The God Bearers

 Ignatius of Antioch was known to the churches of Asia Minor as "Theophorus," a Greek word meaning "God-bearing."    An ancient document detailing the final journey and death of Ignatius testifies to the significance of his name.  As Ignatius was hauled before the emperor Trajan, the conversation was recorded:

Trajan:  "And who is Theophorus?"  

Ignatius:  "He who has Christ within his breast."

Trajan: "Do we not seem to you to have the gods in our minds, whose assistance we enjoy in fighting against our enemies?"

Ignatius: "You are in error when you call the demons of the nations gods.  For there is but one God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them: and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whose kingdom may I enjoy."

Trajan: "Do you mean Him who was crucified under Pontius Pilate?"

Ignatius: "I mean Him who crucified my sin, with him who was the inventor of it, and who has condemned all the deceit and malice of the devil under the feet of those who carry Him in their heart."

Trajan: "Dost thou then carry within thee Him that was crucified?"

Ignatius: "Truly so; for it is written, 'I will dwell in them, and walk in them'." (2 Cor. 6:16).

Trajan: "We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people.

Theophorus-- the God bearer.  It seems to me that this is our calling, our mission, our purpose -- to be all of us God bearers to our world.  Like Mary, to be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, that Christ be incarnated in us -- flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone.  That wherever we go, to bear within us God Himself.  To bring His wisdom, His love, His passion for the world and its people to each situation in which we find ourselves. 

The Son of God took on Mary's flesh.  Should He not also take on ours?

Does Philosophy Matter?

 About ten years ago I was teaching a confirmation class at church.  One evening, the students burst into the classroom outraged by something they had learned that day --- that there are now 27/ 37/ 47 -- does it matter? -- different genders!   Unfortunately, I started laughing at what I considered an absurdity.  I say "unfortunately" because I should have asked in which class the students learned this information:  biology? sociology?  psychology?   My students were actually relieved that I laughed; instinctively, they sensed that something was wrong with the information.  I too knew something was not right, but I could not have articulated the error.  It was the first I had heard of this new "science," and I was just as surprised as they were.  

Whatever our instincts told us, however, it was hard to resist "science," the new "revelation from heaven" since the days of the Enlightenment.  After all, what do we know if science tells us otherwise?  In the years since that incident, we (our culture) have come to accept without question that there are as many genders as anyone cares to define -- after all, we define our own reality now.  I am who I say I am; I am who I think I am.  And given that scientifically, biologically, there is actually a small percentage of the population born with gender dsyphoria, it seems likely that maybe gender identity is not actually a "given" after all.  How are we to make sense of what "science" is now telling us about who we are?

Plato, and in fact all of Greek culture, defined truth as correspondence to "what is," to reality, and furthermore, sought philosophy as the key to understanding that truth.  Philosophy --the study of the nature of reality and how it is ordered -- was the key to unlocking the secrets of the cave, Plato's metaphor for what we experience as reality.  We see shadows, not reality itself, and it is the task of the philosopher to seek wisdom, or the truth behind the shadows. Sadly, except in seminaries and Catholic colleges today, philosophy has gone out of fashion.

Perhaps a modern example will clarify:  during the 2020 Women's March on Washington, some of the participants were asked, "How would you define 'woman'?   One participant could not answer the question; another said that a woman was whatever she defined herself to be, and a third responded that anyone could be a woman.  Plato might have responded that all of these respondents were looking at shadows on the back of the cave.  I cannot laugh, however, for most of us are caught in the same incoherence today.  To define any aspect of reality is to define what it is not:  a bird is not a tree; a squirrel is not a cloud.  But to define a woman as not a "male" today is to discount the identity of a trans woman.  And to define a man as someone who can impregnate a woman but who himself cannot have babies fails to capture the reality of a trans man ( a biological woman who identifies as male).

I dare say that most of us today would love to have some clear answers about transgenderism and sexuality -- answers based on philosophy and real science.  Why philosophy, when science would seem to have all the answers we need?  In this, as in most cases, science can only tell us what is possible -- with transgender surgery, for example.  It cannot tell why it should happen, or if it is a good idea.  Science can tell us that nuclear warfare is possible; it cannot tell us why it should happen, or if it is desirable that it should occur.  We have clear-cut the rain forests because we know how; only the earth itself, the peasants, and the animals seemed to care whether reality itself would be served by that possibility.

A recently-published book called Sexual Identity: the Harmony of Philosophy, Science, and Revelation, edited by John Desilva Finley, has helped to clarify the questions that plague our culture today.  Science is not reality; reality is the harmony of science with philosophy and revelation that reveals ultimate goodness, beauty, and truth.  From a review of the book:

We live in a culture that feeds two dangeous lies to our youth: first, that some people are born in the wrong body, and second, that there are more than two sexes.  This is not science --  it is a false philosophy....When our youth today "learn" that they cannot trust the objective reality of their own physial bodies to tell them who they are, it strikes a major blow to their entire system of reality-testing and leads many of them down a medical pathway resulting in permanent, life-long sterility, emotional suffering, chronic illness, and physical harm.

Like myself that night, and like my students, facing new "information," we seldom take the time to make what we know explicit.  Common sense and everyday experience, although irreplaceable, will not help to clear up confusion on this point.  We need a deeper vision that can see the parts in relation to a whole -- the branches of human knowledge are strengthened as they form a living unity, or to put it more simply: truth is truth wherever it is found.  Sexual Identity brings together a variety of disciplines to address the issues and implications around gender questions: biology, philosophy, psychology, soul-body unity, and revelation.

I strongly recommend this strikingly readable and enjoyable book to anyone like myself who needs all the help they can get in sorting through reality and truth in this foggy area of society today.

 

Blood Brothers

 Maybe the practice belongs to the past and today's generation no longer knows anything about "blood brothers."  Even though we were girls, we called ourselves "blood brothers," the feminist movement not yet occurring to raise our consciousness about pronouns/nouns and feminine equality.

I remember being enthralled at the idea when my friend first proposed that we become blood brothers. She explained that we were to cut ourselves so that our blood would mingle together as one. From that time on, we would be "blood brothers," or family to one another --- if one of us was attacked, we would consider that both had been attacked.  Whatever happened to one, it would be as if it happened to both.

I'm sure the idea traces back to families and tribes that banded together for the survival of all, and still remains today primarily with gangs and outlaws.  In our individualistic culture, we tend to think that "I can do it all by myself," in the words of a popular song. We tend to think we don't need anyone else -- until we do! 

In the Old Testament, Moses was instructed to take the blood of a sacrificial offering and to spread half of it on the altar and half sprinkled on the people.  The life of the animal was the blood, and now, symbolically, God and His people shared the same life, as represented by the same blood -- He entered into their lives as a family member, as Father, as Older Brother, as Defender of armies, as Shepherd, as Mother (feminine equality again!), as Refuge in times of distress.  And they were to enter His life of love, peace, joy, friendship, communion of Persons.  The formal term for this exchange was "covenant," or "blood brotherhood."

In the New Testament, we have a new covenant, sealed and effected by the sacrifice and the blood of Jesus Christ.  In the Eucharist, in communion with God, we now really -- not symbolically -- share the same blood with God Himself.  We are "blood brothers;" what happens to one happens to the other. 

He has entered into our life: he knows what it feels like to be hot and thirsty, what it feels like to have wool tickle the back of your neck, what it feels like to be hungry and weak, dependent on other people, what it feels like to be so tired that you fall asleep during a storm.  He knows how it feels to be betrayed by someone you trusted, to be the scapegoat of other people's hatred and suspicion; how it feels to be tortured, nailed to a cross unable to breathe -- what it feels like to have your own mother watching you suffer and helpless to offer comfort.

And because we are now blood brothers, He has opened wide the door into His own life.  The healings, the comfort, the provision, the forgiveness He extended during his earthly life continue today through His Body, the Church:  "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven."  "I give you my peace...."  "Of course I want to heal you..."  "I give you the water of eternal life...."

All this is available to us in the Eucharist:  Take and eat; this is my Body, given up for you.  Take and drink, this is the blood of the new covenant, given for the forgiveness of sins.

No longer the blood of goats and calves, now the blood of God Himself.  No longer sprinkled on us, but now taken in as our drink.  As our life is taken up by Him, His life is now become our life.  We are blood brothers, no longer symbolically, but really. Jesus told one of the saints: I am come to take up my dwelling in you, and to cleanse, enlighten, kindle, and animate your soul.

If we could only believe it, we could live it!

How, then, will you understand?

 I heard an interesting comment on the radio recently, but unfortunately cannot give credit to the speaker as I don't know who was relating the story.  He mentioned that in Mark's account of the parable of the sower, the disciples asked Jesus about the parable.  Jesus' reply was, "Don't you understand this parable?  How then will you understand any parable?"

Now the speaker was puzzled about this comment.  What is it about this parable that seems to be the key to all of the other parables?  Why is it that we will not understand any parable if we don't understand this one?  

And then it dawned on him:  This parable is about opening our hearts to the word of God.  The good soil receives and nurtures the Word of God, and it grows, producing a crop.  If we do not receive the Word with an open heart, we cannot understand anything in the spiritual realm.  

One of the psalms says, "In your light, we see light."  Jesus gave light to the blind and opened the ears of the deaf, but those were not isolated miracles.  What He did in the physical realm, He also does in the spiritual realm.  If we cannot see God at work in our lives or understand Scripture, we probably need to call out with the blind man, "Lord, I want to see!"  

Jesus is the Sower of the Word; the Spirit waters the soul and prepares us to see, hear, and grow the Word of God in our hearts.

Looking for Grace

 A few weeks ago, I read a book called The Daily Examen by Chad Torgerson.  Based on the journals of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the daily examen is a short prayer of practice at the end of each day.  At first, I thought this practice referred to a daily examination of conscience, a practice I had heard about growing up.  However, this is not really the same thing at all, although it may include an examination of conscience.

The daily examen rather is a practice of reflection on where grace has appeared during the day, and giving thanks for those moments.  The brief evening prayer may also include looking back over one's sins (or general grumpiness, for that matter) and asking for the grace to overcome these weaknesses.  The key concept is that we are looking for God's presence in our lives, however.

The practice was so simple that I started doing it immediately.  Within a week, I was noticing the graced moments of the day not in the evening, but as they occurred, and giving thanks for them at the moment they occurred.  One day, as my sister and I had spent the day painting the house I am trying to sell, I loaded my purse, lunch bag, and pieces of used cardboard in the car to head home, exhausted.  As I crossed the railroad tracks about half a block away from the house, I suddenly realized that I had forgotten the antibiotic I was taking.  I knew I could not skip 2 or 3 doses until the next day, so had I arrived home without the medicine, I would have had to make the return trip to retrieve it.

I was so grateful to my guardian angel or whoever whispered in my mind that I forgot how tired I was just being thankful.  Now I find moments of joy every day, as I say to myself, "That was a graced moment!"  I guess you might say this simple practice is like walking in the presence of God all day!

The Ultimate Question

Sooner or later, I think, everyone will have to answer the question Jesus asked of Peter: Who do you say that I am?

Here our religion does not matter so much as the question.  Every man, woman, and child will have to face Jesus himself and answer the question:  Who do you say that I am?

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis beautifully summed up our choices in his own question:  Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?  According to Lewis, the one option we do not have is to say that Jesus was/is a great moral teacher, but not who He claimed to be -- the Son of God.  According to Lewis, anyone who said the things Jesus said had to be speaking the truth -- or else He was lying, or He was a lunatic.  

The Jews who heard Him teach were horrified by His blasphemy, as they saw it:  [We are stoning you for blasphemy] because you, a mere man, claim to be God (John 10).

For this reason, the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God (John 5).

I think anyone who reads the Gospel of John -- or any one of the Gospels, for that matter --- with this question in mind will begin to see Jesus as the Son of God, made flesh for our sake.

And then the next question will follow:  Why do you call me "Lord" and not do the things that I say?

Indeed, a question all of us will have to answer someday!