« October 2009 | Main | December 2009 »

November 23, 2009

First Sunday of Advent [November 29, 2009]

I have not read any of Tim LeHaye and Jerry B. Jenkin’s Left Behind series of books but a quick check on Google Search indicates that lots of folks, like millions, read them as quickly as they appear in print. Google also indicates that the series falls into the category of entertainment, all of which struck me a bit odd because the central idea in each succeeding volume concerns the end days, the final chapter in the life of humankind and the universe itself. More specifically, the authors ask this question: At time’s end who will rise to the heavens in the rapture and who will be left behind to wail and gnash teeth? Nothing very entertaining about that, do you think?

I hate to disappoint the messers LeHaye and Jenkins, but they are not the first to ask to ask the “end times” question. I would dare say that most of us on occasion have thought about life after death. It is always a fascinating question. Indeed, in one of the earliest Christian writings we possess, the Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonian Christians, (around the year 50 A.D.) we find the author attempting to settle fears in the community that those who died before Jesus’ Second Coming would forfeit their right to accompany the Lord Jesus to heaven. Paul calms them by saying that “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. The dead will rise first.” I’m not sure where Paul got that assurance, but it only seems right and just that all people, whether living or dead, should have equal access to God’s kingdom.

This question regarding the end of all things earthly appears annually in the scriptures assigned for the last Sunday of the liturgical year and the first Sunday of the season of Advent. Most Christians, I should imagine, must occasionally say to themselves: “Well, another year gone by and a new year appearing on the calendar; I’m still here, thank God. Grandmother passed away, baby Anne was born. Time passes, history is behind us and the future is still the great mystery. What will this new year of grace bring us? How will I respond to the challenges that appear in time and place by the grace of God?

In a sense, the question about end times and who gets left and who is “assumed” is not a terribly important question. We don’t know, it’s simple as that.

But what is more relevant and exciting is the question of the “now”, what am I doing here and now, what are all of earth’s creatures doing at this precious moment in history, in the middle of God’s story to bring holiness to the present condition in the world? Now, that is a more relevant question, and indeed far more interesting than the question the authors LeHaye and Jenkins pursue in their Left Behind books. Life is not a matter of sitting about wondering what God will do next, who will be lifted up and who will remain here

Indeed, it is my sense in pursuing the words and works of Jesus, that, for the most part, he was more concerned about the troubling issues of the moment: justice, peace, compassion, love of neighbor, feeding the hungry, aiding the thirsty doing the just deed, et cetera. The present moment, of course, can usually be controlled while the future lies in the hands of God.

Yes, it is true, we love to imagine what the future holds. That is part of our nature, namely, to plumb the unexplored nature of things. And, now that I think of it, perhaps the works of LeHaye and Jenkins are, indeed, entertainment because life itself is such a God-invented mystery, and we love mystery. Given that assumption, life on earth becomes a little less complicated and the rapture is something our imagination can play with year after year’s end and all the new beginnings until eternity finally looms on the horizon.

The scriptures: Jeremiah 33: 14-16; 1 Thessalonians 3: 12-4:2;
Luke 21 25-28: 34-36

Posted by Cindy Lentine at 03:07 PM.

November 17, 2009

Thirty-Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time - The Solemnity of Christ the King [November 22, 2009]

It has often occurred to me that we, or at least most of us depend heavily on titles. You’ll say, “hey, I don’t have a title, I’m just an ordinary person trying to get along in the world; I don’t need titles.” Yes, that is all very true, most of us could get along without having a title. In a sense, titles do not tell anyone very much about who you are psychologically, socially, spiritually, even humanly; titles simply give you a one or two word description of what you do. I’m doctor so’n’so. I’m head nurse, I’m president, I’m mayor, I’m the superior of this religious house, I’m officer so’n’so, I’m father so’n’so, I’m bishop so’n’so, cardinal whatever! But, really,what does all that tell you. Perhaps, not a lot. It just helps you identify what this man or woman does in the world.

Indeed, in a sense, titles may be somewhat deceiving, causing a person to place him (her) self above or outside the rest of the common folk.

Oddly enough, some folks with titles feel they must somehow identify themselves with whatever that title conveys to the world. Think, for instance, of Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte or any of the well-known dictators in world history. They felt that the title gave them certain rights over others.

I almost hate to say it, but our Catholic Church also makes much of titles. There is a certain hierarchy of roles we mostly take for granted: Acolyte, censer bearer, cross bearer, server, pastor, pastoral vicar, father, bishop, your excellency, your eminence, your holiness. I think that is as far up the ladder as it goes in our church.

But, again, think about it, all that tells us is that a certain person has been honored with this title; it goes with the job. I suppose any other word could supply, as well, but father, monsignor, bishop is what tradition has handed down to us.

Unfortunately, over the centuries we have associated character, personhood, even piety or holiness with the bearer of the title. Often there may be an authenticity there, but we have enough examples in world and church history to know that some people with religious titles have been scoundrels.

So, why am I belaboring this issue? Precisely because of the Feast of the Catholic Church we celebrate on this last Sunday of the liturgical year. The Feast of Christ the King.

When one reflects on that designation that the Church has assigned to Jesus, there is a certain irony in it. Jesus, during his earthly life, explicitly insisted that he was not a king and did not want to be addressed in that way. Calling Jesus a king would have implied that he was just another of the several revolutionaries who were trying to overthrow the Roman Empire. Jesus emphatically rejected all that. It was simply a fervent hope on the part of the people of that day that someone would come and free them from Roman power and persecution.

So, we see, therefore, that civil titles meant little to Jesus. It might make more sense to give other titles to Jesus: Jesus the prophet, Jesus our Brother, Jesus, Son of Man, Suffering Servant, Risen Christ, Servant of the Father, many others.

But think of this too: Even if Jesus did not commit himself to kingship in the secular sense, we can still say that he, the Risen Christ, has more influence on our Christian lives than any other authority figure in the world’s history. Indeed, the author of the Book of Revelation calls him the ruler of the kings of earth. He is our Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of all existence.

Finally, it would seem to me that, aside from all titles, what is most important in human terms is our personal relationship with Jesus as our brother, as the one who taught us to be servants. I am sure Jesus would be happy being called that. The crown and the title and the clothing and all the rest turn out to be just superficial fluff.

The scriptures: Daniel 7: 23-14; Revelation 1: 5-8; John 18: 33b-37

Posted by Cindy Lentine at 10:32 AM.

November 10, 2009

Thirty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time [November 15, 2009]

It occurs to me after these many years that our family did not have very many books around the house, either for adults or for kids. We were not nor a poor family but books were considered as something of a luxury in those times. As a matter of fact, I do not even remember seeing very many books on shelves in our country school. Several students often needed to share the books that were available. I’m still somewhat surprised today that I learned to appreciate reading as a youngster.

Nonetheless, I’m sure that if one of my brothers or sisters had asked me, “What’cha reading?” I would surely have known whether the book was fact or fiction. For instance, I knew that the newspaper described the facts of what was happening around state or nation. On the other hand, the slight volume entitled Aesop’s Fables we brought home from school was fiction: The stork and the fox, obviously, could not eat from the same plate.

It was just natural for me to know the difference between the literary genre of fact and fiction. I also would have known the difference between a news story describing a local theft of property and a sports story describing a runner stealing second base. The words are the same but the styles of writing are quite different.

Another example: A quick browse through a library or bookstore will tell you that some books are history, some biography, others pure fiction. Each genre will tell you how to interpret what you read.

All these examples point out rather naturally that if you do not understand the genre you are reading or using, you will make some serious mistakes in judgment.

Although some well-meaning traditionally-minded Christians will interpret all the books in the Bible as literally true, they will also find some difficulty, explaining how a full-grown person, namely Jonah, could be swallowed by a giant fish and then regurgitated still being fully alive. (Perhaps they will reply: “God did it!” At any rate, I’ve never engaged a person in conversation that holds such a literal position but I think it might be interesting.

Today, most intelligent Christians will tell you that the Bible is actually a library containing many different literary styles: Poetry, history, prophecy, dogma and, yes, apocalypse too.

We have two apocalyptic books in our library of sacred writings: Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures and Revelation in the Christian scriptures. One may also find scattered apocalyptic sayings in other books as we have this Sunday in the Gospel of Mark. So, after sifting out Apocalyptic from other biblical styles, how do we describe this unique genre?

First, we must say that it is basically a type of religious visionary fiction containing within it a theological purpose. Hence you will find lots of symbolism and allegory that is never explained. It is assumed that the reader will recognize the allusions to reality and make the required mental adjustments.

It also contains much violence and references to the end of time or the end of the world. Many scripture scholars who study apocalyptic writing claim that periods of persecution in the world are often interpreted in the minds of people as the so-called end times.

A contemporary scripture scholar (Roger Vermalen) points out that apocalyptic deals with the final, catastrophic period of world history as one might imagine it: The powers of evil are in final combat with the powers of good. “The powers of evil make the supreme assault against God and are finally routed after dreadful mortal combat. It is the battle tale of the end of the world” and, of course, God wins the war.

Many scholars also believe that the religious persecution endured by Jews and Christians during those early times was the basic driving force behind apocalyptic writing. The authors suggest that the final battle is between God’s forces, the forces for good in the world and the powers of evil. Of course, we all know who wins!

In the short apocalyptic passage in Mark’s gospel quoted today, the author lets the early Christians and us know that the risen Christ will stand at the center of the future Church and protect it from harm. It will endure until the end of the age.

Even though the fictional apocalyptic battles need not concern us here, we can be sure of one thing: The risen Christ continues to do battle in his Church throughout history. The vision of Christ in the Gospels is continually under siege in human history and will, no doubt, continue to be attacked in our own times.

That brings us to the point of saying that the individual Christian, you and I, throughout our histories must join Christ in confronting evil wherever it occurs.

Well then, how about the end of time? “Nobody knows,” Jesus says, “only God knows.” In the meantime, we need to quit worrying about the end and get on with the human issues of the present age

The scriptures: Daniel 12: 1-3; Hebrews 10: 11-14, 15-18, 19-25;
Mark 13: 14-23

Posted by Cindy Lentine at 01:01 PM.

November 02, 2009

Thirty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time [November 8, 2009]

For lack of interest on the part of any other members in our family, my sister, who has a nose for family history has become our local archivist. This is fortunate for all of us, of course, because without her determination and the skills of a collector, much of our family history would have disappeared in the same manner as the morning’s newspaper. Hence, at least some of our family’s history has been preserved.

Somewhere in one of those boxes there is a photo of myself taken on the day I made my first religious vows in the Congregation of Holy Cross. I’m standing on the lawn all dressed in my religious habit: cassock, cord, cape and cross! I’m standing there as though saying, “look at me folks, and don’t I look grand." Actually, looking back, I must admit that I was a bit arrogant-minded then, as though the wearing of the habit made me distinct from the rest of the world.

I think it has taken me some 30 years to realize that wearing a distinctive habit (dress?) does not makes me different, does not set me above my neighbor. The passing years and changes in religious culture can help one to finally understand that.

I have often given thought to the matter of religious dress and what significance it has or could have in the human community. The passage from Mark’s gospel today strikes me as apropos: “In the course of his teaching Jesus said to the crowds: “Beware of the scribes who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets. They are the ones who devour he houses of widows and, as a pretext recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation.”

You will notice that Jesus not only has a problem with long robes, but with the attitude that seems to go with the wearing of the robe: arrogance, being noticed, demanding special places of honor et cetera.

The point Jesus seems to make is that official religious people seem to feel that they need distinctive garb to give themselves respect, but also a sign that they represent financial issues of the temple.

It is here that Jesus comes down hard on these scribes for foreclosing on the houses of the poor and then promising “I’ll say a prayer for you, okay?”

Then he notices a poor widow placing a few pennies (all that she had) in the collection box and tells his apostles that what this woman has done is worth more before God than all the money of the rich. She gave out of her poverty, they out of their excess.

All this calls several matters to mind in our contemporary age: On many occasions in the past several years there has been stories of priests and treasurers of churches literally stealing thousands, even millions of dollars from Church accounts, all for the sake of “keeping up the church,” as they said.

Secondly, the other scandal we are all so vividly aware of today is that of the sexual abuse of children and young adults by priests and bishops. Again, those who appeared religious in public (the cassock?) turned out to be sexual predators in secret. The issue of the long garments arises again as a cover for wrongdoing. Young people have great trust in the clergy (the collar and the cassock again?) and it is this very trust that betrays them. The type of clerical malfeasance that uses the church as cover is the most reprehensible of all.

Small wonder that the laity rose up in anger and demanded justice.

All that we have been speaking of here, of course, is not about clothing, robes of whatever length. It is rather about what these garments (the clerical state) is often is used for in public, namely to take advantage of those who placed trust in them. It is a shameful matter, but seemingly as old as the days of Jesus.

All this calls to mind the sacredness of our calling, whether, lay, religious or clerical. Our character, how we appear in public before others carries with it an important responsibility. We may not use God or the religious state as a cover for shameful actions. God will not be mocked. As a contemporary theologian recently wrote: “Only by preaching God’s freeing word will we prophetically demonstrate that the good of individuals is always more important than the good of institutions.” We have Jesus’ word on it.

Scriptures: 1 Kings 17 10-16: Hebrews 9: 24-28; Mark 12: 38-44

Posted by Cindy Lentine at 03:11 PM.