From Sat. USA Today letter to editor in response to article by Dinesh D'Souza defending against claims that religion is to blame for terrorism: "The bottom line: No one group (atheists or religionists) has cornered the market on morality. There has never been any perfect text - religious or otherwise - to guide us through life. We have to guard against religious fanatics just as we must guard against atheistic fanatics. A belief that any religion, sacred text or ideology contains the entire truth is always fraught with danger. All good people must contend against this insistence on absolute moral certainty. - Norm Allen Jr. Buffalo" (emphasis added)
This from my Catholic Study Bible's readers guide to Micah (RG, 372):
"The true prophet here, as so often in the history of Israel, finds himself in opposition to the religious leaders, the priests, and the official prophets (3,11). On the surface of things, the priests appear to have great faith: no evil can come upon Israel because the Lord is in its midst. Such faith is no virtue for Micah. Rather virtue lies in the practice of justice and in facing reality honestly. He regarded the Temple on Mt. Zion, often the focal point of Jewish religion in antiquity, as a negative force. According to the Psalmist, Mt. Zion was 'the holdy dwelling of the Most High. God is in its midst; it shall not be disturbed' (Ps 46,6). If kings came to attack it, they would be seized with terror and put to flight (Ps 48,5f). Micah realized that the Assyrians would not panic at the sight of Jerusalem. The belief that Zion could not be destroyed was a source of complacency and illusion. So Micah uttered his radical prophecy that Zion would be plowed like a field. This prophecy is quoted in Jeremiah 16,18 as a precedent for the equally radical prophecy of Jeremiah. It was not fulfilled in Micah's time, but it was not forgotten either, and it was justified in time. Faith cannot be based on any religious institution, no matter how sacred. No temple is permanent, and no one is guaranteed the unconditional protection of God." (emphasis added)
Are they saying the same thing? Close, but not exactly. When the sacred text warns against the very attitude decried by the letter writer -- the attitude that pridefully assumes it is in the right -- the sacred text IS entirely truthful!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Who are the modern day prophets?
In Christ is our Hope this month, there is an article by Fr. John Welch, located here in Darien, IL. He writes of "The Languages of a Christian," noting the first language is one of thanksgiving. "No matter how difficult life may be . . . it is always appropriate to give thanks to God. For what? For the unmerited love of God that brought us into this world and sustains us throughout life."
The second language is that of prophesy. "Having given thanks to God, we look around our world to see who cannot participate fully in the love God offers us. Who, for whatever reason, cannot take his or her place at the table of life prepared for all by God? Who, for reasons of economics, politics, gender, religion, sexual orientation, cannot participate in the banquet of life? Our prophetic language says, 'This situation should not last; it must come to an end.' The language of the prophets in Scripture has been called 'an articulated grief' because it announces the end of a dominant consciousness, which is at odds with God's will."
In my opinion, Fr. Welch's words about prophecy sound nice, but are too ambiguous to be helpful. Who, for example, for reasons of "sexual orientation" "cannot participate in the banquet of life?" Gays who cannot marry because of Maine's vote against gay marriage? Or those whose gay lifestyle contravenes God's law? (see earlier post) Fr. Welch does not say.
Who, for reasons of gender, cannot participate in the banquet of life? The woman needing an abortion? Or a Chinese women discriminated against for having more than one child? Again, Fr. Welch does not say.
The prophet IS called to announce the end of the "dominant consciousness," which is at odds with God's will. But who represents the dominant consciousness? The oppressive majority? The dominant minority? No answers are given.
Fr. Welch's platitudes aren't at issue. At issue in prophecy is WHO is being denounced and WHAT FOR. In my opinion, one group of the powerful and "dominant" against who the prophets should rail are those who are able to enact legislation contrary to accepted norms through power politics, i.e., through judicial fiat.
I agree with Phillip Rieff who said the primary test of a prophet is whether he (or she) preaches fresh renunciations of instinct. Jesus was one -- the greatest -- of these. (See last post.) A prophet never preaches fresh satisfactions of instinct. He (or she) calls people back to obedience to God's immutable law, his covenant of "shall nots." The prophet's mission is not, as so many today believe, to loosen the compass of God's law, so as to show compassion.
Fr. Welch's article on the surface sounds nice, but what is left unsaid makes it unhelpful and therefore unsatisfactory.
The second language is that of prophesy. "Having given thanks to God, we look around our world to see who cannot participate fully in the love God offers us. Who, for whatever reason, cannot take his or her place at the table of life prepared for all by God? Who, for reasons of economics, politics, gender, religion, sexual orientation, cannot participate in the banquet of life? Our prophetic language says, 'This situation should not last; it must come to an end.' The language of the prophets in Scripture has been called 'an articulated grief' because it announces the end of a dominant consciousness, which is at odds with God's will."
In my opinion, Fr. Welch's words about prophecy sound nice, but are too ambiguous to be helpful. Who, for example, for reasons of "sexual orientation" "cannot participate in the banquet of life?" Gays who cannot marry because of Maine's vote against gay marriage? Or those whose gay lifestyle contravenes God's law? (see earlier post) Fr. Welch does not say.
Who, for reasons of gender, cannot participate in the banquet of life? The woman needing an abortion? Or a Chinese women discriminated against for having more than one child? Again, Fr. Welch does not say.
The prophet IS called to announce the end of the "dominant consciousness," which is at odds with God's will. But who represents the dominant consciousness? The oppressive majority? The dominant minority? No answers are given.
Fr. Welch's platitudes aren't at issue. At issue in prophecy is WHO is being denounced and WHAT FOR. In my opinion, one group of the powerful and "dominant" against who the prophets should rail are those who are able to enact legislation contrary to accepted norms through power politics, i.e., through judicial fiat.
I agree with Phillip Rieff who said the primary test of a prophet is whether he (or she) preaches fresh renunciations of instinct. Jesus was one -- the greatest -- of these. (See last post.) A prophet never preaches fresh satisfactions of instinct. He (or she) calls people back to obedience to God's immutable law, his covenant of "shall nots." The prophet's mission is not, as so many today believe, to loosen the compass of God's law, so as to show compassion.
Fr. Welch's article on the surface sounds nice, but what is left unsaid makes it unhelpful and therefore unsatisfactory.
Do you "care enough"?
This, from Robert Gagnon, in connection with Maine's electoral vote to repeal the gay marriage law, and Sr. Donna Quinn's "outing" as a deathscort in Hinsdale:
"When Jesus rescued the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, he did so with a view to
encouraging her repentance. Put simply, dead people don’t repent. Jesus wanted to give the woman every last opportunity to repent so that she might inherit the kingdom of God. So he warned her: “Go and from now on no longer be sinning” (John 8:11). A similar statement is made by Jesus in John 5:14, where it is followed up with the remark: “lest something worse happen to you.”
That something worse is loss of eternal life through an unrepentant life. Whereas the Pharisees didn’t care if sexual sinners and persons who exploited the poor for material gain (first-century tax collectors) went to hell, Jesus cared enough to make them a focus of his ministry so that he might, through a proclamation of love and repentance, call them back to God’s kingdom (hence Mark’s summary of Jesus’ ministry: “The kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe the good news” [1:15]).
When the church calls to repentance those who engage in homosexual acts and does so lovingly, with a desire to reclaim lives for the kingdom of God, it carries out the work of its Lord."
"When Jesus rescued the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, he did so with a view to
encouraging her repentance. Put simply, dead people don’t repent. Jesus wanted to give the woman every last opportunity to repent so that she might inherit the kingdom of God. So he warned her: “Go and from now on no longer be sinning” (John 8:11). A similar statement is made by Jesus in John 5:14, where it is followed up with the remark: “lest something worse happen to you.”
That something worse is loss of eternal life through an unrepentant life. Whereas the Pharisees didn’t care if sexual sinners and persons who exploited the poor for material gain (first-century tax collectors) went to hell, Jesus cared enough to make them a focus of his ministry so that he might, through a proclamation of love and repentance, call them back to God’s kingdom (hence Mark’s summary of Jesus’ ministry: “The kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe the good news” [1:15]).
When the church calls to repentance those who engage in homosexual acts and does so lovingly, with a desire to reclaim lives for the kingdom of God, it carries out the work of its Lord."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)