more on that in the next section). On point one: All genuine authority comes from God, therefore though in a traditional sense a man may be the head of the relationship as deemed by God, it does in no way demean the role of the woman. Both are mutually submissive (11:11-12) to each other and, though the man may be the head, the woman is definitely the heart of the relationship. A relationship cannot function without both.
Finally, let me speak on Spiritual gifts and the Body of Christ! This section of Chapter 12 has many implications for Catholic Doctrine. First, it forms the basis of Catholic Social Teaching and Solidarity--because we are all connected, we have an inherent duty to uphold the dignity, health, and well being of all our members. Secondly, I believe this aids in the support of Women not being priests. Paul reminds us that, not all are called be apostles, prophets, healers, etc. and yet it is that very difference that makes us beautiful. In reality, we don't choose our vocation, God does, and it is not our Right to be made holy by following God's will... it is our privilege. Therefore, though some women (and also some men) may have a desire to become a priest, it is not necessarily their calling. We are all called to minister in the way in which God can best use us, and even if that calling may be "lowly" we are assured that greater honor is given to the "inferior members" (12:23).
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Reflection on 1 Cor 7-9
How great is the Glory of God!
These are three beautiful chapters written by Paul which in return present three distinct ideas for living a Christian life.
Chapter 7 deals mostly with how to be married, but in a more general sense how to live out one's vocation. As I am yet unmarried, I will focus on the general aspect of relationship and vocation. In verse 4 Paul tells the Christian that both spouses do not have control over their own bodies, but rather a claim to the other's. What a beautiful statement that strikes at the heart of a Holy Marital Relationship--MUTUAL SUBMISSION AND SACRIFICE! When we enter into a relationship, especially one with the commitment such as marriage, we enter into a life lived exclusively for the betterment of the other person. Think of the weight of that responsibility! But in love all things are possible, for love builds up, and the Lord grants us an endless supply should we desire it! This commitment is final--under no circumstance should two married believers separate.
Chapter 8 deals with eating meat sacrificed to idols, however the deeper issue hear concerns acting out love. While those that say that other gods don't exist and thus eating such meat is OK are objectively right, they're arrogant knowledge overshadows their spirit of love. Their actions lead those who are weaker to scandal and sin, and thus it is not merely enough for the knowledgeable to profess their faith in "One God", they must ACT in a spirit of love as well.
Chapter 9 talks of the duties of those called to minister. This again focuses much on sacrifice and discipline. In v. 16 talks about the obligation that preaching the gospel gives him. This obligation means that in order to preach the Gospel, Paul must give his will to God and becomes free only in so much as he "becomes a slave to all" (v. 19). Next, in a beautiful passage, Paul describes how he has "become all things to all peoples" (v.22) in order that some might be saved. This speaks deeply to my heart as it is what i desire to be, and also what I think we all are called to be in some sense. We must use any moral means necessary to reach others, and often this includes making ourselves weak, vulnerable, and scared. I will end in the same way that Paul ends this section:
"Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it" (1 Cor 9:24).
These are three beautiful chapters written by Paul which in return present three distinct ideas for living a Christian life.
Chapter 7 deals mostly with how to be married, but in a more general sense how to live out one's vocation. As I am yet unmarried, I will focus on the general aspect of relationship and vocation. In verse 4 Paul tells the Christian that both spouses do not have control over their own bodies, but rather a claim to the other's. What a beautiful statement that strikes at the heart of a Holy Marital Relationship--MUTUAL SUBMISSION AND SACRIFICE! When we enter into a relationship, especially one with the commitment such as marriage, we enter into a life lived exclusively for the betterment of the other person. Think of the weight of that responsibility! But in love all things are possible, for love builds up, and the Lord grants us an endless supply should we desire it! This commitment is final--under no circumstance should two married believers separate.
Chapter 8 deals with eating meat sacrificed to idols, however the deeper issue hear concerns acting out love. While those that say that other gods don't exist and thus eating such meat is OK are objectively right, they're arrogant knowledge overshadows their spirit of love. Their actions lead those who are weaker to scandal and sin, and thus it is not merely enough for the knowledgeable to profess their faith in "One God", they must ACT in a spirit of love as well.
Chapter 9 talks of the duties of those called to minister. This again focuses much on sacrifice and discipline. In v. 16 talks about the obligation that preaching the gospel gives him. This obligation means that in order to preach the Gospel, Paul must give his will to God and becomes free only in so much as he "becomes a slave to all" (v. 19). Next, in a beautiful passage, Paul describes how he has "become all things to all peoples" (v.22) in order that some might be saved. This speaks deeply to my heart as it is what i desire to be, and also what I think we all are called to be in some sense. We must use any moral means necessary to reach others, and often this includes making ourselves weak, vulnerable, and scared. I will end in the same way that Paul ends this section:
"Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it" (1 Cor 9:24).
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Reflection on 1 Cor 4-6
Having addressed the problems of the Corinthian Church is the past two chapters, Paul now begins to move into his teaching about how to fix said problems. In the following chapters there is heavy implications about living a virtuous life.
Trustworthiness--Paul says first (4:2) that stewards must be trustworthy. This is ever so important because people must be able to trust that the words we speak, and the actions that we do are in accordance with the Truth of Christ. Being trustworthy is also especially important in the second virtue:
Right Judgement--Paul states "do not pronounce judgment before the time", and that all judgment really comes from the Lord (4:5). However, being Christians there are times when we are called to exercise right judgment, especially when calling someone to greater holiness, or in preventing someone from hurting the Church as a whole. Paul deals with this in chapter 5 when he talks about the effects of Sexual Immorality on the Church. He states that these people MUST be judged and that such is a sin is even worse to associate with than robbers, greed, and idolaters. He states that even one speck can ruin the holiness of the whole (5:6). He even condones kicking such a person out! This seems radical and a last resort, for of course the purpose of the Church is to bring people to Christ, not keep them from Him. However, when the acts of one jeopardize the holiness of the whole, he must be let go. The Church has shown this in the past through the practice of excommunication in extreme circumstances. I recently had to ban a youth from the program for the rest of the year. I didn't want to, but I had to--and this gives biblical weight to the decision I had to make. All we can do for such people is pray for them. Finally, part of exercising right judgement is knowing when and where to do so. Like Paul says in Chapter 6--we don't bring matters between believers to be judged by unbelievers... that's just stupid.
Chastity--Obviously if sexual immorality stains the entire church, we should be chaste, living our lives according to the sexual guidelines of our current vocation.
Humility--The second half of Chapter 4 deals with the virtue of Humility, arguably the most important Christian and Contrary Virtue. Paul blatantly points out that all things we have are gifts, so why would we boast? Silly Corinthians. Verses 10-13 are beautiful as Paul outlines the dichometric qualities of the Apostles with those of "normal believers" in that all the Apostles do would seemingly be negative to most of society (foolish, weakness, disrepute, hunger, thirst, etc.) but because all are done in Christ, they are made righteous by them.
Freedom--Finally Paul talks a bit of freedom, which is again in conjunction with right judgment. The phrase "all things are lawful for me" at first threw me for a loop, for how can all things be lawful? However, after doing some research with some Biblical Commentaries, I realized that this statement is said by the Corinthians. In other words, it highlights the Corinthians' distorted view of freedom as being "able to do what one wants" rather than "able to do the good". Therefore, while freedom of will allows us to do what we will, the freedom allotted to us by Christ does not. Because our bodies are a temple and made to glorify God, we should actively engage that which glorifies God, and actively flee from that which does not. It sometimes takes right judgment to decide which is which.
Trustworthiness--Paul says first (4:2) that stewards must be trustworthy. This is ever so important because people must be able to trust that the words we speak, and the actions that we do are in accordance with the Truth of Christ. Being trustworthy is also especially important in the second virtue:
Right Judgement--Paul states "do not pronounce judgment before the time", and that all judgment really comes from the Lord (4:5). However, being Christians there are times when we are called to exercise right judgment, especially when calling someone to greater holiness, or in preventing someone from hurting the Church as a whole. Paul deals with this in chapter 5 when he talks about the effects of Sexual Immorality on the Church. He states that these people MUST be judged and that such is a sin is even worse to associate with than robbers, greed, and idolaters. He states that even one speck can ruin the holiness of the whole (5:6). He even condones kicking such a person out! This seems radical and a last resort, for of course the purpose of the Church is to bring people to Christ, not keep them from Him. However, when the acts of one jeopardize the holiness of the whole, he must be let go. The Church has shown this in the past through the practice of excommunication in extreme circumstances. I recently had to ban a youth from the program for the rest of the year. I didn't want to, but I had to--and this gives biblical weight to the decision I had to make. All we can do for such people is pray for them. Finally, part of exercising right judgement is knowing when and where to do so. Like Paul says in Chapter 6--we don't bring matters between believers to be judged by unbelievers... that's just stupid.
Chastity--Obviously if sexual immorality stains the entire church, we should be chaste, living our lives according to the sexual guidelines of our current vocation.
Humility--The second half of Chapter 4 deals with the virtue of Humility, arguably the most important Christian and Contrary Virtue. Paul blatantly points out that all things we have are gifts, so why would we boast? Silly Corinthians. Verses 10-13 are beautiful as Paul outlines the dichometric qualities of the Apostles with those of "normal believers" in that all the Apostles do would seemingly be negative to most of society (foolish, weakness, disrepute, hunger, thirst, etc.) but because all are done in Christ, they are made righteous by them.
Freedom--Finally Paul talks a bit of freedom, which is again in conjunction with right judgment. The phrase "all things are lawful for me" at first threw me for a loop, for how can all things be lawful? However, after doing some research with some Biblical Commentaries, I realized that this statement is said by the Corinthians. In other words, it highlights the Corinthians' distorted view of freedom as being "able to do what one wants" rather than "able to do the good". Therefore, while freedom of will allows us to do what we will, the freedom allotted to us by Christ does not. Because our bodies are a temple and made to glorify God, we should actively engage that which glorifies God, and actively flee from that which does not. It sometimes takes right judgment to decide which is which.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Reflection on 1 Cor 1-3
Corinthians is one of my favorite books and, being recently called to read it more in depth, I have decided this would be a wonderful way to process some of what I read.
In 1:10 Paul tells us that there should be "no division" among us and that we should be "united in the same mind and purpose". Paul today is probably sobbing up in heaven (not really) about how divisive our Church has become... not only do we have Catholics and Protestants, but we have over 5,000 denominations of Protestantism, various forms of Catholicism, and even in the Catholic Church we have "Liberal and Conservative, Orthodox and Progressive". Of course, this isn't all bad, varying opinions lead to the rich diversity of the Church. However, the problem arises when these different opinions turn into to divisions. We are not of the same mind... we may all claim to be centered on Christ, but our actions speak otherwise. I am positive that God does not think in terms of denominations... he doesn't want them, but does it really matter if there are differences as long as the center is the same?
The next section kind of threw me for a loop. In 1:17, Paul states that Christ did not send him to Baptize but to proclaim the Gospel. Isn't this contradictory to the great commission in Matthew? However, maybe Paul is responding to the problems he sees with people saying "I was baptized by N." In 18, Paul quotes Isaiah saying that God thwarts the discernment of the discerning. I still don't know what that means... why would God thwart something he wants us to actively engage in?
Next Paul talks about wisdom in relationship to proclaiming Christ Crucified. In 2:4-5 he talks about how he does not speak with words of wisdom but with demonstration of the Spirit. Beautiful! While wisdom is great, we sometimes forget that we are experiential beings, and thus much of our evangelization should be based on helping others EXPERIENCE God!
There is so much more in these first three chapters that I could talk about. But these are the main ideas, and I'm sick of writing.
In 1:10 Paul tells us that there should be "no division" among us and that we should be "united in the same mind and purpose". Paul today is probably sobbing up in heaven (not really) about how divisive our Church has become... not only do we have Catholics and Protestants, but we have over 5,000 denominations of Protestantism, various forms of Catholicism, and even in the Catholic Church we have "Liberal and Conservative, Orthodox and Progressive". Of course, this isn't all bad, varying opinions lead to the rich diversity of the Church. However, the problem arises when these different opinions turn into to divisions. We are not of the same mind... we may all claim to be centered on Christ, but our actions speak otherwise. I am positive that God does not think in terms of denominations... he doesn't want them, but does it really matter if there are differences as long as the center is the same?
The next section kind of threw me for a loop. In 1:17, Paul states that Christ did not send him to Baptize but to proclaim the Gospel. Isn't this contradictory to the great commission in Matthew? However, maybe Paul is responding to the problems he sees with people saying "I was baptized by N." In 18, Paul quotes Isaiah saying that God thwarts the discernment of the discerning. I still don't know what that means... why would God thwart something he wants us to actively engage in?
Next Paul talks about wisdom in relationship to proclaiming Christ Crucified. In 2:4-5 he talks about how he does not speak with words of wisdom but with demonstration of the Spirit. Beautiful! While wisdom is great, we sometimes forget that we are experiential beings, and thus much of our evangelization should be based on helping others EXPERIENCE God!
There is so much more in these first three chapters that I could talk about. But these are the main ideas, and I'm sick of writing.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Further Distinctions on Culture
My continued reading of Ron Luce's book about youth ministry again brings me to consider even more deeply the essential differences between Catholic and Protestant culture. I have reflected on this for some time, and some of the things that have been coming to me have slightly concerned me. Therefore, more than wanting to know what the OBJECTIVE and essential differences are in culture, I'm beginning to be more concerned about the cause of the SUBJECTIVE essential differences are in the two cultures. For two of these I will be presenting as something in which I see as a problem in the Catholic Church. For a few it will be things I see as advantages.
Hierarchy and Role
One of the things that has bugged me about this book is that Ron Luce keeps talking about Youth Pastors preparing weekly/monthly "sermons". Sermons in my mind are reserved for Sacramentally ordained ministers during the celebration of liturgy. While there are other (sacramental) issues here, the first thing that this brings to mind is the Catholic focus on hierarchy. I love this about the Church... there are defined boundaries and roles that, while at first may seem limiting, are really just expressions of varied divine-given authority.
God gives us different roles in the Church, and while some may be called to teach, not all those who are called to teach are to do so in the same capacity or with the same authority. I am a DRE, I teach youth and to some extent parents as family, as well as evangelize to my friends (which is not done in a formal and public manner). I am not called to to shepherd a parish, a diocese, or an entire Church... that is for people who have been ordained by God. I give talks and lead discussions, I do not give sermons, letters, or encyclicals.
I feel as though this is a difference from protestants, both in the obvious differences in dependency on hierarchy (one of the major schism points in history), but also on the adherence to implicit boundaries. In a Catholic Church, not just anyone can give a formal and public exposition on faith (sure... privately is fine), but must be found to have some qualification of doing so. Perhaps my perception that protestants don't adhere to such rules is incorrect, but this is the first difference I perceive.
Sacramental Economy
One of the other things that defines Catholic Culture, and which I truly love, is the Sacramental Economy of the Church. The CCC (1076) defines the Sacramental Economy as "the communication of the fruits of Christ’s death and Resurrection through the sacraments". Basically its our participation in certain rituals that directly impart grace to us. The Sacraments are the life-blood of the Church and, all seven together, provide the necessary basis for living an authentic Christian life if practiced correctly. This is one area where my heart aches for protestants who don't have these, or don't recognize the depth and beauty inherent in every one of these. Sacraments are the primary way in which Catholics encounter God on earth, and thus formidably shape our culture by giving us an appreciation for ritual, liturgy, mediation, "mysticism", tradition, and the literal infusing of the Holy Spirit.
Depth of Emotion
This brings me to the first concern I have for my beloved Church. I'll begin with a Caveat though--this may just be a personal struggle that I am dealing with. It may not be characteristic of the Church as a whole, but it seems to be something I have noticed.
There seems to be a lack of depth in the Emotion of the Church. For some reason we are afraid to talk about how God makes us "feel", or how Jesus Christ is "moving in our lives", or how we have "received Jesus into our hearts". Many people would say we don't talk about it because they are "overly protestant terms". I disagree--I think there is a reason they are overly protestant. It seems to me that, in many cases, especially in certain populations in the Church, we become "surface Catholics"--focused on the intellectual and theoretical aspect of God, and not so much the Spiritual-relational aspect of Him. It's not that we don't have deep feelings of love for Christ, it's not that Spirit doesn't move us, it's that, for some reason, we seem to be afraid of talking about it (which will bring me to my next point).
This is one thing I think we need to learn from the protestants. They don't seem to fear expressing themselves... they can stand up and yell, "Amen". They talk about the intimate relationships they have with God... why don't we? I'm not saying we all need to be charismatic, I for one get a little uncomfortable with that and while a beautiful thing, is not for everyone... we just need to be open to expressing the Spirit more than we are.
Vulnerability
This issue follows closely with the last one. We as a Church (in my perception) are afraid to be vulnerable. Sure, we talk about it, we preach it, we right about it, but when it comes down to the individual practice of it, most lay people (and probably many ordained as well) are scared to be vulnerable. This is a part of the human condition unfortunately, but not only are we afraid to be vulnerable to each other, but to God. Many people are afraid to let the Spirit move in them. This is probably just a way of looking at the Emotional depth in a different way, so I won't go into too much depth about it.
Conclusion
I love my Church and my God with the depths of my heart. I am convinced that it is the fullest truth available to humans, and the fastest way to union with him. The Church is alive, we are the largest single denomination in the world, we serve, we evangelize, we worship, we teach, and we love. I feel we need to go deeper, we always need to, as Christ said, "put out into the deep". We need to challenge society's notion of privatism, individualism, and ego-centrism. Catholicism at its core is communal, and while we do a good job at worshiping in public, of praying in public, and engaging in community--if we want our numbers to grow and if we want to truly change hearts, we must not be afraid to be vulnerable and to show emotions.
Hierarchy and Role
One of the things that has bugged me about this book is that Ron Luce keeps talking about Youth Pastors preparing weekly/monthly "sermons". Sermons in my mind are reserved for Sacramentally ordained ministers during the celebration of liturgy. While there are other (sacramental) issues here, the first thing that this brings to mind is the Catholic focus on hierarchy. I love this about the Church... there are defined boundaries and roles that, while at first may seem limiting, are really just expressions of varied divine-given authority.
God gives us different roles in the Church, and while some may be called to teach, not all those who are called to teach are to do so in the same capacity or with the same authority. I am a DRE, I teach youth and to some extent parents as family, as well as evangelize to my friends (which is not done in a formal and public manner). I am not called to to shepherd a parish, a diocese, or an entire Church... that is for people who have been ordained by God. I give talks and lead discussions, I do not give sermons, letters, or encyclicals.
I feel as though this is a difference from protestants, both in the obvious differences in dependency on hierarchy (one of the major schism points in history), but also on the adherence to implicit boundaries. In a Catholic Church, not just anyone can give a formal and public exposition on faith (sure... privately is fine), but must be found to have some qualification of doing so. Perhaps my perception that protestants don't adhere to such rules is incorrect, but this is the first difference I perceive.
Sacramental Economy
One of the other things that defines Catholic Culture, and which I truly love, is the Sacramental Economy of the Church. The CCC (1076) defines the Sacramental Economy as "the communication of the fruits of Christ’s death and Resurrection through the sacraments". Basically its our participation in certain rituals that directly impart grace to us. The Sacraments are the life-blood of the Church and, all seven together, provide the necessary basis for living an authentic Christian life if practiced correctly. This is one area where my heart aches for protestants who don't have these, or don't recognize the depth and beauty inherent in every one of these. Sacraments are the primary way in which Catholics encounter God on earth, and thus formidably shape our culture by giving us an appreciation for ritual, liturgy, mediation, "mysticism", tradition, and the literal infusing of the Holy Spirit.
Depth of Emotion
This brings me to the first concern I have for my beloved Church. I'll begin with a Caveat though--this may just be a personal struggle that I am dealing with. It may not be characteristic of the Church as a whole, but it seems to be something I have noticed.
There seems to be a lack of depth in the Emotion of the Church. For some reason we are afraid to talk about how God makes us "feel", or how Jesus Christ is "moving in our lives", or how we have "received Jesus into our hearts". Many people would say we don't talk about it because they are "overly protestant terms". I disagree--I think there is a reason they are overly protestant. It seems to me that, in many cases, especially in certain populations in the Church, we become "surface Catholics"--focused on the intellectual and theoretical aspect of God, and not so much the Spiritual-relational aspect of Him. It's not that we don't have deep feelings of love for Christ, it's not that Spirit doesn't move us, it's that, for some reason, we seem to be afraid of talking about it (which will bring me to my next point).
This is one thing I think we need to learn from the protestants. They don't seem to fear expressing themselves... they can stand up and yell, "Amen". They talk about the intimate relationships they have with God... why don't we? I'm not saying we all need to be charismatic, I for one get a little uncomfortable with that and while a beautiful thing, is not for everyone... we just need to be open to expressing the Spirit more than we are.
Vulnerability
This issue follows closely with the last one. We as a Church (in my perception) are afraid to be vulnerable. Sure, we talk about it, we preach it, we right about it, but when it comes down to the individual practice of it, most lay people (and probably many ordained as well) are scared to be vulnerable. This is a part of the human condition unfortunately, but not only are we afraid to be vulnerable to each other, but to God. Many people are afraid to let the Spirit move in them. This is probably just a way of looking at the Emotional depth in a different way, so I won't go into too much depth about it.
Conclusion
I love my Church and my God with the depths of my heart. I am convinced that it is the fullest truth available to humans, and the fastest way to union with him. The Church is alive, we are the largest single denomination in the world, we serve, we evangelize, we worship, we teach, and we love. I feel we need to go deeper, we always need to, as Christ said, "put out into the deep". We need to challenge society's notion of privatism, individualism, and ego-centrism. Catholicism at its core is communal, and while we do a good job at worshiping in public, of praying in public, and engaging in community--if we want our numbers to grow and if we want to truly change hearts, we must not be afraid to be vulnerable and to show emotions.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Subway Personality Profile
You can tell a lot about person by what and how they order at Subway. I'll use my experience today as an example.
I ordered my usual: a single toasted 12" black forest ham on Italian bread, with cheese, lettuce, and mayo with a combo (sun chips and a drink). I'll admit, I did switch it up a bit... I usually get white bread, non-toasted, and cheddar cheese (instead of the white American I did today). I ordered with "please and thank you" and with clear and decisive instructions, anticipating what they were going to ask. I payed with a check card.
Here's what my order tells about me:
The fact that I got my usual, but switched it up just bit shows that while I value consistency, tradition, and precedence, I also don't mind a little variety within the proper boundaries.
My choice of common sandwich with simple and traditional toppings points not only to the above values, but also to my need for simplicity and non-extravagance. It also shows that I'm slightly picky.
The fact that I got only a single 12" shows that I most likely eat/live alone, but that either I eat a lot, or that I save for later meals. It also shows that I can be frugal in that I made sure to get the cheap 12" and I'm eating for two meals. However, the fact that I got a combo shows that while I can be frugal, I don't mind spending a little more for the finer points in life. The sun chips and Gatorade also show that, at some level, I value eating healthy (I could have gotten a cookie and mountain dew after all!)
They way in which I ordered shows that 1) I have been to subway before, showing that I probably eat out relatively frequently, 2) I value politeness and can empathize with what it's like working behind a counter, and 3) I know what I want, I plan ahead, and know how to communicate that need. The way in which I payed shows that I value efficiency, am more "modern", and I don't feel carry cash (meaning I'm not involved in anything "shady" ;) ).
The lady ahead of me was probably in her 80's, ordered two "$5 foot longs" with all the toppings, was slow in making her decision, and didn't use please or thank you. She talked about what they "advertised" and didn't really know what she was doing. This tells me that she is frugal, is ordering for someone else (probably a younger person because she doesn't eat out much and doesn't go to "newer places" like subway), she may value politeness, but perhaps sees a distinction between those in front of the counter and those behind (and is kind of bossy), and she is not picky at all and believes that eating her vegetables is probably what got her to her ripe old age.
The most awkward part of this however, was post-order--she went to pay and was surprised that the total for two "$5 foot-longs" was $10.69 because, "They are advertise at exactly $5!". The cashier tried to explain tax... but the woman couldn't understand. After paying in cash... for which the woman scrounged around her purse for a couple minutes, she took her meal and a glass. I thought she was going to get water... but instead she took a full glass of Coke (which she hadn't paid for). The cashier purposely looked away and didn't say anything, so neither did I.
There's a lot of stuff you could infer from this, but this post is getting long and I'm sure you get the idea. I realize that judgements made in this method are just that--judgements--and are often unfounded and sometimes incorrect. However, in my experience (I eat subway frequently) there are general behaviors that people exhibit that I feel comfortable inferring certain personality traits from.
Feel free to leave an opinion!
I ordered my usual: a single toasted 12" black forest ham on Italian bread, with cheese, lettuce, and mayo with a combo (sun chips and a drink). I'll admit, I did switch it up a bit... I usually get white bread, non-toasted, and cheddar cheese (instead of the white American I did today). I ordered with "please and thank you" and with clear and decisive instructions, anticipating what they were going to ask. I payed with a check card.
Here's what my order tells about me:
The fact that I got my usual, but switched it up just bit shows that while I value consistency, tradition, and precedence, I also don't mind a little variety within the proper boundaries.
My choice of common sandwich with simple and traditional toppings points not only to the above values, but also to my need for simplicity and non-extravagance. It also shows that I'm slightly picky.
The fact that I got only a single 12" shows that I most likely eat/live alone, but that either I eat a lot, or that I save for later meals. It also shows that I can be frugal in that I made sure to get the cheap 12" and I'm eating for two meals. However, the fact that I got a combo shows that while I can be frugal, I don't mind spending a little more for the finer points in life. The sun chips and Gatorade also show that, at some level, I value eating healthy (I could have gotten a cookie and mountain dew after all!)
They way in which I ordered shows that 1) I have been to subway before, showing that I probably eat out relatively frequently, 2) I value politeness and can empathize with what it's like working behind a counter, and 3) I know what I want, I plan ahead, and know how to communicate that need. The way in which I payed shows that I value efficiency, am more "modern", and I don't feel carry cash (meaning I'm not involved in anything "shady" ;) ).
The lady ahead of me was probably in her 80's, ordered two "$5 foot longs" with all the toppings, was slow in making her decision, and didn't use please or thank you. She talked about what they "advertised" and didn't really know what she was doing. This tells me that she is frugal, is ordering for someone else (probably a younger person because she doesn't eat out much and doesn't go to "newer places" like subway), she may value politeness, but perhaps sees a distinction between those in front of the counter and those behind (and is kind of bossy), and she is not picky at all and believes that eating her vegetables is probably what got her to her ripe old age.
The most awkward part of this however, was post-order--she went to pay and was surprised that the total for two "$5 foot-longs" was $10.69 because, "They are advertise at exactly $5!". The cashier tried to explain tax... but the woman couldn't understand. After paying in cash... for which the woman scrounged around her purse for a couple minutes, she took her meal and a glass. I thought she was going to get water... but instead she took a full glass of Coke (which she hadn't paid for). The cashier purposely looked away and didn't say anything, so neither did I.
There's a lot of stuff you could infer from this, but this post is getting long and I'm sure you get the idea. I realize that judgements made in this method are just that--judgements--and are often unfounded and sometimes incorrect. However, in my experience (I eat subway frequently) there are general behaviors that people exhibit that I feel comfortable inferring certain personality traits from.
Feel free to leave an opinion!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
On Religious Culture
I'm contemplating today about culture--specifically the difference in culture between Protestants and Catholics.
Side note: wouldn't you think that the term "protestant" would be a derogatory term... seeing as the whole basis of the name is that they "protested" which I guess I isn't an inherently bad thing... but still?
Anyway, I'm reading this book called "The Complete Guide to High Impact Youth Ministry" By Ron Luce, the guy who founded Teen Mania Ministries (most well known for their "Acquire the Fire" event). Anyway, this guy has a ton of huge ideas and encourages people to dream big, yada yada yada. He says there is really no excuse for a youth group to encompass an entire town or region, having up to 1,000 kids. Basically his goals and assertion that we should all have the same goals, makes me feel like crap.
I mean really... is this guy part of reality? He seems to think it's easy to get teens to Church. I wish I knew the kids he did... or maybe I just am not good at recruiting people. If that's the case, then, according to him, I'm not doing my job well.
And then I think, "well maybe he just doesn't know Catholic Culture". For all I know, protestant youth groups are busting at the seams just like he says... but I know very few Catholic Youth Groups with over 100 kids regularly participating.
Part of the problem is, I'm not sure how to define Catholic/Protestant Culture. I have some Ideas of course: Protestant culture seems almost more charismatic, more of a focus on the Holy Spirit, and in some way more "grassroots". I have more problems defining my own Catholic culture... but maybe that's usually the case with a culture that one is engrained in.
Either way, if you can enlighten me as to the nature of either culture, the reality of such a large following, or how to better get youth involved, please feel free to post. This may be a topic I will visit more once I have though more about it.
Side note: wouldn't you think that the term "protestant" would be a derogatory term... seeing as the whole basis of the name is that they "protested" which I guess I isn't an inherently bad thing... but still?
Anyway, I'm reading this book called "The Complete Guide to High Impact Youth Ministry" By Ron Luce, the guy who founded Teen Mania Ministries (most well known for their "Acquire the Fire" event). Anyway, this guy has a ton of huge ideas and encourages people to dream big, yada yada yada. He says there is really no excuse for a youth group to encompass an entire town or region, having up to 1,000 kids. Basically his goals and assertion that we should all have the same goals, makes me feel like crap.
I mean really... is this guy part of reality? He seems to think it's easy to get teens to Church. I wish I knew the kids he did... or maybe I just am not good at recruiting people. If that's the case, then, according to him, I'm not doing my job well.
And then I think, "well maybe he just doesn't know Catholic Culture". For all I know, protestant youth groups are busting at the seams just like he says... but I know very few Catholic Youth Groups with over 100 kids regularly participating.
Part of the problem is, I'm not sure how to define Catholic/Protestant Culture. I have some Ideas of course: Protestant culture seems almost more charismatic, more of a focus on the Holy Spirit, and in some way more "grassroots". I have more problems defining my own Catholic culture... but maybe that's usually the case with a culture that one is engrained in.
Either way, if you can enlighten me as to the nature of either culture, the reality of such a large following, or how to better get youth involved, please feel free to post. This may be a topic I will visit more once I have though more about it.
Monday, February 1, 2010
A New Start
I have resolved to start blogging again--perhaps every day if I can force myself to keep up the motivation. I do this as an attempt to reignite the flame of inspiration back into my life. Long has it been since I've felt the joy of a new idea coursing through my mind, like a being of its own longing to come to life.
I don't think my life, or my mind, are boring per se... I only think that perhaps I fail to properly to consider the beauty and depth of life, or to fully embrace the capacity of my human mind to delve into the truths of reality to the extent to which I should.
And so, for now at least, this will become the post-it note of my mind in an effort to force myself to exercise the God-given gift of reflection. It may be interesting, it may be dull. It may be complex and simple all at the same time. It may be perfunctory, deep, silly, sad... it may be a multitude of many a thing. But Hopefully the last thing it will be is empty.
This is my soul's search for meaning, and so I invite you dear reader, if a reader you may be, to journey with me if you feel yourself brave enough. And with that dear reader, "Once more into the breach, dear friends".
I don't think my life, or my mind, are boring per se... I only think that perhaps I fail to properly to consider the beauty and depth of life, or to fully embrace the capacity of my human mind to delve into the truths of reality to the extent to which I should.
And so, for now at least, this will become the post-it note of my mind in an effort to force myself to exercise the God-given gift of reflection. It may be interesting, it may be dull. It may be complex and simple all at the same time. It may be perfunctory, deep, silly, sad... it may be a multitude of many a thing. But Hopefully the last thing it will be is empty.
This is my soul's search for meaning, and so I invite you dear reader, if a reader you may be, to journey with me if you feel yourself brave enough. And with that dear reader, "Once more into the breach, dear friends".
Friday, July 24, 2009
On Waiting (Psalm 130)
Psalm 130, the De Profundis, is my favorite Psalm because I think it so adequately highlights the state of life for the human individual and so rightly captures the essence of “waiting for the Lord”. The concept of waiting for the Lord is of primary importance for the life of the Christian for numerous reasons. Firstly, it points to the nature of revelation as progressive and non—immediate. God cannot possibly reveal to us the whole of revelation in our lives because we would not, as humans, be able to either understand it or accept it. And so God reveals it slowly so as to slowly wean us off our own wills and onto his. Secondly, it points to the Theological Virtue of Hope, which is of essential importance both in this life, and for those of us who go to Purgatory. Other virtues I see to be wrapped up in this idea of waiting are patience, an allied virtue of fortitude, and humility, an allied virtue of temperance. Finally, this waiting must be done with an attitude of prayer, and with love for God and his will.
The De Profundis starts off by exclaiming “Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord. Lord hear my plea.” This is very telling of the human condition, which itself is in the “depths” of being. Because of our state of sin and disunion with God, we are ignorant of true reality until it is revealed to us, and we are left in an existence of darkness and uncertainty. This is what it means to cry out from the depths, to plea to God for revelation and forgiveness of sins which separates us from him. My favorite part of Psalm 130 is the stanza in which it states, “My soul longs for the Lord more than watchman at daybreak. Let watchmen count on daybreak, and Israel count on the Lord.” This statement truly is profound in that it states absolute certainty in the coming of the Lord. Its stating that for Israel (the Church and its people) the coming of the Lord is more certain then even the coming daybreak! Oh such Faith and Hope in the Lord. And this is where the Theological virtue of hope enters—hope, being the certainty of God’s covenant being fulfilled, has more confidence than even the scientific and experiential certitude that the sun will rise again tomorrow. Traditionally, we have hope in God’s forgiveness of sins, and thus our receiving eternal life. However, I posit that, in this life, we also have certitude that God will reveal to us everything that we need to know. This seems to be a pretty obvious statement, for why would God not reveal to us that which we need to know in order to fulfill his will. But in our human fraility, we frequently doubt God’s intention to reveal to us his will or plan, primarily because we are impatient.
This finally is where the virtues of patience and humility enter. We must be patient with God. He knows us better than ourselves and so we must be prepared to bear the burden of the unknown until he sees it fit for us to know it. This patience also entails an element of humility, because it will be the humble person who realizes that they are finite, and that God knows better than he or she. It will also take a humble person to realize that they may have a lack of patience.
Waiting for the Lord is necessary because from the depths we are crying. Indeed God hears our pleas, and he cries out to his children to wait until the appointed time for his revelation. God will always comfort us and always tell us what we need to know, sometimes it just takes time. It is then when we must offer up whatever suffering we may be enduring, in order to come into better union with him and eventually be lifted from the depths and into the eternal light.
The De Profundis starts off by exclaiming “Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord. Lord hear my plea.” This is very telling of the human condition, which itself is in the “depths” of being. Because of our state of sin and disunion with God, we are ignorant of true reality until it is revealed to us, and we are left in an existence of darkness and uncertainty. This is what it means to cry out from the depths, to plea to God for revelation and forgiveness of sins which separates us from him. My favorite part of Psalm 130 is the stanza in which it states, “My soul longs for the Lord more than watchman at daybreak. Let watchmen count on daybreak, and Israel count on the Lord.” This statement truly is profound in that it states absolute certainty in the coming of the Lord. Its stating that for Israel (the Church and its people) the coming of the Lord is more certain then even the coming daybreak! Oh such Faith and Hope in the Lord. And this is where the Theological virtue of hope enters—hope, being the certainty of God’s covenant being fulfilled, has more confidence than even the scientific and experiential certitude that the sun will rise again tomorrow. Traditionally, we have hope in God’s forgiveness of sins, and thus our receiving eternal life. However, I posit that, in this life, we also have certitude that God will reveal to us everything that we need to know. This seems to be a pretty obvious statement, for why would God not reveal to us that which we need to know in order to fulfill his will. But in our human fraility, we frequently doubt God’s intention to reveal to us his will or plan, primarily because we are impatient.
This finally is where the virtues of patience and humility enter. We must be patient with God. He knows us better than ourselves and so we must be prepared to bear the burden of the unknown until he sees it fit for us to know it. This patience also entails an element of humility, because it will be the humble person who realizes that they are finite, and that God knows better than he or she. It will also take a humble person to realize that they may have a lack of patience.
Waiting for the Lord is necessary because from the depths we are crying. Indeed God hears our pleas, and he cries out to his children to wait until the appointed time for his revelation. God will always comfort us and always tell us what we need to know, sometimes it just takes time. It is then when we must offer up whatever suffering we may be enduring, in order to come into better union with him and eventually be lifted from the depths and into the eternal light.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
On Spiritual Wilderness
Written: January 17, 2009 (12:30pm)--Senior Theology Retreat, Sacred Heart Cathedral, Winona, MN.
Question: How does the use of "wilderness" in the Bible speak to me spiritually?
As I'm sitting in the church in silent prayer, one of my favorite verses keeps coming to mind--Hosea 2:16. In this part of the book, God is condemning and punishing Israel for her crimes, saying that He will take all away from her. However, 2:16 reads "So I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert (wilderness) and speak to her heart". From there it goes on to say how God will restore and renew Israel. This caused me to ponder...what exactly is "wilderness" in a spiritual sense. Consider the following series of verses:
Matthew 4:1-11
Luke 5:1-11
Matthew 14:22-33
John 21
In a metaphorical sense, the wilderness is in some sense, a form of abandonment from God. God in some way is not present to us. Also, it is an area of extreme discomfort or suffering. Many would call this a "Dark Night", however, I believe that is only one form that the wilderness may take. This is shown in the Bible by the "desert" (desolate, empty), and by the "ocean" (chaotic, unknown, uncomfortable).
Now...using these verses I came up with a 4 stage development concerning "wilderness":
1) God calls us to the wilderness and renews us (Hosea 2:16)
2) This calling requires Trust (Lk 5:1-11, Mt 14:22-33, Jn 21)
3) After calling/renewal, we recognize God (Mt 14:22-33)
4) Have been called, renewed, and recognized God...we are sent (Lk 5:1-11, Jn 21)
Let me now make my case:
1) God renews us in the wilderness. When we enter a "wilderness" (suffering, abandonment, ect.) we are there for a reason--because God has called us there. By entering the wilderness we feel alone and in some way suffer, but, because God does not allow for any suffering without a purpose, this wilderness eventually "renews" us, and we are restored to a better state.
2) While in this wilderness, we must have trust that God will deliver us. Some examples of this are the disciples casting out their nets even when they had failed previously (Lk 5, Jn 21) and Peter trusting the Lord as he walked on water (Mt 14). We must trust that what God brings us to experience also brings us to fulfillment.
3) After being renewed, and realizing that we have been called to this wilderness, we recognize God in it. Examples of this are the disciples recognizing Jesus after following His command to cast out their nets (Jn 21) and the disciples recognizing Him after Peter walked on water (Mt 14).
4) Finally, after hearing the call, being renewed, and recognizing God in our experience, He sends us to evangelize in some way, and better equipped or motivated than before. Examples of this are Jesus' temptation in the desert (after which we began his ministry and the "Sermon on the Mount") (Mt 4), the disciples dropping their nets and following Christ (Lk 5), Jesus' command to Peter, "feed my sheep" (Jn 21).
I believe that, though this "formula" is not fully developed, it still gives evidence of a purpose and hope that is present in most any form of suffering or abandonment.
Question: How does the use of "wilderness" in the Bible speak to me spiritually?
As I'm sitting in the church in silent prayer, one of my favorite verses keeps coming to mind--Hosea 2:16. In this part of the book, God is condemning and punishing Israel for her crimes, saying that He will take all away from her. However, 2:16 reads "So I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert (wilderness) and speak to her heart". From there it goes on to say how God will restore and renew Israel. This caused me to ponder...what exactly is "wilderness" in a spiritual sense. Consider the following series of verses:
Matthew 4:1-11
Luke 5:1-11
Matthew 14:22-33
John 21
In a metaphorical sense, the wilderness is in some sense, a form of abandonment from God. God in some way is not present to us. Also, it is an area of extreme discomfort or suffering. Many would call this a "Dark Night", however, I believe that is only one form that the wilderness may take. This is shown in the Bible by the "desert" (desolate, empty), and by the "ocean" (chaotic, unknown, uncomfortable).
Now...using these verses I came up with a 4 stage development concerning "wilderness":
1) God calls us to the wilderness and renews us (Hosea 2:16)
2) This calling requires Trust (Lk 5:1-11, Mt 14:22-33, Jn 21)
3) After calling/renewal, we recognize God (Mt 14:22-33)
4) Have been called, renewed, and recognized God...we are sent (Lk 5:1-11, Jn 21)
Let me now make my case:
1) God renews us in the wilderness. When we enter a "wilderness" (suffering, abandonment, ect.) we are there for a reason--because God has called us there. By entering the wilderness we feel alone and in some way suffer, but, because God does not allow for any suffering without a purpose, this wilderness eventually "renews" us, and we are restored to a better state.
2) While in this wilderness, we must have trust that God will deliver us. Some examples of this are the disciples casting out their nets even when they had failed previously (Lk 5, Jn 21) and Peter trusting the Lord as he walked on water (Mt 14). We must trust that what God brings us to experience also brings us to fulfillment.
3) After being renewed, and realizing that we have been called to this wilderness, we recognize God in it. Examples of this are the disciples recognizing Jesus after following His command to cast out their nets (Jn 21) and the disciples recognizing Him after Peter walked on water (Mt 14).
4) Finally, after hearing the call, being renewed, and recognizing God in our experience, He sends us to evangelize in some way, and better equipped or motivated than before. Examples of this are Jesus' temptation in the desert (after which we began his ministry and the "Sermon on the Mount") (Mt 4), the disciples dropping their nets and following Christ (Lk 5), Jesus' command to Peter, "feed my sheep" (Jn 21).
I believe that, though this "formula" is not fully developed, it still gives evidence of a purpose and hope that is present in most any form of suffering or abandonment.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
On the Crime of an 8 year-old
This story breaks my heart and nearly brings me to tears.
An eight year-old boy in Arizona murdered his father with a rifle the other day in Arizona. The murder seems to be premeditated. By all accounts, the father was loving and non-abusive, and seemed to do everything right. He did however, just remarry, but sources say he went everywhere with his boy (fishing, baseball games, ect.) and that no one ever expected such a thing to happen.
HOW DOES AN 8 YEAR OLD COMMIT PREMEDITATED MURDER!!??
Has our society gone so far as to be able to strip such a young boy of any innocence? How can such a boy, still in the midst of pre-concrete operational thinking possibly premeditate the murder of his OWN FATHER! This doesn't makes sense to me. It is truly a tragedy in that it seems to go beyond all nature and common knowledge of father-son relationship and human development.
I have no answers on this one...only questions...
An eight year-old boy in Arizona murdered his father with a rifle the other day in Arizona. The murder seems to be premeditated. By all accounts, the father was loving and non-abusive, and seemed to do everything right. He did however, just remarry, but sources say he went everywhere with his boy (fishing, baseball games, ect.) and that no one ever expected such a thing to happen.
HOW DOES AN 8 YEAR OLD COMMIT PREMEDITATED MURDER!!??
Has our society gone so far as to be able to strip such a young boy of any innocence? How can such a boy, still in the midst of pre-concrete operational thinking possibly premeditate the murder of his OWN FATHER! This doesn't makes sense to me. It is truly a tragedy in that it seems to go beyond all nature and common knowledge of father-son relationship and human development.
I have no answers on this one...only questions...
On Obama's "Approval Rating" According to USA Today
I have a lot on my mind today...so I'll post in multiple posts so it doesn't get too long.
On the front page of USA TODAY, it states that 65% of America "said they think the country will be better off four years from now." What are some of the possible causes for this, and if true, what are the implications. I'm feeling slightly cynic today.
--What's interesting about this number: Only 52% voted for Obama in the election, and there were some VERY bitter Republicans. This means that over the course of merely one week, Obama has gained 13% in support, most probably from some independents, but also some Republicans. That's 13% IN ONE WEEK!
1) The USA TODAY is a moderately biased paper tending to lean towards Liberal and Democratic ideals. Thus, how accurate are the numbers themselves? It's entirely possible that the paper did not get find a poll with a representative sample and interviewed a high majority of either Democrats/Obama voters and/or minority voters who place high hopes in Obama's symbolic election. If this is true then the following points need not even be discussed, and the only implication is that America, like always, is being fed biased media.
2) Obama's rating has nothing to do with his person-hood, but rather his party affiliation. Bush's "disapproval rating" is at 68%, which is "coincidentally" about as high as Obama's "approval rating", and so perhaps the numbers reflect the peoples distaste for Bush and the Republican's management and are happy for the so called "Obama Change".
3) America has come to accept that Barrack is the next President, they are setting aside their anger or bias, and choosing to support and hope in him.
4) The symbolism surrounding the election of the first Black Man as President has started to transform the perceptions of the country. Perhaps if people have hope that a man such as Obama can be elected, he also has the ability to make the drastic changes the country is calling for. Whether or not this hope is founded on anything is another question, but it seems plausible the hope is filling the hearts of 65% of America, or 13% more than before the election. The implication of this is that Obama wields extreme power, and that his election meant more than many people would have supposed. It also means that "the audacity to hope" really isn't audacious at all, and hope still has a valid place amongst humanity, contrary to many cynic and skeptic claims.
On the front page of USA TODAY, it states that 65% of America "said they think the country will be better off four years from now." What are some of the possible causes for this, and if true, what are the implications. I'm feeling slightly cynic today.
--What's interesting about this number: Only 52% voted for Obama in the election, and there were some VERY bitter Republicans. This means that over the course of merely one week, Obama has gained 13% in support, most probably from some independents, but also some Republicans. That's 13% IN ONE WEEK!
1) The USA TODAY is a moderately biased paper tending to lean towards Liberal and Democratic ideals. Thus, how accurate are the numbers themselves? It's entirely possible that the paper did not get find a poll with a representative sample and interviewed a high majority of either Democrats/Obama voters and/or minority voters who place high hopes in Obama's symbolic election. If this is true then the following points need not even be discussed, and the only implication is that America, like always, is being fed biased media.
2) Obama's rating has nothing to do with his person-hood, but rather his party affiliation. Bush's "disapproval rating" is at 68%, which is "coincidentally" about as high as Obama's "approval rating", and so perhaps the numbers reflect the peoples distaste for Bush and the Republican's management and are happy for the so called "Obama Change".
3) America has come to accept that Barrack is the next President, they are setting aside their anger or bias, and choosing to support and hope in him.
4) The symbolism surrounding the election of the first Black Man as President has started to transform the perceptions of the country. Perhaps if people have hope that a man such as Obama can be elected, he also has the ability to make the drastic changes the country is calling for. Whether or not this hope is founded on anything is another question, but it seems plausible the hope is filling the hearts of 65% of America, or 13% more than before the election. The implication of this is that Obama wields extreme power, and that his election meant more than many people would have supposed. It also means that "the audacity to hope" really isn't audacious at all, and hope still has a valid place amongst humanity, contrary to many cynic and skeptic claims.
Friday, November 7, 2008
On Snow
Typically I do not like snow, but today it seems somehow more welcomed. Snow is wet and cold, two adverse conditions I normally don't care to encounter. However, snow also has some sort of intrinsic beauty that radiates to the world it covers. I am especially attuned to this aesthetic principle being a "4", and especially today for some yet undiscovered reason.
What is it that makes snow so beautiful, so aesthetically pleasing? Is it the color? The peacefulness of it? Or maybe its just the change in appearance our senses encounter, or the social upbringing that has taught us that snow is beautiful. I like to think its something more...there is some inherent beauty in snow that points to the Form of Beauty--God. There is a bit of God in each snowflake. I don't mean this in the pantheistic way, but only in perhaps a symbolic or transcendental way.
The snow is beautiful today.
What is it that makes snow so beautiful, so aesthetically pleasing? Is it the color? The peacefulness of it? Or maybe its just the change in appearance our senses encounter, or the social upbringing that has taught us that snow is beautiful. I like to think its something more...there is some inherent beauty in snow that points to the Form of Beauty--God. There is a bit of God in each snowflake. I don't mean this in the pantheistic way, but only in perhaps a symbolic or transcendental way.
The snow is beautiful today.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Reflection on the Election of Barrack Obama
Regardless of political affiliation, one must realize the magnitude of the election that took place last night. It was almost definitely the most important election in the last 65 years, and arguable the most important ever. We now have a Black man as President of the United States of America. The only sad thing is that it has taken so long to arrive. Perhaps now however, the World will not view us as an arrogant, ethnocentric, bullying country.
We cannot underestimate the immensity of such an event. Perhaps now all the schema and stereotypes can start to be stripped away, and the question of race and color will slowly start to fade. Perhaps now instead of focusing on what divides us, we can focus on what unites us. I have always been an idealist though, and people will always be people...mired in concupiscence. I pray that the Country and the World recognizes this as an historic moment in time for America, and that we may slowly and yet steadily change towards the virtuous.
We cannot underestimate the immensity of such an event. Perhaps now all the schema and stereotypes can start to be stripped away, and the question of race and color will slowly start to fade. Perhaps now instead of focusing on what divides us, we can focus on what unites us. I have always been an idealist though, and people will always be people...mired in concupiscence. I pray that the Country and the World recognizes this as an historic moment in time for America, and that we may slowly and yet steadily change towards the virtuous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)