Take the Long Way Home

I’ve been musing lately about my own spiritual life and what I have passed on to my children.  What have they learned from me?  Have they learned to pray and to trust in God, or have they learned to worry?  Have they learned contentment in all situations, or have they learned to complain and to want what they can’t have?  Have they learned to be still and listen to God, or have they learned to drown Him out with their own musings?  Have they learned to love God, or to merely put up with the knowledge that He exists and feel they might need to pacify Him at some point in their lives? 

I just read the book Father Elijah by Michael O’Brian (if you don’t have it run, don’t walk, to Amazon or HalfPrice Books, or whereever and buy it!).  There is a quote near the beginning that sums up exactly what I should have passed on to my children, and it brought me to tears with the knowledge that I haven’t done this…

“I have walked behind you on this ascent of Mt. Carmel.  You have taught me everything that a father could teach a son.” 

“If I have taught you to carry the cross and to die on it, then I have taught  you everything.  Have I taught  you this?”

The other day I was involved in a conversation about what is the best way to interpret Scripture. There are several theories, not all of which were discussed, but the main question was are the Scriptures meant to be taken literally or metaphorically? The answers usually vary, with the “fundamentalists” saying that Scripture should always be taken literally, and the “liberals” saying it should be taken as metaphor. In actuality most people fall somewhere in the middle of these two ideals.

This started me thinking - I’m full of opinions on this subject, as are most folks. But what does this mean for me personally when I read Scripture? Do I have to study ancient near eastern literature to better understand the form of the Old Testament? Do I have to be a Rabbinical scholar, or at least be familiar with how the Jews traditionally understood the Old Testament? What about the New? Do I need to spend some time figuring out textural criticism, so I can best decide which of the dozens of translations is the best? Does it matter that not every word is the same in the different texts? Did God give us a record that only the few can truly understand? I don’t think so. Although I see great value in all those areas I mentioned, and I’m glad that there are people out there doing all those things, so I can read their work and make some decisions for myself, but ultimately I think that the ancient church had the right idea. Assume that what is read is literal (at least in some sense), but that’s not all there is to it, there is a richer, deeper meaning there as well.

The ancient church Fathers referred to this as the different senses of Scripture. We can see a pretty good summary of their thoughts in the catechism (I am only including a very small section to discuss here, there is more before and after this section that I recommend looking at).

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”⁸³

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.⁸⁴

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.⁸⁵

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.⁸⁶

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.⁸⁷

They suggested that all Scripture has all four of these dimensions. It’s not always a question of which is it, physical or metaphorical, but what does God want me to learn through this account. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. I’m not suggesting that this answers all questions, nothing ever does.

All of this was in my mind during Mass on Sunday when the Gospel was read. If you’re not familiar with John chapter 9, then go on and read it! It’s about the man being born blind who was healed by Jesus. Pastors must love it when this reading comes around. Talk about a rich passage. You could preach a hundred sermons on this story and not repeat yourself once, there’s that many lessons in this one story!

But this is what jumped out at me about the reading: it’s the perfect illustration of the two types of interp - literal and metaphorical. I don’t even have to think about it because both senses are pointed out for us by Jesus himself in the story! So, now nobody can accuse me of overthinking the passage, right? Here’s how it plays out: Jesus physically and literally gives a blind man his sight. But Jesus uses the healing to point out how spiritually blind the Pharisees are. The blind man is given both kinds of sight - literal and metaphorical. He can literally see Jesus standing in front of him, but he can also “see” who Jesus really is - the Son of God. He has been given physical and spiritual sight. Both senses of Scripture right there in print for us. Not one interpretation or another, it’s both at the same time!

I honestly believe that this is how we should look at most Scriptures. They are not a riddle to be unlocked, they are not merely a literal rendition of history, they are not a metaphorical idea book. Scripture, the written word of God, is the revelation of Jesus, the living Word of God. We can see this on several levels, all of which are valid, and all of which depend on each other. It’s not a question of literal OR metaphorical, but literal AND metaphorical.

These are the prayers that Mother Teresa asks her lay co-workers to pray daily.  So simple, yet so full of meaning.  Do you think they would be considered “vain repition” if I were to pray them daily?  Do you think God would turn his ear away from these words since they are not spontaneous expressions of my own?  Just wondering, because I’m gonna take that chance.  If and when I can express myself better than this, I’ll come up with my own words.  In the meantime…

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, that where there is hatred I may bring love; that where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness; that where there is discord, I may bring harmony; that where there is error, I may bring truth; that where there is doubt, I may bring faith; that where there is despair, I may bring hope; that where there are shadows, I may bring light; that where there is sadness, joy.  Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort, than to be comforted; to understand than to be understood; to love than be loved, for it is by forgetting self that one finds; it is by dying that one awakens to eternal life.              - St. Francis of Assisi

Make us worthy, Lord, to serve our fellow men throughout the world who live an die in poverty and hunger.  Give them, through our hands, this day their daily bread; and by our understanding love, give peace and joy.                                                                      - Pope Paul VI

Every quarter my fifth grader is required to write a book report on a book that he would never choose to read himself. He’s a reluctant reader (although that’s changing a bit), and the level of books that are forced upon him make the task that much more difficult. So, quite often I read the books to him. He gets the information (it’s amazing how much more he gets out of a book read to him than he does from one he reads himself, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic!) and there is much less exasperation on my part. It’s all ultimately about me anyway, right??? Don’t answer that please!

Back to the book report… This quarter the book is any book on a Saint. My son is not all that interested in Saints (unless you count the New Orleans Saints, but I don’t think that’s what the curriculum had in mind). I tried to make St. Francis sound interesting, but all the book descriptions make the Saints sound pretty boring to young boys. In the end I looked at my own bookshelf and found a biography of Saint Teresa that I decided he was going to use. With the bargaining chip of me reading it to him he agreed. Now that we are into the book he’s actually enjoying it quite a bit. I, on the other hand, am amazed by it.

One thing that has gotten my attention is the attitude of the Catholic Missionaries of Charity towards conversion of their fellow Indians. Conversion is not one of their aims. This seems strange to me. I’m only talking about my own personal experience here, not any creed of Protestants, but whenever I was involved with church charity work, mission trips, etc. conversion was the main aim. We might be diagnosing illness or passing out medicine. We might be helping with building projects. We might have been tutoring urban students. But at the heart of all these activities was the ultimate aim of converting these people to Christianity. We offered them tutoring because it was a way to get them in the church. In fact, immediately after the tutoring session there was a Bible Study. I’m sure not all of the students stayed for this, and surely it wasn’t required, but the hope was that these kids would stay. When I went on mission trips to Latin America we intentionally tried to convince Catholics of the error of their ways and wanted them to join “our” church. We argued the validity of Christianity over those with Hindu beliefs. When I went to Britain we targeted Muslims with the intention of conversion.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this is bad. It’s good to want people to become Christians. This was Jesus’ last instruction to the Apostles, “Go out into all nations, baptizing…”  But I ran into a phenomenon - when people wanted money (for good things mind you) they would “fake” conversion because they thought this would get them what they needed. If a man had a sick wife, he would feign conversion because he thought this would enable him to get money for the hospital. I can only assume that this was based on some sort of precedent. Why would people do this if the money was available to all equally?  I also saw lonely young girls feign conversion because they wanted to be accepted, wanted to be a part of something.  Maybe they didn’t feel truly welcome and so they faked it.  I can’t say anything definite because I was there on a missionary effort, not there all the time. 

I never questioned any of this. In fact I advocated it. I personally believed that any charity work was futile if the people you were ministering to were going to hell! Without conversion their physical healing was pointless. It wasn’t that I advocated not trying to help people who weren’t Christians, but I would have considered the work a failure if the people being helped weren’t converted by the efforts.  It was not enough to advocate being a better person, being a better Hindu, being a better Muslim.  It was not enough to love just for love’s sake.  I didn’t look at the poor as Jesus in disguise.   Of course, I live in suburban America.  I have to go pretty far to find real poverty.  But I firmly believed that most of the people on the street corners with those signs - Will Work for Food - were scam artists.  Those people that slept on park benches downtown?  They were drug addicts who should kick the habit and get a job!  Single mothers on welfare?  Well, they should get off their lazy butts and get a job and quit taking all my hard earned tax dollars!  Yes, I was one of “those people”.  I was hard and cold and unforgiving.  But I didn’t know it.  Mother Teresa is the one who told me, she is the one who woke me up to what I really was.

When the Missionaries of Charity went out into the streets of Calcutta they didn’t have conversion of anyone other than themselves in mind.  M. Teresa firmly believed that each and every suffering person she met was “Jesus in distressing disguise”.  When a Hindu died in her house for the dying he was taken to the Hindu temple for a proper Hindu burial.  Same for the Muslims that she helped.  She didn’t try to convert them on their deathbeds.  And this is what saved her order.  India at that time was a dangerous place to live.  There were battles in the streets between warring factions - basically boiling down to Hindu vs Muslim.  There were few Christians in Calcutta.  The Missionaries went out every day and ministered to people in different quarters of the city, both Hindu and Muslim.  At first there was a huge outcry against her because it was assumed that she was converting these folks to Christianity.  It was assumed that the Missionaries were baptizing the babies they took in, it was assumed that they were spiriting away the dying to Christian burial.  But it was untrue.  The Missionaries did not baptize the babies, and whenever they could they turned those babies over to those who would adopt them - Hindu babies to Hindu parents and Muslim to Muslim.  When it became well known that the Missionaries did not convert then they became safe in a city where no one else was safe.  Even the gangsters left her alone.  She and her sisters were truly Missionaries of Charity (love). 

This idea of helping people, of loving people, but not converting them is a very new idea to me.  I have a hard time with it.  But, ultimately I think it’s “what Jesus would do”.  Jesus didn’t confine his healings or his dealings to acceptable persons.   Did Jesus have ulterior motives, however good, when He healed someone?  M. Teresa made sure that the sick and dying of Calcutta didn’t die alone.  That they didn’t die unloved.  I think this is the sign of true Christianity - that we love all unconditionally.  That we love all sacrificially.  That we love.  This is a hard lesson.

I know I said  was going to blog twice a week at a minimum and I’m kinda falling short on that, but I have good excuses - swear!

For my birthday I bought myself the Lord of the Rings trilogy on audio.  How can I be expected to blog when the Urak-Hai have Merry and Pippin!

Oh, and there is also the little detail of two, yes two, of my posts being eaten by cyberspace.  But I’m trying, okay?

The other night a documentary came on PBS that I could’nt miss - it was on Mormonism.  I have a soft spot for Mormons.  They send those sweet little boys around to your house and ask if there is anything they can do for you.  Of course usually it’s me that does for them.  How can you turn them away?  They aren’t allowed to see their own mothers for two years!  They are only allowed to talk to them twice a year!  How can any mother of boys not invite them in for a drink of lemonade (it’s pretty hot where I live), or for supper?  Or buy them Christmas presents?  Okay, maybe I have gone a little overboard at times, but they break my heart.  I know that they are there to “convert” me, but I hope that they leave my city knowing that there is such a thing as a Catholic that loves God, and loves them. 

Anyway, back to the documentary…  I was curious about how PBS would present it.  Would they be cynical and mocking?  Would they include any evangelical balance, or only present it from the Mormon perspective?  I was quite impressed with it.  It felt as though they were trying to give it a fair shake.  There was a little history that they left out, and they didn’t delve very deep into Mormon theology, but overall it was a positive portrayal (I was pleased by this because I kept thinking, what would a documentary on Catholicism look like if done by PBS?  If they did it this way, I would be satisfied.  They wouldn’t have gotten it all right, but maybe they wouldn’t have gotten it all wrong either.).  One thing that I was moved by was some of the Mormon members recollections of “experiences” with God.  I have always been very cynical when it comes to religious experience.  In becoming Catholic I have had to expand my boundaries a bit.  I have become a bit more tolerant of “experience”, but I have certain lines that I refuse to cross and I’m happy to say that Catholicism has the same lines.  But I’m getting ahead of myself… 

In my limited exposure to Mormonism it seems to me that experience plays a big part in their faith.  I have been told by those sweet little Mormon missionaries that if I read the Book of Mormon the Spirit will let me know that it is true.  They insist that I will feel a “burning in the bosom” as I read.  They tell me of their own experiences, their “testimonies”, that are a huge part of the faith.  Mormons don’t go to “church”, they meet together on Sunday and listen to different folks giving their “testimonies”.  They share their “experiences” with each other as encourangement.  I’ve heard some ex Mormon’s say that it’s like peer pressure, if you don’t have a great testimony to share about how great God is and how much evidence there is that He is working in you that they felt the need to make stuff up, or not share any sufferings or trials they were going through.  It seems to me (looking in from the outside) that experience is everything to them.  The main tenets of their faith are built around the idea of revelation from God.  Ongoing revelation.  While we Catholics are restricted to the revelation of Christ and the revelation given to the original Apostles, the Mormon’s have modern revelation.  At least initially, this revelation took the form of visions.  Joseph Smith had visions of God where God told him what to believe.  Later, I’m not sure that these revelations were visions, but Joseph Smith believed that God spoke to Him.  It’s this idea of God speaking in visions that I want to focus on. 

There is plenty of evidence from Scripture that God does indeed speak to people in visions (no matter  how uncomfortable I am with that!).  In converting to Catholicism I had to come to grips with people today who have visions.  Our Lady of Guadeloupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, Fatima, and don’t forget Padre Pio.  There’s the Immaculate Heart and the Divine Mercy.  Visions all!  So what makes these visions different from those of Joseph Smith?  How can I believe that God spoke to Saint Bernadette, but not to Joseph Smith?  The difference I believe is in the role of these visions.  For Joseph Smith the vision established a new religion (even if you believe that God was restoring an old religion, you have to accept that the revelations continued to change and evolve, establishing a set of principles and then revoking the same set while establishing a new set and on and on).  The visions and later revelations related to the core of the faith, they set the tenets of the faith.  They were establishing principles - I think it’s fair to say that the Mormon religion was founded on these visions.  While Catholic visions do not deal with the tenets of the faith.  They are not for the changing of doctrine or dogma.  In fact, if the vision suggests a change, then the vision is automatically declared not from God!  To be accepted by the Church, the vision must conform to dogma, not the other way around.  There is no such thing as “new revelation”, not in the same sense as the Mormon understanding.  When a Mormon prophet gets a revelation then a change or clarification on doctrine is immediate (I don’t mean it’s accomplished in 15 minutes, but it is imminent - Joseph Smith received a revelation about polygamy and it took him awhile to incorporate it but it happened within his lifetime.  When Brigham Young received the revelation telling him that polygamy was no longer appropriate, it too was incorporated within a short period of time.).  While after a Catholic vision much time passes before the Church will officially rule on whether they think it’s “valid” or not.  The reason behind this is the Church wants time to investigate.  They want to investigate the vision itself, the person having the vision, but most importantly they want to see what kind of fruit comes from the vision.  For a vision to be declared “valid” (or whatever the official terminology is) it must conform to Church dogma, and it must produce good fruit.  It takes a long time to see fruit, decades and decades sometimes.  And even when the Church makes her official pronouncement, it’s still considered to be a private revelation.  It’s  not binding on the Church as a whole.  All she says is that there is no harm in believing the vision, no harm in practicing whatever devotion it suggests.  But as a Catholic you don’t have to pay any attention to the vision at all! 

This does a cynical heart good to hear.  Although I’m coming around on believing in these things, I’m glad to know that my “authority” is not going to make any decisions based upon someone’s visions! 

I’m currently very fascinated with Mother Theresa.  I think it has to do with the fact that I dismissed her so easily when I was a prot.  Another reason, which I refuse to discuss, is because of something that happened to me that I described in a previous post.  I have kept myself from posting every quote from her that I find profound because, well because I would have to post every day nothing but Mother Theresa quotes!!!  But I couldn’t resist this one (and I’m sure there will be plenty of others). 

“Give me light - Send me Thy own Spirit - which will teach me Thy own Will - which will give me strength to do the things that are pleasing to Thee.  Jesus, My Jesus, don’t let me be deceived - if it is you who want this, give proof of it, if not let it leave my soul - I trust you blindly - will you let my soul be lost?  I am so afraid Jesus - I am so terribly afraid - let me not be deceived - I am so afraid.  This fear shows me how much I love myself - I am afraid of the suffering that will come…. never having anything my way.  How much comfort has taken possession of my heart.”