Furthermore…

At our men’s prayer breakfast this morning we talked about the coming Sunday’s Readings.  We found some of Jesus’ words in the gospel enigmatic.

Gospel
Mk 13:24-32

Jesus said to his disciples:
"In those days after that tribulation
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from the sky,
and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 

"And then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds'
with great power and glory,
and then he will send out the angels
and gather his elect from the four winds,
from the end of the earth to the end of the sky.

"Learn a lesson from the fig tree.
When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves,
you know that summer is near.
In the same way, when you see these things happening,
know that he is near, at the gates.
Amen, I say to you,
this generation will not pass away
until all these things have taken place.
Heaven and earth will pass away,
but my words will not pass away.

"But of that day or hour, no one knows,
neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

On one level, it is about astronomy and horticulture - sun, moon, stars, fig trees, leaves, sprouts.  But surely they are only examples
Jesus uses to set us to thinking about the 'last days.' Yet even if we shift our focus to the end time, there is little that is clear,
more questions than answers.  What are "the powers in the heavens"?  Gravity and inertia?  Angels and devils?  Isn't Heaven eternal - how
can it pass away?
Since "of that day and hour, no one knows" we needn't feel obtuse for not grasping much of the meaning however.

“History” teacher to class”

“The Catholic Church didn’t want people to read the Bible, so they translated it into a foreign language – Latin!”

I watch Catholic television a lot.  I keep seeing an ad or promotion for a book containing some of a beloved and famous person’s teachings about the Bible.  At one point, that person is shown holding the Bible and saying something along the line of  ‘read this book if you want to know what God thinks.’  The book she is referring to is the Bible, it would seem, but since it is an ad or promotion for a particular book that is for sale, viewers might easily conclude that it is the book for sale which is being referenced.  Next, a screen shows how to buy ‘this book.’  Pretty slick!  Or is it merely an unintentional slip?

Our readings discussed this week were those of the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time (B cycle).  There was a common thread uniting them, love. In Genesis 2:18-24 , God puts Adam to sleep and creates woman for him.  Adam is greatly pleased with her, especially in contrast with the menagerie of potential partners proffered him initially.  God loved Adam, and so arranged for him to have a suitable partner, whom Adam immediately loved.

Hebrews 2:9-11 conveys that Christ loved us , even to the extent that “he might taste death for everyone”, being made perfect (i.e. totally and  supernaturally loving) through His suffering.

In the gospel reading (Mark 10:2-16) Jesus frowns on divorce, even though Moses provided for its possiblity, Jesus pointing out that it was because of their  ‘hardness of hearts” (lack of love) that the possiblity of a man issuing a bill of divorcing his wife was admitted into the law.

Yesterday we focused on the readings for the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The acount in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 9:30-37) of Jesus’ deciples arguing about who was greates elicited the most participation.  It would seem that the story refers to each of them  trying to establish his own preeminence among the others, but in reading various analyses of the passage in preparation for our meeting I came across some variant interpretations, such as that they were arguing whether Jesus was the greatest of the men of God.  There always sees to be someone who seeks to put forward an alternate understanding of what is commonly held.  The gospel stories are so thinly presented that there is always plenty of room for reading into them alternate scenarios and motivations.  One hopes that folks aren’t casting about for ways of justifying pet theories rather than simply seeking to grasp what was the original intended meaning.

This week we considered the readings of the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle B).  We don’t usually spend much time discussing the day’s Psalm.  A lot of the meditations and reviews of  Sunday readings don’t even allude to the psalm at all. The Psalms seem to exist in a world of their own, a world of sensitive, personal awareness of God, an awareness apart from the logical-sounding historical and doctrinal observations that attach so naturally to the Old and New Testament passages and the Epistles.  The kinds of comments that the other readings bring to mind don’t apply to or flow so readily from the psalms, unfortunately.  After a psalm reading I usually have the thought  ‘What is there to say about that?’.

But this week our meeting’s leader, after the Psalm (Psalm 146) had been read, found a note in her Bible which had the same ring of thoughtful analysis as commonly is appropriate for the other readings.  I have a new hope that we will find some source book that will allow us to have something intelligent and satisfying to consider about the psalms we read in future weeks.

I keep coming across comments on the Gospels seeming to say that one or another  includes certain material because the particular Evangelist favored or tended to use selected writer’s  devices or saw the world in a certain way.  I dislike  this because it seems to put too much of the responsibilty for what is written on arbitrary whims and preferences of an individual rather than on honest, objective  recounting of what took place and its significance, and even more important, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Such analysis sometimes seems to almost suggest that Jesus didn’t say what he is reported as saying, that words were “put in His mouth” by the Evangelist.  I want to receive and consider reverently what Jesus said, and what took place.  I’m not receptive to material chosen (fabricated?) as an expression of  a idiosyncratic approach to writing, or an affinity to a topic.

Starting in September, I’m going to be helping with our parish’s teaching the faith to young people program by being one of the teachers of the 5th graders. I was thinking I’d like to tell them about how some people have a ‘life verse’  from the Bible that seems to speak especially strongly to the heart, and encourage them to start thinking about picking life verses for themselves. I’m looking for ideas about this, either how to approach it with the kids, or how people came to identify their own life verses, or what what your life verse has meant to them? For me, it is Psalm 95, 7-8, “If today you hear His Voice, harden not your hearts…”.  I’m not sure why, but it somehow speaks to me in a special way.

Our Wednesday group that discusses the readings at the preceding Sunday for an hour or so is doing quite well, even though several members have been out of town from time to time this summer. I’ve been trying to thing of some ways that some of our routines could be fine tuned, without disrupting the fine state of affairs we already have. One thing concerns the prayer we say at the start. It is made up of a number of supplications, to which the members respond in unison with an affirmation. Then, the formula calls for a moment of silence, but we just skip over it. I think silence in a group is uncomfortable to some, and maybe it seems too ‘church-y’ as we sit in the living room of a home.
Another thing that I wonder about is whether we couldn’t do something along the line of each person telling, if comfortable, of something that made a special impression on him, such as something new to him, or a new understanding of something long seen differently, or some call to action that seemed to flow from the readings, such as doing more for the needy, or getting more involved in some other ministry or worship.

I have a friend who often speculates about things not told us in the scriptures, along the line of how somebody might be misunderstood (St. Thomas the Apostle who was dutifly buying the groceries or performing some other good deed when Jesus appeared the first time). I told him he has the mind of a writer of historical fiction, coming up with details and sub-plots that “might have been” and might help us, to some extent, to enter into the reality of happenings in the distant past about which we only have scanty accounts. Perhaps the nine lepers who didn’t return to thank Jesus “actually” elected one of their number to come back represent them all.

It’s a different thing than the way some commentators on the Bible pooh-pooh anything miraculous as either a misunderstanding, an exaggeration, or a fabrication. These folks sometimes have declared that certain things did not exist or could not happen, basing their conclusions on the way things happen ‘in the natural,’ so to speak. But archeologists and scholars persist in coming up with proof that the Bible was right all along. I remember, for example, hearing about evidence being turned up that the Kingdom of David really existed, contrary to certain claims that it seemed not to have. Or how investigators discovered the actual Pool of Siloam, and noted how its design fit perfectly with the account of Jesus sending the blind man to it to wash away the mud paste Jesus had applied to his eyes so that he might see.

A person writing between the lines might conjure up a sub-plot explaining why no record of the Kingdom of David was at first found because, say, David’s enemies destroyed almost all traces. Such skullduggery did go on in Egypt, in fact, where all traces of 18th Dynasty King Akhnaten were largely erased. Now let’s see, about that blind man …