Prayer for the Day
--Anselm
Read more!
Encountering Jesus in the Creative Play of the Imagination
It is news to no one, not even me, that eroticism in popular culture is a 24-hour, all-you-can-eat buffet, and that many children in their early teens are filling up. The latest debate centers on whether simulated intercourse is an appropriate dance style for the high school gym.I think that Downes observations are "spot on" as the British say. What do you think about his observations and what solutions do you see as a way of addressing this problem?
What surprised me, though, was how completely parents of even younger girls seem to have gotten in step with society's march toward eroticized adolescence--either willingly or through abject surrender. And if parents give up, what can a school do?
It is time for us to give the real Mary her due, to honor her for who she is. The real Mary was an ordinary Jewish woman with and extraordinary vocation who struggled, as all ordinary Jews did, with who Jesus was. Through her struggle, she came to terms with the difficult reality that the Messiah's mission--unlike Mary's expectations--was to die for others. This real Mary, the one who struggled to embrace Jesus' mission, is no offense to Protestants, but rather she is a woman for us to honor (pp. 143, 144).He then recommends that Protestants should pick one day a year and call it "Honor Mary Day."
Roman Catholicism has for centuries taught that Mary was in some sense the Mediatrix, the female mediator between sinful humans and an all-holy Son. In so teaching, however, Roman Catholics have never argued that Mary was divine or that the Trinity really was a Quadrinity (Father, Son, Mother, Spirit). And they do not believe the Son of God can be manipulated by his mother (p. 133).According to McKnight, Roman Catholics arrived at the idea of Mary as the mediatrix through the notion that we are co-workers with God (This idea is found in I Corinthians 3). Mary's role as co-worker is unique because as Scott Hahn, A Roman Catholic theologian has written, "...the Father willed that His son's entire existence as a man would hinge, so to speak, upon the ongoing consent of Mary" (p. 134). He is referring to Mary's "may it be."
Whenever you give alms, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand in the synagogues and at the street corners in order to be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.I wonder what thoughts you might have about the findings of this study? It makes me ask the question, if the motivation to give is how others perceive you, is that really generosity? What do you think?
began to realize not only what Simeon's "sword" meant but also how God planned to make the Magnificat real...Jesus would not wear the crown of Caesar Augustus or the fine apparel of Herod Anitpas. He would hang there, naked and beaten, and give to Mary and the world a radically new view of what it means to reign in this world. To reign in this world, Mary began to learn, was to give one's life for others as Jesus had given his (p. 95).Throughout all of this, Mary was faithful and was to remain faithful.
We can understand Mary's struggle. No one, including Mary, anticipated the kind of Messiah Jesus would become. Following Jesus proved as difficult for Mary as for Peter and for John the Baptist (who himself had plenty of ambivalence about Jesus) and for the siblings of Jesus...While the two visions of the Messiah--the one in the Magnificat and the one guiding Jesus' public ministry--didn't seem to fit, it was hers to trust that Jesus really was the Messiah" (p. 85).
God didn't just use Mary as a "rent-a-womb" but actually became DNA--Mary's. The theological expression at work here is "incarnation," and the underlying principle is this: What God becomes, God redeems. God becomes what we are--with a real body--so we can become children of God. That's why Jesus' real body is important for our faith.Second, Mary witnessed the Magi. We don't know what Mary thought of their visit, but she did observe them bowing down and worshipping her son as well as bringing him gifts. She may well have understood that her son's influence would make its away to Rome and beyond.
Instead of imagining Mary sitting quietly meditating in some corner all alone, while everyone else was singing and dancing and clapping and dreaming of the end of Augustus' rule, Mary was actively figuring out what in the world God was doing in the world...The gospel story Mary announced was the dangerous story that Jesus was King and Augustus was not.I must admit that I liked the challenge of this chapter. I certainly haven't thought of Mary as dangerous, and need to rethink this image that I have. How about you? Do you think Mary was dangerous?
If this is what Mary's song was really like, the image we have of Mary needs an upgrade. We need a Real Mary 2.0. When we think of Mary, the first thing that should come to mind is the kind of courage we find among informed protesters--and, by reading the Magnificat in context, we can imagine Mary to be wiry and spirited and resolved and bold and gusty. Maybe we should call her the Blessed Valorous Mary instead of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some think of her as tender; we might instead think of her as tenacious. Some think of her song as a splendid piece of spirituality that could be tucked away in a pew hymnal, but her song belongs instead on the shelf with socio-spiritual songs of protest against unjust rulers.McKnight actually compares her song favorably with the song "We Shall Overcome" sung by the African American community as it addressed the injustices of the civil rights era. He says specifically that Mary's song is that kind of song. He asks, "Have we tamed Mary into the passive, pious mother of Jesus?" What do you think?
...the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant--and mean [as the rigidity and discrimination of religious fundamentalism]. It's contemptuous and even...a bit fundamentalist.I mentioned in a blog several days ago that I find all kinds of fundamentalism in society--the right is not the sole possessor of this type of thinking. I am reminded of a metaphor for the mind as a window: a window stuck open is as worthless as a window stuck shut.
"These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style," says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge."
Thus, just as when we offer genuine forgiveness to someone else we are no longer conditioned by the evil that they have done—even if they refuse to accept this forgiveness and so continue in a state of enmity—so when God offers genuine forgiveness to his sinful creatures he is no longer conditioned by the evil they have done, even if they refuse to accept his forgiveness.He continues by saying,
But the point—and this is really the central point of this book, the ultimate answer to this aspect at least of the problem of evil [i.e. the hold that evil from the past can hold over us]—is not only that in the new world God himself will be beyond the reach of the moral blackmail of unresolved evil, but that we shall be as well.According to Wright one of the joy’s that those rescued and redeemed by God is that they will have the ability to give complete forgiveness to those that have wronged them so that nothing from the past might in any way diminish their experience of joy.
releases not only the person who is being forgiven but the person who is doing the forgiving…forgiveness can mean not only that I release you from the threat of my anger and its consequences, but also that I avoid having the rest of my life consumed with anger, bitterness and resentment.
The biblical picture of the satan is thus of a nonhuman and nondivine quasi-personal force which seems bent on attacking and destroying creation in general and humankind in particular, and above all on thwarting God's project ofremaking the world and human beings in and through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.Wright believes that we tend to fall into two errors. The first is thinking of the satan and evil as a myth. The second is thinking of the satan as personal like Jesus. "I prefer to use the term "subpersonal" or "quasi-personal" as a way of refusing to accord the satan the full dignity of personhood while recognizing that the concentration of activity...can and does strike us as very much like that which we associate with personhood."