The Calming of the Storm - Matthew 8:23-26
Jesus gets onto a boat, the disciples follow him, and a storm blows up, rocking the boat. The disciples freak out and Jesus chides them for their lack of faith. Then he stills the winds and sea, manifesting his divinity, and addressing their concern.
There are a few things here to ponder. First, let's note a few dynamics. The disciples follow Jesus, and sudden trouble ensues. This seems to be a pattern replayed over and over again, anytime a person or group sets out to follow Jesus, whether that be the discovery of Jesus himself, or discovery that there is yet another way in which we need to follow him, but have yet to do so. There is something about the world, and ourselves, that resists our authentic following of Jesus. We needn't be surprised when it happens. In fact, we should, when we make a decision to follow Jesus, expect resistance, trouble, etc., and steel ourselves for it.
Jesus chides the disciples for their lack of faith, their being overwhelmed by fear. His criticism is sincere. After all, he's going to voluntarily suffer death for our salvation, so what's a little rough water compared to that? Also, this criticism, addressed to us, is even more poignant, because we have the advantage of living after Jesus has risen from the dead, so we know that whatever we suffer will end in death, while we will emerge from death transformed in glory. Seriously, what could possibly make us fear? But we do fear, don't we. However, as true as it is that we ought not to be afraid, Jesus doesn't scoff at us, call us cowards, and then leave us to our terror. No, he then moves to soothe our fears. You can see this calming of the storm as either an interior or exterior reality. Perhaps he calms the storm that rages within, our emotional imbalance, our irrational terror. Or perhaps, at some times, he actually resolves the situation about which we were being so fearful. Either way, Christ our true God does not abandon us in our fear when we call out to him, whether we should have been trusting or not. And I say it's better to call out to him in fear than to sit paralyzed and useless, or allow our fear to push us into sin.
The bottom line is that we so often allow fear to guide us into doing things we know we shouldn't do, and quite often don't even want to do. The only remedy is to act contrary to that fear, and intentionally act against fear by acting in love, doing the honest thing, and refusing to obscure truth, even though it will cost us to do so. We can all find ways to do this daily at home, in the workplace, in society, and in our political actions. There are also particular things we can do in church, according to our role or state in life.
The Boat
Now, let's look at the boat. The boat has ever been a symbol for the church. In fact, the area of the church in which most of the people gather is called the nave, which means 'boat.' The disciples, who would become at some point apostles, can be seen to represent all of us, but certainly represent the clergy, especially bishops, in a particular way. The storms of the world rail against our ecclesiastical boat, and can be quite loud and scary, but we need to remember that Christ is in our midst! He is and ever shall be!
Lashing out In Fear Against the Church
How often do we, pushed by this or that false 'need' to have this or do that, or submit to the twisted passions of our fallen flesh, become so fearful that we actually deny the millennia-spanning Tradition of our own Church? We can't abide the fact that some teachings are difficult, so we vilify those who teach this Holy Tradition, pointing out that they are sinners, as though that makes them different from ourselves, somehow. We declare our bishops, successors in leadership to the apostles and anointed guardians of the deposit of faith, citing the fact that they sin, incapable of leadership, as though the Holy Spirit was taken by surprise at their sinfulness and just wouldn't be able to work around that. We judge ourselves better equipped to judge what is authentic Christianity based on, what, it just feels more righter? All of us, laity, clergy, and religious, exhibit this particular kind of fear.
Smothering the Light of Truth in Fear
There are also times when we obscure a painful truth, or flinch from reporting something that needs reporting, for fear of negative reprisal. How often do we not confront the raging priest or arrogant deacon who is acting in a way not befitting the office and dignity with which he has been entrusted? How often do we not contradict that teacher, sister, brother, or clergyman who is clearly speaking out against Christian doctrine or charity? Not to let our clergy and bishops off the hook. How many times have they, fearing reprisal or criticism, hidden the truth of sins, their own and each other? This is a profound lack of faith displayed by the very people who are supposed to guard and transmit the deposit of faith. That they sin would not be scandalous; they are men, and all men sin. Although there will always be foolish and immature people who will judge others because they take the easy road of dwelling on the speck in their brother's eye, rather than dealing with the plank in their own, most of us realize that we have to live by our request that God 'forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass.' We could forgive even pedophile priests who confess their sin, instead of hiding it and moving about like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sure we would want them put in a penitentiary, to protect our children, but this would also strengthen what should be their resolve to repent, to do penance, since it is for this that the place is by name designed. And bishops who criminally try to shield their criminal clergy from justice? No more heinous scandal could be devised than this, I think. We can deal with the revelation that sin has occurred. But to address the actions of bishops who shield their clergy from justice, hiding the truth and avoiding the consequences...we should return to the practice of the early church in dealing with such traitors...'let them be deposed.' They can work or beg for a living for the rest of their lives, or live sequestered away in a monastic enclosure, deprived of clerical dignity and repenting of their sins. These hideous actions, way more than the individual sins of individual priests, are what provoke fear and doubt in the people, making it well nigh impossible for us to trust them again, were it not for the grace for faith given by God. But that faith has to have something concrete upon which to reestablish itself.
Restoring Trust
New guidelines have been published for years, at least in the United States, for dealing with allegations of the abuse of minors by clergy, and this is good. However, since there was never a time when abuse and cover-up were sanctioned by church law, this new law is nowhere near enough. An annual day should be established for bishops, by themselves, to do public penance, fasting in sackcloth and ashes, for the ways in which they have done violence to the very faith they are supposed to guard, and just as all bishops benefit from the trust given their office, all of them bear the burden to repent for the acts that erode that trust. Such a day of public penance, repeated year after year, marked with heartfelt speeches and open letters, would go a long way toward demonstrating sincerity, and toward pressing awareness deep into the psyche of bishops that they cannot lead while being dishonest. Apologies don't fix things by themselves, but they aren't meaningless, either, especially toward those who sincerely express them.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Which Shepherd Do We Follow?
Fourth Sunday of Easter 2012
First Reading - Acts 4:81-12
Regarding Jesus: "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."
Pretty strong words, and not so popular in our milieu of cultural diversity, but for all the COEXIST bumper stickers out there, it needs to be said that whatever merits there may be in other religious traditions, Christians must affirm that there is no salvation through anyone else (other than Jesus). This is a sine-qua-non of Christianity; otherwise the book, which gives us the definitive portrait of the early church, would not have Peter saying this.
A common mistake made by Christians, however, is that this means that nobody who isn't Christian, by which they mean Catholic or Orthodox or 'tolerant Christian' or 'fundamentalist Christian...nobody who isn't in whatever group I count as Christian will be saved. Let's stick with Catholics, since I'm most theologically well versed there. There is a Catholic teaching that there is "no salvation outside the church." Many people used to say that this meant that if one weren’t Catholic, one wouldn't make it into heaven. But that's way to easy. In fact, the teaching means something more like, "Insofar as anyone is saved, it is through the mystery that is the church, which is fully subsistent in the Roman Catholic church," meaning that all who are saved are saved by some radical participation in the Roman Catholic church, whether or not they came to that conscious realization or not. The Orthodox Christian teaching is similar, except that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is the Orthodox church, and insofar as anyone is saved, it is through a participation in the Orthodox Church, of which all who are saved will ultimately be members, even if that is not evident today. Only fundamentalists insist that you absolutely must be a member of this or that denomination of Christianity in order to be saved.
But this is still way to easy. The real challenge here is to examine ourselves, and ask the question, "By what other means am I trying to be saved?" Am I trying to be saved by wealth, power, a fabulous lifestyle, a political party, being American, [insert favorite false savior here], or do I really believe that salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ our true God? Have I bought into the notion that I must have perfect health, the correct weight or BMI, be free of the need for medicine, or use the right age-defying face cream to experience Shalom? We are tempted constantly to place our trust and hope in something other than Jesus, and it is vital that we examine ourselves to see where we have fallen to this temptation, so that we can repent and thus approach the true fountain of immortality, the true Savior, the only real Salvation.
Second Reading - 1 John 3:1-2
"The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him."
You know, you would think that being children of God might get us more respect. After all, our Father is the one who created all that is, who gives every good gift, and a little gratitude and respect would not be inappropriate. But, we are children of God in the person of Christ, and look what they did to him. They didn't believe that he is who he is. So how can they believe we are who we are? A better question might be, “How much do we believe we are who we are?” See, we are God's children now, not in some distant future, but now. We have been shown what this means by the one natural Son of God. We have been brought into that same relationship, not by nature, but by grace, the free gift of adoption through Christ. So, if Christ is able to trample death by death, crushing evil through the means of being crushed by evil, then we can and must do this, as well. It doesn't matter, right now, if they get it; what matters is that we get it, and get about the work of living it out. How are you going to put your faith in the love the Father has bestowed on us in making us his children? How are you going to lay down your life for the sake of the world today? Those are the better questions.
Gospel - John 10:11-18
I AM the Good Shepherd.
Lots of things going on in these five words. First of all, they are one of several I AM statements, by which Jesus is identified with the Lord, God of Israel. The Greek words, "Ego eimi," mean I AM. This is a translation of the Hebrew word YHWH, also known as the tetragrammaton (four letters) and Name of God, which God gave to Moses as his identification. The word has many dimensions of meaning, but essentially it can be translated as "I AM." The Good Shepherd refers to a passage from Ezekiel, where the Lord says that he himself will shepherd his people, being THE good shepherd, as opposed to those bad shepherds who were victimizing the people and leading them astray.
This passage should raise the question for us, "Which shepherd are we following?" Do we really know the voice of The Good Shepherd, or have we turned aside to follow the shepherds that speak with a different voice, but who say things that we would prefer to hear. Here's a great way to tell...would the shepherd you are following lay down his or her life for you? Oftentimes there are those who stand up to lead people in a direction they would prefer to go, and as long as things are going well, they stick with you, champion your cause, stand up for your 'rights.' But they are leading because it benefits them right then and there to lead. None of these will put his life or even livelihood on the line when it comes to standing up for the truth, which is oftentimes the same as laying down his life for the flock, because it is more important to steer the flock in the right direction than it is to please them with how they are being led, or what they are being told. It's easy to jump in front of a group of people who are headed in a certain direction, and say, "Hey, I'll lead you. Let's go!” and then continue along the path they were walking anyway. Often times, this 'leader' then goes in the direction he thinks the sheep want to go, but ends up leading them a ruin they might not have reached on their own. Much more difficult is to jump in front of a group and say, "Hey, I'll lead you. Let's go!" and then steer them along the right path, away from their current direction, toward the safety of the sheepfold, where they can find true rest, true peace, and genuine care that begets true wellbeing.
So, which shepherd will you follow, the one who just makes you feel good about the way you are currently wandering, or the One Good Shepherd who will lead you toward the goal that fulfills your heart's deepest desire, the purpose for which you have been made?
First Reading - Acts 4:81-12
Regarding Jesus: "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."
Pretty strong words, and not so popular in our milieu of cultural diversity, but for all the COEXIST bumper stickers out there, it needs to be said that whatever merits there may be in other religious traditions, Christians must affirm that there is no salvation through anyone else (other than Jesus). This is a sine-qua-non of Christianity; otherwise the book, which gives us the definitive portrait of the early church, would not have Peter saying this.
A common mistake made by Christians, however, is that this means that nobody who isn't Christian, by which they mean Catholic or Orthodox or 'tolerant Christian' or 'fundamentalist Christian...nobody who isn't in whatever group I count as Christian will be saved. Let's stick with Catholics, since I'm most theologically well versed there. There is a Catholic teaching that there is "no salvation outside the church." Many people used to say that this meant that if one weren’t Catholic, one wouldn't make it into heaven. But that's way to easy. In fact, the teaching means something more like, "Insofar as anyone is saved, it is through the mystery that is the church, which is fully subsistent in the Roman Catholic church," meaning that all who are saved are saved by some radical participation in the Roman Catholic church, whether or not they came to that conscious realization or not. The Orthodox Christian teaching is similar, except that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is the Orthodox church, and insofar as anyone is saved, it is through a participation in the Orthodox Church, of which all who are saved will ultimately be members, even if that is not evident today. Only fundamentalists insist that you absolutely must be a member of this or that denomination of Christianity in order to be saved.
But this is still way to easy. The real challenge here is to examine ourselves, and ask the question, "By what other means am I trying to be saved?" Am I trying to be saved by wealth, power, a fabulous lifestyle, a political party, being American, [insert favorite false savior here], or do I really believe that salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ our true God? Have I bought into the notion that I must have perfect health, the correct weight or BMI, be free of the need for medicine, or use the right age-defying face cream to experience Shalom? We are tempted constantly to place our trust and hope in something other than Jesus, and it is vital that we examine ourselves to see where we have fallen to this temptation, so that we can repent and thus approach the true fountain of immortality, the true Savior, the only real Salvation.
Second Reading - 1 John 3:1-2
"The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him."
You know, you would think that being children of God might get us more respect. After all, our Father is the one who created all that is, who gives every good gift, and a little gratitude and respect would not be inappropriate. But, we are children of God in the person of Christ, and look what they did to him. They didn't believe that he is who he is. So how can they believe we are who we are? A better question might be, “How much do we believe we are who we are?” See, we are God's children now, not in some distant future, but now. We have been shown what this means by the one natural Son of God. We have been brought into that same relationship, not by nature, but by grace, the free gift of adoption through Christ. So, if Christ is able to trample death by death, crushing evil through the means of being crushed by evil, then we can and must do this, as well. It doesn't matter, right now, if they get it; what matters is that we get it, and get about the work of living it out. How are you going to put your faith in the love the Father has bestowed on us in making us his children? How are you going to lay down your life for the sake of the world today? Those are the better questions.
Gospel - John 10:11-18
I AM the Good Shepherd.
Lots of things going on in these five words. First of all, they are one of several I AM statements, by which Jesus is identified with the Lord, God of Israel. The Greek words, "Ego eimi," mean I AM. This is a translation of the Hebrew word YHWH, also known as the tetragrammaton (four letters) and Name of God, which God gave to Moses as his identification. The word has many dimensions of meaning, but essentially it can be translated as "I AM." The Good Shepherd refers to a passage from Ezekiel, where the Lord says that he himself will shepherd his people, being THE good shepherd, as opposed to those bad shepherds who were victimizing the people and leading them astray.
This passage should raise the question for us, "Which shepherd are we following?" Do we really know the voice of The Good Shepherd, or have we turned aside to follow the shepherds that speak with a different voice, but who say things that we would prefer to hear. Here's a great way to tell...would the shepherd you are following lay down his or her life for you? Oftentimes there are those who stand up to lead people in a direction they would prefer to go, and as long as things are going well, they stick with you, champion your cause, stand up for your 'rights.' But they are leading because it benefits them right then and there to lead. None of these will put his life or even livelihood on the line when it comes to standing up for the truth, which is oftentimes the same as laying down his life for the flock, because it is more important to steer the flock in the right direction than it is to please them with how they are being led, or what they are being told. It's easy to jump in front of a group of people who are headed in a certain direction, and say, "Hey, I'll lead you. Let's go!” and then continue along the path they were walking anyway. Often times, this 'leader' then goes in the direction he thinks the sheep want to go, but ends up leading them a ruin they might not have reached on their own. Much more difficult is to jump in front of a group and say, "Hey, I'll lead you. Let's go!" and then steer them along the right path, away from their current direction, toward the safety of the sheepfold, where they can find true rest, true peace, and genuine care that begets true wellbeing.
So, which shepherd will you follow, the one who just makes you feel good about the way you are currently wandering, or the One Good Shepherd who will lead you toward the goal that fulfills your heart's deepest desire, the purpose for which you have been made?
Saturday, December 25, 2010
The Nativity Icon
I recently changed my Facebook profile pic to an icon of the Nativity of Christ, in honor of the Feast and the Season. My mother, with whom I share a certain sense of humor, commented that it really didn't look like me. I chuckled, and moved on, but was later drawn to think about that statement, and to make the following reflection. I share it in hopes that it edifies, and pray that it isn't found to be offensive to my Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters.
Doesn't it, though? Doesn't it look like all Christians?
Aren't we all the cave, that space that is dark and empty except that it be filled by our saving God-with-us? Are we not all, like the angels in Luke's gospel, messengers of the glorious coming of God in the flesh? Are we not like the ox and ass, creatures of God who are as dumb animals in the presence of so great a mystery, yet still drawn to the nourishment offered by our God? Are we not all wise persons, coming to make homage to the King of Kings? Are we not all shepherds, who receive the good news with astonishment, in the midst of leading our particular flocks? Are we not all like Joseph, tempted to doubt the truth of the gospel, yet overcoming doubt with trust in God's Word? Don't we all, at times, serve as the tempting devil, when we, in our times of darkness, give evidence that contradicts the good news of Christ's arrival and presence among us? Aren't we all like Mary, lovingly accepting Christ into our very beings, and striving to nurture in ourselves and contemplate a mystery we cannot comprehend? Are not we, who have become the Body of Christ, bound together and offered up as sacrifice to God the Father, for the sake of all the world?
In fact, this might be a mystical portrait of the church, all Christians, or any one of us. When God became God-with-us, we became man-with-God; so perhaps it is not unfitting to reflect upon this icon in this fashion.
Doesn't it, though? Doesn't it look like all Christians?
Aren't we all the cave, that space that is dark and empty except that it be filled by our saving God-with-us? Are we not all, like the angels in Luke's gospel, messengers of the glorious coming of God in the flesh? Are we not like the ox and ass, creatures of God who are as dumb animals in the presence of so great a mystery, yet still drawn to the nourishment offered by our God? Are we not all wise persons, coming to make homage to the King of Kings? Are we not all shepherds, who receive the good news with astonishment, in the midst of leading our particular flocks? Are we not all like Joseph, tempted to doubt the truth of the gospel, yet overcoming doubt with trust in God's Word? Don't we all, at times, serve as the tempting devil, when we, in our times of darkness, give evidence that contradicts the good news of Christ's arrival and presence among us? Aren't we all like Mary, lovingly accepting Christ into our very beings, and striving to nurture in ourselves and contemplate a mystery we cannot comprehend? Are not we, who have become the Body of Christ, bound together and offered up as sacrifice to God the Father, for the sake of all the world?
In fact, this might be a mystical portrait of the church, all Christians, or any one of us. When God became God-with-us, we became man-with-God; so perhaps it is not unfitting to reflect upon this icon in this fashion.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time - Heaven and Hell
Lo, the day is coming, blazing like an oven, when all the proud and all evildoers will be stubble,
And the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving neither root nor branch, says the Lord of hosts.
But for you you fear my name, there will arise the sun of justice with its healing rays. - Malachi 3:19-20
The end of all things. Death, judgment, and our final destiny. What's it all about? Well, it means that how we live shapes our destiny. Pretty straightforward.
Or is it?
We live in a time when people don't believe in hell. It seems that a loving God wouldn't punish us with an eternal punishment, so hell can't be real, can it? My answer is that no, God doesn't set out to punish us. It says so right in the Bible, which is an authoritative text for all who are Christians. Oh, you can point to snippets of verses here and there, decontextualize them, and limit yourself to that as you fashion the mental idol you want to worship, but that doesn't match the image of God portrayed when you look at everything in the Bible, and keep all the snippets in context. God does not want the death of the sinner, so why would he inflict it? God's response to the most depraved sinfulness of humanity is to become human and trample death by death, fulfilling the requirements of justice we were unable to fulfill ourselves. God got us off the hook. Did he then change his mind, having given us just one last chance? As St. Paul puts it, "It is Christ who forgives us; who shall condemn?" No, God doesn't punish us for our sins.
But there is still a hell, and it results from our choices, or rather, from one basic choice we remake through all our discreet choices in life. The words from Malachi show us just how this works. Did you ever have that person in your life who thought that you just hung the moon? That person who wanted to be around you WAY more than you ever wanted to be around them? We're not talking about stalkers here, but that person who seemed to enjoy your company to an embarrassing level. Perhaps it even embarrassed you to be around them, and you limited your exposure? Now, do you have a friend who is always happy to see you, puts aside other things or changes plans to spend time with you? That person for whom you would change your plans just to have the opportunity to spend time with him or her, and around whom you feel great about being yourself, mainly because he or she enjoys your company that much, and it's really good to have someone who thinks that highly of you? One person can be either of these, depending upon how you view them.
See, a proud person, one who is an evildoer, more interested in his or her own momentary comfort than in the needs of others can't stand to be around that person. You know, you've experienced it...it's almost painful. But for those who embrace that person as an icon of God's own love for them, and who treat this person, and those like him or her, with reverence and compassion, and who have the humility to see the gift this person is, such encounters are not painful...you can choose to relax, live in the moment, and enjoy the present moment with him or her, and all the enjoyment the other person has in the encounter. That person, perhaps better than any other, is truly the image of God in that moment, because we either receive the person as gift or as torture depending solely upon our choice to be open to and embrace the encounter or resist it.
So, you might say, everyone has those experiences. Surely we're not going to be judged by them! Well, I agree partially with that. There won't be any recounting of deeds and misdeeds, weighing things in the balance, and then assigning reward or punishment based on the outcome. But how we choose to engage each of these moments shapes our disposition for the next encounter. Some become quite skillful at extricating themselves from these uncomfortable or inconvenient encounters, moving on to 'bigger and better things.' Others choose to be present to the moment, and gradually develop a comfort with engaging these moments, to the point that it can even be a delightful bright spot in one's day. Either way, we are steadily shaping our disposition toward the Other. Given enough encounters, we usually develop a pattern, either of resisting encounter or of radical engagement. So, while we aren't being judged, we are shaping our response.
We will all die. We will all be raised to eternal life. We will all dwell eternally in the light of that day without end, that day of the Lord, that day when God's love will be all the light we need. For those who are proud, and the evildoers, that love will be intolerable; it will be torturous. For those who fear and love God, who have shaped themselves to welcome the awkward friend with radical engagement, we will experience God's love as healing, setting all things right.
Which pattern are you developing? It's probably important that we all take a step back and notice. The good news here is that, given that you're alive and reading this, you have the chance to change, to begin setting a new course, newly aware of God's presence in the person in front of you, and that how you're relating to that presence can shape your ultimate destiny, if not the destination. The good news is that we can 'repent and have faith.'
May God give us open minds and hearts, alert to the many opportunities we have to receive love and not spurn it, that we may be able to receive it eternally, through Christ our Lord.
And the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving neither root nor branch, says the Lord of hosts.
But for you you fear my name, there will arise the sun of justice with its healing rays. - Malachi 3:19-20
The end of all things. Death, judgment, and our final destiny. What's it all about? Well, it means that how we live shapes our destiny. Pretty straightforward.
Or is it?
We live in a time when people don't believe in hell. It seems that a loving God wouldn't punish us with an eternal punishment, so hell can't be real, can it? My answer is that no, God doesn't set out to punish us. It says so right in the Bible, which is an authoritative text for all who are Christians. Oh, you can point to snippets of verses here and there, decontextualize them, and limit yourself to that as you fashion the mental idol you want to worship, but that doesn't match the image of God portrayed when you look at everything in the Bible, and keep all the snippets in context. God does not want the death of the sinner, so why would he inflict it? God's response to the most depraved sinfulness of humanity is to become human and trample death by death, fulfilling the requirements of justice we were unable to fulfill ourselves. God got us off the hook. Did he then change his mind, having given us just one last chance? As St. Paul puts it, "It is Christ who forgives us; who shall condemn?" No, God doesn't punish us for our sins.
But there is still a hell, and it results from our choices, or rather, from one basic choice we remake through all our discreet choices in life. The words from Malachi show us just how this works. Did you ever have that person in your life who thought that you just hung the moon? That person who wanted to be around you WAY more than you ever wanted to be around them? We're not talking about stalkers here, but that person who seemed to enjoy your company to an embarrassing level. Perhaps it even embarrassed you to be around them, and you limited your exposure? Now, do you have a friend who is always happy to see you, puts aside other things or changes plans to spend time with you? That person for whom you would change your plans just to have the opportunity to spend time with him or her, and around whom you feel great about being yourself, mainly because he or she enjoys your company that much, and it's really good to have someone who thinks that highly of you? One person can be either of these, depending upon how you view them.
See, a proud person, one who is an evildoer, more interested in his or her own momentary comfort than in the needs of others can't stand to be around that person. You know, you've experienced it...it's almost painful. But for those who embrace that person as an icon of God's own love for them, and who treat this person, and those like him or her, with reverence and compassion, and who have the humility to see the gift this person is, such encounters are not painful...you can choose to relax, live in the moment, and enjoy the present moment with him or her, and all the enjoyment the other person has in the encounter. That person, perhaps better than any other, is truly the image of God in that moment, because we either receive the person as gift or as torture depending solely upon our choice to be open to and embrace the encounter or resist it.
So, you might say, everyone has those experiences. Surely we're not going to be judged by them! Well, I agree partially with that. There won't be any recounting of deeds and misdeeds, weighing things in the balance, and then assigning reward or punishment based on the outcome. But how we choose to engage each of these moments shapes our disposition for the next encounter. Some become quite skillful at extricating themselves from these uncomfortable or inconvenient encounters, moving on to 'bigger and better things.' Others choose to be present to the moment, and gradually develop a comfort with engaging these moments, to the point that it can even be a delightful bright spot in one's day. Either way, we are steadily shaping our disposition toward the Other. Given enough encounters, we usually develop a pattern, either of resisting encounter or of radical engagement. So, while we aren't being judged, we are shaping our response.
We will all die. We will all be raised to eternal life. We will all dwell eternally in the light of that day without end, that day of the Lord, that day when God's love will be all the light we need. For those who are proud, and the evildoers, that love will be intolerable; it will be torturous. For those who fear and love God, who have shaped themselves to welcome the awkward friend with radical engagement, we will experience God's love as healing, setting all things right.
Which pattern are you developing? It's probably important that we all take a step back and notice. The good news here is that, given that you're alive and reading this, you have the chance to change, to begin setting a new course, newly aware of God's presence in the person in front of you, and that how you're relating to that presence can shape your ultimate destiny, if not the destination. The good news is that we can 'repent and have faith.'
May God give us open minds and hearts, alert to the many opportunities we have to receive love and not spurn it, that we may be able to receive it eternally, through Christ our Lord.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Church Squabbles
There are lots of things brewing in different churches around the country these days. Depending on your perspective, any of it can be pretty serious. In the Roman Catholic church, there is a great deal of brouhaha surrounding the new translation of the Roman Missal, the official book of prayers and instructions for celebrating Mass. In the Self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, the status of the Bishops (other than Metropolitan Philip, the Archbishop and Primate of the Archdiocese) as either diocesan bishops or auxiliary bishops, assigned to administer the church in specific territories currently called dioceses, is the controversy in question. At stake in both of these situations is something far more significant than grammar and translation theories, or the question of titles and prerogatives; the very order of the church, or at least the ways this order is perceived to have been violated, is in need of serious consideration.
First, the Catholic Church. Apart from the technical aspects of translation, and different people's sense of what the translation should be, which is an important topic I do not want to focus on here, what seems to be at stake is a debate on the rights of different bishops and grouping of bishops. According to what is being described as the canonical norm, the Roman Curia, specifically the Congregation for Divine Worship, has no business telling the US Conference of Catholic Bishops what their English translation of the Roman Missal should be. The only role of the Vatican with regard to translation of liturgical books is to confirm that the proper canonical procedure was followed in approving the translations, i.e., that the US Bishops followed due process in approving a particular translation for the dioceses of the United States of America. What has happened is something more like Rome taking on the role of approving the translation itself, or, to put it more accurately, rewriting the translation approved by the US Bishops and telling them to use the rewritten translation. Another way of looking at it is that Rome is assuming the role of making decisions about which elements of the various English translations approved by different regional conferences of bishops from English-speaking regions and creating a single version for use in all English speaking dioceses. While this may seem like a useful idea at first glance, it gets problematic when you consider that American English is stylistically different from British English, Irish English, Australian English, etc. Even more importantly, the legitimate right of the US Bishops' Conference to make determinations about liturgical translations from the Latin into the local vernacular is being trampled underfoot. It's a squabble over who gets to be the 'decider.'
In the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, we have another question of the rights of bishops, and their status. It's a very complex story that is influenced by the uncanonical situation in which the Orthodox Christians find themselves in the New World, and parts of Western Europe. There are many overlapping diocesan structures of various autocephalous or at least autonomous Churches, such that an Orthodox Christian might say that he is with the Patriarchate of Antioch, another with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (of Constantinople), a third with the Moscow Patriarchate, and a fourth with the Orthodox Church in America (which was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarch in the latter third of the 20th century, but this autocephaly is not recognized by all Orthodox churches). Hard work has been done and continues to be done to resolve this situation, such that there would be one American Orthodox church, following the ancient canon that there would, in each place, be only one Orthodox bishop in charge. In this context, when Metropolitan Philip sought the grant of autonomy from the Holy Synod of Antioch (in Damascus, Syria), concerns were raised about the use of the Arabic word for 'autonomous' (Arabic is the official language of the Patriarchate of Antioch, much as Latin is for the Roman Catholic church). The word for 'self-administration' or self-rule (which is the literal translation of the Greek-derived word 'autonomy') was suggested and accepted by the Synod as an alternative. Somewhere in there, it was insisted that the Antiochian Archdiocese be seen as one unified particular church (manifested and described as clergy and laity gathered around the bishop in the eucharistic celebration), with only one head, namely Metropolitan Philip. The problems is that at some point in the process, bishops were consecrated and installed with the understanding that they were 'diocesan bishops,' and their particular territories are called 'dioceses.' The Holy Synod of Antioch, however, decided earlier this year that all Antiochian bishops in North America, other than Metropolitan Philip, were to be considered auxiliary bishops to the Metropolitan, not as diocesan bishops having all the rights and prerogatives that belong to diocesan bishops. Well, as you can imagine, this has caused some messes, one of which has been in the news and all over the blogosphere lately, where one bishop has called into question the decision in Antioch, and has had a rather public controversy with the Metropolitan. Refusing to be transferred to another 'diocese' of the Antiochian church, he's now in the process of transferring into the Orthodox Church in America. It's a mess, and it's hard on a lot of people. The question is not easily dismissible, because it pertains to important structural understanding of what the church is, and how it is or should be ordered. Equally, it's not easy for an outsider such as myself to say which position is the 'right' one, because the variables are really beyond my frame of reference.
On top of all that, the North American Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue has issued a statement within the last month calling on leaders of both communions to pursue more urgently the goal of reunification, putting all sorts of questions of church order, centered mainly around the role of the Bishop of Rome in the universal church. It is the boldest statement I have seen from the dialogue, and is significant in that it calls for each communion to rethink how the church ought to be ordered. This is really the most challenging aspect of Catholic-Orthodox relations, and it will continue to be the biggest obstacle to reunion.
As a person who fervently wishes for a reunification of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, along with all the appropriate changes that would be necessary for each church to make, I am heartened by the statement. As a disciple of Jesus, I find much of the disunity and squabbling distasteful at best, scandalous at worst, and saddening throughout. As bold as the statement was from the dialogue, I find myself not hopeful that the men involved in ordering the church will overcome human passions of vanity and envy in order to obey our Lord's desire that we all be one. The scandal is that the men who will fail to overcome these passions are the very men who are supposed to preserve and transmit the teachings of Christ for us. How are we to believe in this way of life if our own teachers can't give evidence that it is at all possible?
Well, all hope is not lost. I am reminded of two things. First, there are actually stories in the gospel of squabbling and jockeying for position among the original twelve apostles. As seminal as these writings are for the church, and as formed by the early experience of the church as they are, I can say with confidence that this squabbling is not new, and I bet the evangelists didn't think it was going to go away anytime soon. In the very propaganda they wrote to spread the gospel throughout time, they included stories of squabbling over position and precedence, and told us what we are to make of it. Secondly, in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, before the assembly professes the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the priest (or perhaps deacon) says, "Let us love one another well..." and they exchange a sign of peace, exchanging a sort of pass-phrase: Christ is in our midst! He is and ever will be! Apparently, even before addressing the doctrinal content of our faith, which is part of the gateway through which one passes on the way to the eucharistic anaphora, it is most important to love one another and affirm that Christ is in our midst, just as he promised he always would be when two or three of us gathered in his Name.
Putting these two together, I also recall that during those periods of controversy among the first disciples and apostles of Jesus, Christ was in their midst, and isn't this the most important thing about us as church? Christ is in our midst (even when we squabble over position and prerogatives)!!! He is and ever will be!!! I wonder what church life would be like if all our bishops, Catholic and Orthodox, would follow the lead of the sacred liturgy in all that we do as church. This sacred liturgy is, after all, in the words of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II, the summit of our Christian life, and the source from which all the church's power flows. Maybe we should follow its lead, as the key interpreter of sacred scripture, through which Christ opens our minds to understand the scriptures, and makes himself known to us in the breaking of the bread.
First, the Catholic Church. Apart from the technical aspects of translation, and different people's sense of what the translation should be, which is an important topic I do not want to focus on here, what seems to be at stake is a debate on the rights of different bishops and grouping of bishops. According to what is being described as the canonical norm, the Roman Curia, specifically the Congregation for Divine Worship, has no business telling the US Conference of Catholic Bishops what their English translation of the Roman Missal should be. The only role of the Vatican with regard to translation of liturgical books is to confirm that the proper canonical procedure was followed in approving the translations, i.e., that the US Bishops followed due process in approving a particular translation for the dioceses of the United States of America. What has happened is something more like Rome taking on the role of approving the translation itself, or, to put it more accurately, rewriting the translation approved by the US Bishops and telling them to use the rewritten translation. Another way of looking at it is that Rome is assuming the role of making decisions about which elements of the various English translations approved by different regional conferences of bishops from English-speaking regions and creating a single version for use in all English speaking dioceses. While this may seem like a useful idea at first glance, it gets problematic when you consider that American English is stylistically different from British English, Irish English, Australian English, etc. Even more importantly, the legitimate right of the US Bishops' Conference to make determinations about liturgical translations from the Latin into the local vernacular is being trampled underfoot. It's a squabble over who gets to be the 'decider.'
In the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, we have another question of the rights of bishops, and their status. It's a very complex story that is influenced by the uncanonical situation in which the Orthodox Christians find themselves in the New World, and parts of Western Europe. There are many overlapping diocesan structures of various autocephalous or at least autonomous Churches, such that an Orthodox Christian might say that he is with the Patriarchate of Antioch, another with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (of Constantinople), a third with the Moscow Patriarchate, and a fourth with the Orthodox Church in America (which was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarch in the latter third of the 20th century, but this autocephaly is not recognized by all Orthodox churches). Hard work has been done and continues to be done to resolve this situation, such that there would be one American Orthodox church, following the ancient canon that there would, in each place, be only one Orthodox bishop in charge. In this context, when Metropolitan Philip sought the grant of autonomy from the Holy Synod of Antioch (in Damascus, Syria), concerns were raised about the use of the Arabic word for 'autonomous' (Arabic is the official language of the Patriarchate of Antioch, much as Latin is for the Roman Catholic church). The word for 'self-administration' or self-rule (which is the literal translation of the Greek-derived word 'autonomy') was suggested and accepted by the Synod as an alternative. Somewhere in there, it was insisted that the Antiochian Archdiocese be seen as one unified particular church (manifested and described as clergy and laity gathered around the bishop in the eucharistic celebration), with only one head, namely Metropolitan Philip. The problems is that at some point in the process, bishops were consecrated and installed with the understanding that they were 'diocesan bishops,' and their particular territories are called 'dioceses.' The Holy Synod of Antioch, however, decided earlier this year that all Antiochian bishops in North America, other than Metropolitan Philip, were to be considered auxiliary bishops to the Metropolitan, not as diocesan bishops having all the rights and prerogatives that belong to diocesan bishops. Well, as you can imagine, this has caused some messes, one of which has been in the news and all over the blogosphere lately, where one bishop has called into question the decision in Antioch, and has had a rather public controversy with the Metropolitan. Refusing to be transferred to another 'diocese' of the Antiochian church, he's now in the process of transferring into the Orthodox Church in America. It's a mess, and it's hard on a lot of people. The question is not easily dismissible, because it pertains to important structural understanding of what the church is, and how it is or should be ordered. Equally, it's not easy for an outsider such as myself to say which position is the 'right' one, because the variables are really beyond my frame of reference.
On top of all that, the North American Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue has issued a statement within the last month calling on leaders of both communions to pursue more urgently the goal of reunification, putting all sorts of questions of church order, centered mainly around the role of the Bishop of Rome in the universal church. It is the boldest statement I have seen from the dialogue, and is significant in that it calls for each communion to rethink how the church ought to be ordered. This is really the most challenging aspect of Catholic-Orthodox relations, and it will continue to be the biggest obstacle to reunion.
As a person who fervently wishes for a reunification of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, along with all the appropriate changes that would be necessary for each church to make, I am heartened by the statement. As a disciple of Jesus, I find much of the disunity and squabbling distasteful at best, scandalous at worst, and saddening throughout. As bold as the statement was from the dialogue, I find myself not hopeful that the men involved in ordering the church will overcome human passions of vanity and envy in order to obey our Lord's desire that we all be one. The scandal is that the men who will fail to overcome these passions are the very men who are supposed to preserve and transmit the teachings of Christ for us. How are we to believe in this way of life if our own teachers can't give evidence that it is at all possible?
Well, all hope is not lost. I am reminded of two things. First, there are actually stories in the gospel of squabbling and jockeying for position among the original twelve apostles. As seminal as these writings are for the church, and as formed by the early experience of the church as they are, I can say with confidence that this squabbling is not new, and I bet the evangelists didn't think it was going to go away anytime soon. In the very propaganda they wrote to spread the gospel throughout time, they included stories of squabbling over position and precedence, and told us what we are to make of it. Secondly, in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, before the assembly professes the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the priest (or perhaps deacon) says, "Let us love one another well..." and they exchange a sign of peace, exchanging a sort of pass-phrase: Christ is in our midst! He is and ever will be! Apparently, even before addressing the doctrinal content of our faith, which is part of the gateway through which one passes on the way to the eucharistic anaphora, it is most important to love one another and affirm that Christ is in our midst, just as he promised he always would be when two or three of us gathered in his Name.
Putting these two together, I also recall that during those periods of controversy among the first disciples and apostles of Jesus, Christ was in their midst, and isn't this the most important thing about us as church? Christ is in our midst (even when we squabble over position and prerogatives)!!! He is and ever will be!!! I wonder what church life would be like if all our bishops, Catholic and Orthodox, would follow the lead of the sacred liturgy in all that we do as church. This sacred liturgy is, after all, in the words of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II, the summit of our Christian life, and the source from which all the church's power flows. Maybe we should follow its lead, as the key interpreter of sacred scripture, through which Christ opens our minds to understand the scriptures, and makes himself known to us in the breaking of the bread.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Coming Home - aka - Re-entry
As great as the FDLC week was, though, I was tired of being away from home, whose name is Stella, by about halfway through the week. I don't know that either of us realized that the longer we were married, the more we would miss each other when we were apart. So, there was great joy when I got back to Memphis.
I flew in and arrived in Memphis about 3 on Saturday, and had a 7 pm wedding to attend. Two of our choir members were getting married (to each other). This was the first wedding Stella and I have attended since our own. It was really neat being there, seeing the happiness on our friends' faces, and having an inside scoop on what that feeling is like. I've sung many weddings, but being at this one with my wife, in the same church where we got married,at the wedding of two of the people who sang in the choir at our wedding...it was a truly beautiful experience. The couple had been taking dance lessons at the same place we have been going, so we knew to expect something. Their first dance was great. And then the father and bride dance was well-choreographed as well! Reflecting on the evening, it was as though the dance began with the entrance procession, and continued as we all joined hands in the great dance of the Trinity (perichoresis) in the sacred liturgy of the marriage rite and eucharist, and extended beyond the walls of the church into the reception. This was the first time, as well, that Stella and I had been somewhere where we could dance, so we did. We danced with each other, and we danced with other friends. Finally, we joined in that great communal dance known as the Macarena, which, by the way, is about 2 hours too long - I was actually substituting baseball signals for the real moves out of sheer boredom and exhaustion!
The next morning, however, when I served as cantor for the 8 AM Mass, I had something of a jolting return to liturgy as it usually is 'out here,' with about 1/3 of the meager assembly even moving their mouths to the songs. I formed the opinion that we really should only have one Mass on Sunday, so that all the people will be 'gathered together in one place.' It will never happen, but I think it would be altogether grand. Then we could do the rest of the liturgy, which is currently squeezed out due to the commodification of liturgy that has taken place so that we can 'drive through' on Saturday evening, or anytime Sunday morning. McEucharist. If we only had one Mass on Sunday, we could celebrate Evening Prayer I of Sunday on Saturday evening, then Morning Prayer during the current 8 AM Mass time, followed by Mass, followed by, perhaps, a larger coffee and donuts period, after which we might have several different catechetical gatherings, including some for (gasp) the adults! Then, where many parishes have the Sunday evening Mass, we could celebrate Evening Prayer II of Sunday, and thus we would fully express the Sunday liturgy of our church, with all its rich diversity of text and song. A man's gotta dream!
I flew in and arrived in Memphis about 3 on Saturday, and had a 7 pm wedding to attend. Two of our choir members were getting married (to each other). This was the first wedding Stella and I have attended since our own. It was really neat being there, seeing the happiness on our friends' faces, and having an inside scoop on what that feeling is like. I've sung many weddings, but being at this one with my wife, in the same church where we got married,at the wedding of two of the people who sang in the choir at our wedding...it was a truly beautiful experience. The couple had been taking dance lessons at the same place we have been going, so we knew to expect something. Their first dance was great. And then the father and bride dance was well-choreographed as well! Reflecting on the evening, it was as though the dance began with the entrance procession, and continued as we all joined hands in the great dance of the Trinity (perichoresis) in the sacred liturgy of the marriage rite and eucharist, and extended beyond the walls of the church into the reception. This was the first time, as well, that Stella and I had been somewhere where we could dance, so we did. We danced with each other, and we danced with other friends. Finally, we joined in that great communal dance known as the Macarena, which, by the way, is about 2 hours too long - I was actually substituting baseball signals for the real moves out of sheer boredom and exhaustion!
The next morning, however, when I served as cantor for the 8 AM Mass, I had something of a jolting return to liturgy as it usually is 'out here,' with about 1/3 of the meager assembly even moving their mouths to the songs. I formed the opinion that we really should only have one Mass on Sunday, so that all the people will be 'gathered together in one place.' It will never happen, but I think it would be altogether grand. Then we could do the rest of the liturgy, which is currently squeezed out due to the commodification of liturgy that has taken place so that we can 'drive through' on Saturday evening, or anytime Sunday morning. McEucharist. If we only had one Mass on Sunday, we could celebrate Evening Prayer I of Sunday on Saturday evening, then Morning Prayer during the current 8 AM Mass time, followed by Mass, followed by, perhaps, a larger coffee and donuts period, after which we might have several different catechetical gatherings, including some for (gasp) the adults! Then, where many parishes have the Sunday evening Mass, we could celebrate Evening Prayer II of Sunday, and thus we would fully express the Sunday liturgy of our church, with all its rich diversity of text and song. A man's gotta dream!
Fall Break
Whew! I believe we have finally finished the launch of our diocesan-wide study of the sacred liturgy: Do This In Memory Of Me. Boy am I glad to have that done. Of course, now we have to finish writing and lay out the materials for sessions 5-8, but having had the experience now, we know what we're getting into. So far, all feedback from groups who have been engaging the study has been positive.
I am so glad I set aside two weeks this month to take vacation. Life = work has been intense! I finally have dug out from underneath the pile of things tossed onto my desk as collateral detrius from my mad rush to get things done over the past 2.5 months. Having a clear desk is a glorious thing! This has been a week of tying up lose ends.
Last week I was in Alexandria, LA for two events involving the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC). First, there was the national meeting. Now, the Diocese of Alexandria, LA, is in the same FDLC region as Memphis. It was our region's turn to host, so I flew in on Sunday, Oct 3, checked in, and then went over to St. Frances Xavier Cabrini church where my friend, Fr. Jose Robles-Sanchez is the pastor, and got busy with folks from elsewhere in the region making Derby Pies, under the masterful guidance of my friend, Judy Bullock, who is Director of Worship for the Archdiocese of Louisville, and star of the Do This In Memory Of Me DVDs. It was good to be with my friends and colleagues from other liturgy offices in my region, especially making pies where one of the key ingredients is bourbon, y'all! Suffice it to say, we had a good time. We always do, because we don't miss a chance to extend the communion we share in liturgy into our work and play together. We were working like mad to put on the customary 'Taste of the Region,' and it was uh-MAZE-ing! It was a very bad week for my diet.
The other work I had there was the workshop put on by FDLC in conjunction with the Bishop's Committee on Divine Worship (BCDW). I ran through the chants of the revised English translation of the Roman Missal. It was fun, and for about an hour, I was one of the most famous people in Alexandria. Priests I passed in the hallway kept speaking to me in chant! It was funny.
The national meeting, which began after the workshop ended, is a time when diocesan liturgists from around the country get together for a couple days of study, and time to converse with the BCDW and the personnel of the Secretariat for Divine Worship for the USCCB, to catch up on where things are. Fr. Paul Turner, whom we imported for our priest study days and a workshop with deacons, musicians, and other liturgists and catechists, was one of the presenters for our study days. Msgr. Kevin Irwin, Dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America, was the other presenter. There was a great deal of good reflection shared by them concerning the new edition of the Roman Missal and liturgy in general, and I hope to unpack some of it as the weeks go by.
Most of all, the week was a time to be refreshed and renewed in the special communion shared among those of us who are professional liturgy folk. Many people think, sometimes, that we liturgists are all about enforcing rules or trying to control the worship of the People of God. In reality, we are all aware of the depth of meaning and Presence in the sacred liturgy, and we know that good expression of that in our parish churches is the most powerful way we can evangelize, catechize and energize our church to show forth the Kingdom already drawn near, yet ever to come more fully. To be around such spirit-filled and wise people, sharing in reflection, serious conversation, gorgeous liturgy and lots of fun, too...it was refreshing to my spirit like a large dose of carbs can be for muscles tired from weeks of rigorous exercise. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why church can't be like that for all of us. If we are really aware of what it means to be church, and we let go and relax into that communion we share, we find there is a strength we can channel that is much bigger than any challenge we face. Thanks be to God for gathering us together, making us 'one body, one spirit in Christ!'
I am so glad I set aside two weeks this month to take vacation. Life = work has been intense! I finally have dug out from underneath the pile of things tossed onto my desk as collateral detrius from my mad rush to get things done over the past 2.5 months. Having a clear desk is a glorious thing! This has been a week of tying up lose ends.
Last week I was in Alexandria, LA for two events involving the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC). First, there was the national meeting. Now, the Diocese of Alexandria, LA, is in the same FDLC region as Memphis. It was our region's turn to host, so I flew in on Sunday, Oct 3, checked in, and then went over to St. Frances Xavier Cabrini church where my friend, Fr. Jose Robles-Sanchez is the pastor, and got busy with folks from elsewhere in the region making Derby Pies, under the masterful guidance of my friend, Judy Bullock, who is Director of Worship for the Archdiocese of Louisville, and star of the Do This In Memory Of Me DVDs. It was good to be with my friends and colleagues from other liturgy offices in my region, especially making pies where one of the key ingredients is bourbon, y'all! Suffice it to say, we had a good time. We always do, because we don't miss a chance to extend the communion we share in liturgy into our work and play together. We were working like mad to put on the customary 'Taste of the Region,' and it was uh-MAZE-ing! It was a very bad week for my diet.
The other work I had there was the workshop put on by FDLC in conjunction with the Bishop's Committee on Divine Worship (BCDW). I ran through the chants of the revised English translation of the Roman Missal. It was fun, and for about an hour, I was one of the most famous people in Alexandria. Priests I passed in the hallway kept speaking to me in chant! It was funny.
The national meeting, which began after the workshop ended, is a time when diocesan liturgists from around the country get together for a couple days of study, and time to converse with the BCDW and the personnel of the Secretariat for Divine Worship for the USCCB, to catch up on where things are. Fr. Paul Turner, whom we imported for our priest study days and a workshop with deacons, musicians, and other liturgists and catechists, was one of the presenters for our study days. Msgr. Kevin Irwin, Dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America, was the other presenter. There was a great deal of good reflection shared by them concerning the new edition of the Roman Missal and liturgy in general, and I hope to unpack some of it as the weeks go by.
Most of all, the week was a time to be refreshed and renewed in the special communion shared among those of us who are professional liturgy folk. Many people think, sometimes, that we liturgists are all about enforcing rules or trying to control the worship of the People of God. In reality, we are all aware of the depth of meaning and Presence in the sacred liturgy, and we know that good expression of that in our parish churches is the most powerful way we can evangelize, catechize and energize our church to show forth the Kingdom already drawn near, yet ever to come more fully. To be around such spirit-filled and wise people, sharing in reflection, serious conversation, gorgeous liturgy and lots of fun, too...it was refreshing to my spirit like a large dose of carbs can be for muscles tired from weeks of rigorous exercise. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why church can't be like that for all of us. If we are really aware of what it means to be church, and we let go and relax into that communion we share, we find there is a strength we can channel that is much bigger than any challenge we face. Thanks be to God for gathering us together, making us 'one body, one spirit in Christ!'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
