I recently gave a two-part class at my parish entitled “Encountering Christ in the Scriptures: Reading the Bible Spiritually”.

The purpose of this class is to help Catholics read the Bible fruitfully. Too often the main focus of Scripture studies over the past few decades has been historical and scholarly details – who wrote this book, when did he write it, why did he write it? Those are important questions, but they are not questions which help the typical Catholic to draw closer to Christ and live a more fulfilling life.

These questions also neglect the intentions of the other author of the Scriptures – the Holy Spirit. My class is thus directed towards a “spiritual study” of the Bible, and the key to this study is encountering Christ in the pages of Scripture. I discuss how Old Testament figures such as Adam and Moses allow us to understand Christ better and deepen our knowledge of him. We see how all the Scriptures are directed towards Christ (see Luke 24:27). And all of this is done within the Church and as part of a sacramental life.

Here is a short (3 1/2 minute) sample from the class, where I talk about how the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 helps us to encounter Christ on the Cross:

You can listen to both classes in their entirety here and here. The first class is more theoretical – what does it mean to do a spiritual study, how do we do it? The second class includes practical applications of the theory. Each class is about 1 1/2 hours in length.

“[Christianity] is not a new philosophy or a new form of morality. We are only Christians if we encounter Christ…We can…encounter Christ in reading Holy Scripture, in prayer, and in the liturgical life of the Church – touch Christ’s heart and feel that Christ touches ours. And it is only in this personal relationship with Christ, in this meeting with the Risen One, that we are truly Christian.” – Pope Benedict XVI

In today’s Gospel, we see Jesus doing something he rarely did during his ministry:

Amen, I say to you,
among those born of women
there has been none greater than John the Baptist
(Matthew 11:11)

So what is so rare about this statement? Jesus is praising someone! If you look through the Gospels, he scarcely ever praises others – and the few he praises, such as the centurion (Matthew 8:10) or the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:28), are usually those not considered part of the people of God. He even follows his praise of John by saying, “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (I can just see John thinking, “thanks a lot for the compliment, Jesus!”)

This reticence to dispense praise goes against the spirit of our age. How often do we hear from the pulpit how great our parish is? How often are we told to lavish praise on our children? How often is the slightest accomplishment praised as if it were equivalent to landing on the moon? Yet Jesus felt no need to praise other people. Why is that?

I think part of the reason is simply cultural. Christ did not live in a time in which the praise was given freely. If he had been the equivalent of the modern glad-handing salesman, most of his contemporaries would have thought him crazy.

But I think his restraint in giving out compliments goes deeper than that. Christ recognizes no one is good but God alone (Matthew 19:17); he knows that any good someone does is due to God’s grace. See what happens after Peter makes his confession of faith – a confession no one else was able at this point to make:

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father (Matthew 16:17)

Jesus doesn’t say, “Great job Simon! You really are a bright guy! I’m so happy that you are part of my team!” No, Jesus instead points to the true source of Peter’s enlightenment: God.

We are complimented and praised so much in our day that it is easy to begin to think we are the source of our goodness. But this is a lie from the devil, one that he has been telling since the time of Adam and Eve. Anything good we do, any strength we have, any accomplishment we achieve: they all have their source in God alone.

To Him alone be praise and glory and honor.

I would wager to bet that almost every American feels confident that they know who Jesus is. However, if you surveyed Americans about his characteristics, I’d also be willing to bet that the image of Jesus most commonly held would look little like the Jesus presented in the Gospels. The American Jesus would be a tolerant, meek, slightly-effeminate preacher who only said nice things to everyone except those mean nasty religious leaders. He never said anything offensive and surely never said anything threatening.

I thought of this when I read the Gospel reading for today. Or, more precisely, when I read what was NOT included in today’s Gospel. The reading is Matthew 21,24-27, which says:

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
will enter the Kingdom of heaven,
but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them
will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
The rain fell, the floods came,
and the winds blew and buffeted the house.
But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
And everyone who listens to these words of mine
but does not act on them
will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
The rain fell, the floods came,
and the winds blew and buffeted the house.
And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

However, whenever a reading skips verses I like to go ahead and read them on my own so that I get the full context of the passage. In this case the skipped verses are 22-23, in which Jesus states:

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’

Not exactly a tolerant meek nonthreatening Jesus, is it?

I understand that perhaps those who chose the readings for today did not think verses 22-23 fit the season of Advent. But I think it is problematic when we take out the “hard” sayings of Jesus from our readings. We already tend to downplay the difficult statements of Christ in order to live more comfortably (how often do we try to ignore the fact that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel to fit through the eye of a needle?), so I think it would be useful to us all if we had to hear these passages during the Mass – to remind us that Jesus is not who we think he is.

What a beautiful picture (click to enlarge):

Eucharistic Procession during the National Catholic Youth Conference

See full story here.

A lot of reminders today about the close connection between being a follower of Christ and helping the poor.

First, today’s saint is St. Elizabeth of Hungary, who gave up her wealthy lifestyle to help the poor.

Second, today’s Gospel reading is about rich Zacchaeus who gave up at least half of his possessions as his way of following Christ. And what was Christ’s response? “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9).

Finally, the pope recently stated,

“Opulence and waste are no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions“

Or, in other words:

“Living like a typical American is no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions“

Hopefully, American Catholics will not respond to the pope’s words like some of Christ’s disciples did: “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6:60).

I think Archbishop Chaput best summed up our obligation to the poor when he bluntly stated, “We’ll go to hell if we don’t care for the poor.”

St. Elizabeth of Hungary, pray for us!
St. Zacchaeus, pray for us!

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Leo the Great. Leo is best known as the pope who stared down Attila the Hun, thus delaying the fall of the Western Empire to the barbarians. However, I would argue that his actions against Attila are insignificant compared to his work in the area of Christology. Soon after Leo’s death the Western Empire did fall, but Leo’s declaration of the two natures of Christ still guides the Church to a proper understanding of Christ today.

After the legalization of Christianity under the Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century, the Church was engaged in a very public and very painful debate to answer the question that Jesus asked his apostles three centuries earlier: “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s answer of “The Christ, the Son of the living God” needed further elaboration. Was Christ God? If so, was he still a man? Or was he some combination of the two, making him a third type of being? How can someone be both God and man at the same time? And if Jesus of Nazareth is God, what did that say about Mary? Was she just the mother of Christ or the mother of God? If Jesus is God, does that mean that God “died” on the cross? These are serious questions, and the answers the Church gives has major implications for the life of all Christians.

This was the situation in which Leo was Pope. After the Council of Ephesus in 431 the East was furiously debating the exact relationship between Christ’s human nature and his divine nature (the West was much more conservative in orientation and usually didn’t have these types of debates at this time), and their theological debates were not without major political ramifications (as is usually the case with theological debates). Into this mix Leo produced his famous “Tome” which clearly declared that Christ was a human person who had both divine and human natures and that there was no confusion between these two natures.

After reading this Tome out during the Council of Chalcedon, the Council Fathers proclaimed:

This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo!

It was St. Peter who first answered Christ’s famous question, “Who do you say that I am?” and it fell to St. Peter’s successor to give us a better understanding of that answer, an understanding that still forms the basis for orthodox Christology today. If we want to know who Jesus is, we need to follow the confession of Peter and his successor, St. Leo.

St. Leo the Great, pray for us!

Today is the anniversary of one of the most important events in Church history: on October 22nd, 451, the Council of Chalcedon published their declaration regarding the divinity and humanity of Christ:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis. (emphasis added)

This decree, which was based on Pope Leo’s famous Tome, crystallized orthodox Christology and avoided the extremes which sought to either subsume Christ’s humanity into his divinity or deny his true divinity. Although today the declaration appears to be almost obvious in its simplicity, it was the result of over 120 years of debate, dating back to the Council of Nicea. I find it to be one of the most beautiful creedal statements every produced.

Chalcedon was also the last of the Four Great Councils, of which St. Gregory the Great said, “I confess that I receive and revere, like the four books of the holy Gospel, four Councils…for on them as on a cornerstone rises the structure of the holy faith”. The vast majority of Christians around the world accept these four councils as teaching the true faith, and theologians consider them to be the foundation for all orthodox theology regarding the Trinity and Christology.

Take some time today to thank the Holy Spirit for leading the Church to all truth, just as Christ promised He would (John 16:13).

In today’s first reading, Paul is comparing the effects of Adam’s actions on the human race with the effects of Christ’s actions:

Brothers and sisters:
Through one man sin entered the world,
and through sin, death,
and thus death came to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.
If by that one person’s transgression the many died,
how much more did the grace of God
and the gracious gift of the one man Jesus Christ
overflow for the many.
For if, by the transgression of the one,
death came to reign through that one,
how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace
and the gift of justification
come to reign in life through the one Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, just as through one transgression
condemnation came upon all,
so, through one righteous act
acquittal and life came to all.
For just as through the disobedience of one man
the many were made sinners,
so, through the obedience of the one
the many will be made righteous.
Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more,
so that, as sin reigned in death,
grace also might reign through justification
for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 5:12, 15b, 17-19, 20b-21)

This beautiful passage uses typology to make the work of Christ more clear. Taking their cue from Paul, the Fathers of the Church loved to use typology to deepen their understanding of God’s work of salvation. By comparing (and contrasting) the work of Christ with the work of Adam, we see more clearly the tremendous work of grace which comes about through Christ’s obedience (and also the tremendous impact disobedience has on us). A few years ago I wrote a paper on “Adamic Typology” in the New Testament, which is just a fancy way of saying how the NT writers compared Adam and Christ. Here is an excerpt related to this passage from Romans:

This passage is quite structured, leading the reader to understand both how Adam and Christ correspond, and how they differ. Verses 12 and 18-19 show the correspondence: the actions of “one man” affect the whole of the human race. Adam’s actions introduce the passage in verse 12: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.” Then in verse 18-19, Paul makes the comparison explicit: “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Thus, in both the case of Adam and Christ, it is the actions of “one man” (a term used 11 times in this passage) that impact all who follow that man. This is typical of Hebrew thought – “to see the whole contained in the beginning” (Allen 16). A Jewish writing from the late first century/early second century sees the relationship of Adam to all of humanity similarly to Paul; 4 Ezra 7:118 states, “O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendents” (cf. Dunn 89). Paul sees in each man the beginning of a stage of history – Adam as the beginning of human history, and Christ as the beginning of salvation history.

However, there is a divergence between the two, which is characteristic of typology – anti-type and type are not identical, rather one leads to a deeper understanding of the other, not only in how the two compare but also in how they contrast…

Adam’s one act effected all of humanity, as did Christ’s, but Christ’s action was more powerful than Adam’s. By being a gift of God, it overcomes the transgression of Adam and is able to prevail completely over that transgression. Amiot writes, “Paul has reminded us of our solidarity with Adam only in order to emphasize our contrasting solidarity with Christ, which is infinitely more efficacious because it sets in motion an infinitely greater force than that of sin and death.” (Amiot 71). If Paul had not made this explicit, it might be possible for the reader to think that the two actions have equal strength, setting up an unacceptable dualism contrary to Paul’s beliefs.

Thus, the pattern for Paul in this passage is quite clear: Adam’s disobedience leads to sin which results in death; Christ’s obedience leads to grace which results in eternal life. “For St. Paul, the act of the first man…had essentially been one of disobedience, drawing down upon him death, drawing all other men after him into sin and consequently, into death. But this sinister fruitfulness of the first sin in sin and death is surpassed by the fruitfulness in justice and life revealed by the obedience of Jesus.” (Bouyer 65). By invoking Adamic typology, Paul is able to further his overall argument in Romans 1-8 that humanity is lost, but through the actions of Christ, the human race is able to be justified and gain eternal life with God.

One of the best ways to deepen our understanding of the life and work of Jesus Christ is to compare and contrast it with other great Biblical figures, such as Adam, Isaac or David. By engaging in typology, we are able to come into a deeper encounter with our Lord in the pages of Scripture.

My parish priest had quite a unique interpretation of yesterday’s Gospel passage, one I had never heard before. The section he was commenting on is the following:

He replied and said to him,
“Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,
“You are lacking in one thing.
Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
At that statement his face fell,
and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

My pastor made the point that the text does not say what the young man did after walking away except that he was “sad.” He noted that it is possible that the young man went away sad, gave away all his possessions and followed Jesus. Nothing in the text demands that we assume that he didn’t do this, although that is the more common interpretation.

I think this is a valid point. I know in my own life that whenever I give up something, one of my initial reactions is sadness. I don’t want to give it up, even if I know deep in my heart that the sacrifice is good for me. I am simply too attached to the things of this world to give them up without a fight. But then, if I am faithful in my sacrifice, I always end up joyful about it in the end. We are called to joyfully follow our Lord but it is unrealistic to think that there will not be stages in our path where we do not resist his radical call and are sad about the things of this world that we have given up for him.

A great example in my own life is when I gave up my television. For the first week I was happy to do this and it was quite easy. However, after that first week I started to be sad that I didn’t have a TV to use to waste my time (in other words, I was having withdrawals from my TV drug). I had been connected to TV my entire life (I even had a TV in my room growing up), so to think I could just give it up without some sadness is unrealistic. But after about a month or so of no TV I began to appreciate how much it simplified my life and allowed me to focus my time on greater things. My sadness did lead to joy.

We don’t know what the young man did after he walked away from Jesus, but I do think it helpful to consider the possibility that he did follow our Lord’s commands, even though they made him sad.

I guess I’m on a video kick today. This is a great video of comedian Steve Harvey “introducing” Jesus Christ:

A few great lines:

• “He hails out of a manger in Bethlehem by way of heaven.”
• “He holds the record for the world’s greatest fish fry.”

And my favorite:

• “His mother is still headlining in the Catholic Church today.”

Classic!

This Wednesday, September 30th, is the first annual “International Blasphemy Day” (caution: the link contains pictures of a blasphemous, albeit childish, nature). Atheists, skeptics and other religion-haters are supposed to utter offensive attacks on religious beliefs on Wednesday. I haven’t quite figured out the point, to be honest.

In many Muslim countries, the response to blasphemy is death. But what should be the Christian response to blasphemy? Get angry, fight back, be offended? As I look at the life of our Lord as well as the lives of the saints, I can think of one word: reparation. When the religious and political authorities 2,000 years ago did the most blasphemous thing possible – mock and beat and kill the Son of God – what was our Lord’s response? He turned their attacks into something to save them. He suffered for the sake of others’ salvation. The saints did the same thing. Time and time again they would offer up their own suffering, whether it was inflicted on them or freely chosen by them, for the sins of others.

One of the beautiful aspects of the Catholic Faith is that we understand that mankind will be saved as a Body. We are not just individual units which only have a direct relation to God without any connection to our fellow man. Instead we are connected to every other person on this earth, and we are called to do things to help in their salvation. One of the best ways to help others is to offer our sufferings for them. As St. Paul writes,

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Col. 1:24 – emphasis added)

We are called to make reparation for our own sins as well as the sins of others. I would suggest that this Wednesday we offer our sufferings – however big or little they are – for those who participate in International Blasphemy Day. Let’s make it instead “International Reparation Day,” and pray that those who blaspheme our Lord on Wednesday will one day join us in glorifying Him in heaven.

Jesus ascends
    Peter, James, John follow
    Alone with Jesus
    On the mountain, away from all.
Jesus transfigured
    Glory from glory
    God from God
    Light from Light
The Law and the Prophets testify
    ”This is he of whom we speak”
The Beloved Son
    All of the Father within
    ”Listen to him and you listen to me”
Coming down
    Back to the world, the cross to come
    Glory pointing to sorrow, leading to glory
The three to be transfigured:
    Peter, the rock, ruling in love
    James, the son of thunder, soon to drink Christ’s cup
    John, the eagle, the beloved son of Mary
Alone with Jesus
    Transfigure me
    Make me your beloved
    Let me enjoy your favor
- written on retreat, summer 2008

Mark Shea has a nice article over at Catholic Exchange about Pope Benedict’s emphasis on fostering our relationship with Christ over simply following rules (“Benedict is About Relationship with Christ, Not Rules“).

Many people miss this aspect of B16′s pontificate, but it has been an inspiration for my writing Who Do You Say That I Am? My main goal for this book is that Catholics (and all Christians) will use it to know Jesus better and thus develop a deeper relationship with him. Often Catholics cringe when they hear Evangelicals talking about a “personal relationship with Christ,” but the fact is that they are right to emphasize it. Where they err is that they reject many of the gifts Christ has given us to foster that relationship – the Eucharist, the Blessed Mother, even periphery items like Canon Law are intended to deepen that relationship.

There is no dichotomy between Christ and the Church; in fact, the Church is our means in which we draw closer to Christ. As Mark mentions in the article, the elites of this world look at the Church as just another political entity and the rules the Church enforces are just ways to keep the faithful in line. But if you really listen to Pope Benedict’s words, you will see that his whole ministry is an effort to bring us each closer to our Lord Jesus Christ.

One of the problems with modern Evangelicalism is the desire to make the Gospel easy to follow. So many Evangelicals wish the entire Gospel message to be reduced to a bumper sticker-level that is easy to understand, easy to accept and easy to follow. But in doing so, they jettison much of what is important in Christianity.

Christianity, however, is a total way of life: it involves a compete giving of one’s life to Christ in body, mind, and soul. This is something that cannot be done in a day and, in fact, it consumes our entire lifetimes.

Luis Palau, a popular Evangelical preacher, falls into the trap of over-simplifying the Gospel:

“Only Christ can give you eternal life. Religion cannot do it. Charitable work will not do it. Good behavior will not do it. Doing communion won’t do it. Reading the Bible won’t do it. Saying your prayers won’t do it. Only Jesus Christ will take you to Heaven if he lives in your heart,” he said.

Let’s look at this more closely:

“Only Christ can give you eternal life.”

A good start, as this is only too true. Christ said that “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Yet it is after this that Palau gets off the tracks:

Religion cannot do it.

The Evangelical bug-a-boo: “religion.” Religion, of course, can be used in many ways – it can be an attempt by man to reach God (not a bad thing to attempt, but one fruitless without God’s help) or it can be simply a man-made way to follow other men (never a good thing). But religion at its most fundamental is the way in which man interacts with God, and the Christian religion is one revealed by God as the means to follow Him. As such, religion CAN bring eternal life.

Charitable work will not do it.

Read Matthew 25:31-46 about the sheep and the goats, which Christ concludes by saying, “Then they [the goats] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Clearly feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and welcoming the stranger will impact our attainment of eternal life, or else why would Christ have given us this parable?

Good behavior will not do it.

The story of the Rich Young Man in Matthew 19:16-22 is a bit more nuanced than Palua’s statement. When the young man asks Jesus how he can obtain eternal life, Christ’s first response is “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” If being good were unrelated to eternal life, why could Christ have said this?

Doing communion won’t do it.

Jesus would disagree: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world…I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:51,53).

Reading the Bible won’t do it.

Well, as a Catholic I’m a bit surprised that a Prostant would admit this one, so I’ll concede this point to him. (Although reading the Bible is a primary means in which we know how to obtain eternal life).

Saying your prayers won’t do it.

How can we “receive Jesus” except by praying? How can we know Christ except by conversing with him? I know that he means mindlessly repeating our dinnertime and bedtime prayers, but I think it is never a good idea to denigrate the most important activity we can engage in – prayer.

Only Jesus Christ will take you to Heaven if he lives in your heart

Again, this is true – it is only Christ who can take you to heaven.

Palau’s problem is one that most who do not have the fullness of the Faith fall into: they separate and divide what should not – and cannot – be separated. Palau is right to believe that it is only by following Christ that we can be saved, but following Christ involves our whole being, including: “religion,” charitable work, good behavior, communion, reading the Bible and saying your prayers. Without doing those things, we are not really following Christ and eternal life can elude us.

Let us follow the words of Christ himself when he was asked this question:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”
(Luke 10:25-27)

From today’s saint, St. Philip Neri:

He who wants something other than Christ, does not know what he wants; he who seeks something other than Christ, does not know what he wishes; he who works and not for Christ, does not know what he is doing.