When it comes to some of our prior considerations of the roles of faith and of reason, of revealed theology and natural theology, of essentialistic and existential approaches, always navigating between the shoals of fideism and rationalism --- I sense there is a tension existing between different perspectives, that there is a nit that we are often wanting to pick, but I cannot quite figure exactly where to locate any possible impass.

I think such an impass would be worthwhile to locate toward the end of making the tension more creative because it is the nurturance of such distinctions and the teasing out of such nuances that novel and rewarding syntheses have always been gifted to me.

I think the issue comes down, at least in some sense, to what may be normative for formative spirituality. In other words, how might the normative sciences of logic and aesthetics and ethics inform our approach to God?

It is quite natural that this issue should arise out of a digression from a consideration of Enlightenment and Christian spirituality because that project also involves a discernment of what should be normative for the spiritual journey. So, in a sense, we are asking ourselves what role does or should an autonomous philosophical perspective play in mapping our spiritual journeys and how might it interact with the role played by revealed theology in mapping the same journey.

It does seem that JPII, in Fides et Ratio, Arraj, in The Inner Nature of Faith, and McInerny, in his course materials on Aquinas, have precisely addressed these issues. In all of these takes we find a circular model, which is to say, a paradigm of mutally enriching and mutually entailing approaches, faith informing reason and reason informing faith. (Clearly, not all philosophers are in this loop, to be sure .. still ...) Clearly, natural theology is a project that only gets at the preambles of faith, demonstrating its reasonableness. Its other project is to clarify theological disputes. Also, not in dispute, natural theology is a project for philosophers, whether done of the professional or of the armchair or folk philosophy vintages. This is certainly not a project that is taken on by the masses, at least not in any formal sense, not in any explicit sense, even if it is played out by most everyone in one or another implicit sense, such as via common sense and intuition. As has been said, if everyone contemplated the infinite , so to speak, professionally, we would all die of cholera (for there would be no plumbers). Also, as has been noted, if everyone waited for the wisdom that typically only comes through age and the school of hard knocks, few would attain a knowledge of this God of the philosophers until they were in retirement (just look at me, for instance --- just kidding).

So, in our prior considerations, we have typically come full circle back to the very important roles played by both the Holy Spirit in gifting us both faith and wisdom and by connaturality in inclining us toward both that, with which, and toward Whom, we are co-natured. And this seems to truly be the norm, that, on one hand, supernaturally, we are given a wisdom that perfects our natural cognitive endowments, while, otoh, naturally, connaturality inclines us toward both a knowledge of nature, of which we are part, as well as a knowledge of God, of Whom we are part. So, there is a bridging principle between this natural endowment of connaturality and this supernatural gift of wisdom, and it is no less than Love, in both instances. This provides us with more than a tangent as we look back over our shoulders at the Enlightenment and Christian mysticism compare and contrast exercise. Love, then, is the bridge there also. After all, compassion is the fruit of Enlightenment.

If there is an enlightened approach to the seeking of Enlightenment, itself, it is that of seeking Enlightenment out of compassion for all who must otherwise suffer our unenlightened personhoods (I didn't say self. It was lost. <wink>. If there is an enlightened approach to seeking Mystical Contemplation, it is clearly to desire and occupy ourselves in prayer, not so much so as to obtain consolations but, rather, in order to gain the strength to serve. And, in both cases, while we draw distinctions between the various pathways or spiritualities, such as between that of devotion or of knowledge, as most often seems to come up, inevitably we return to the truth that they both lead to the same destiny, are in fact of the same essence.

All of this is clearly a consideration that is both implicitly and explicitly an application of St. Augustine's maxim of unity in essentials, diversity in accidentals, charity in all things. No doubt, charity continues to win the day, for it is what we continue to come back to each time we have exhausted ourselves in these considerations. Love is what is normative for the formative spirituality of the East and of the West insofar as we all agree that it is an essential and not in any way an accidental.

So, I would expect that there is consensus on this, love as normative, for the most part, between all of the major religious and even ideological traditions. On this there is no facile syncretism, false irenicism or trace of indifferentism. And, more particularly, there is an agreement between us as to the role it plays both in our natural and supernatural, existential and theological, apophatic and kataphatic, impersonal and personal, approaches to God. All you need is love, love; love is all you need.

I think we can rely on the documents of Vatican II and on the lessons of transcendental thomism insofar as they elaborate a theological anthropology in order to claim that love is very much at work in all humans who, with or without the benefit of divine revelation, live the good and moral life, cooperating, awares or unawares, with grace and the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that those gifted with revelation are not blessed with a path that they can travel more quickly and with less hindrance, for, surely, we all seek the most nearly perfect articulation of the truth toward the end of properly discerning that path and toward the end of Right Speech, a path that offers, as do all virtuous endeavors, intrinsic rewards.

It may be precisely here, then, at the juncture of interreligious dialogue, that we must earnestly and properly discern --- what else might be essential in our revealed theology? What else might be normative in our formative spiritualities, notwithstanding their many accidental expressions? What roles might be played by the natural gift of connaturality, by the supernatural gifts of wisdom and theological virtue of faith, in this process of discerning essentials for the Deposit of Faith (the Christian Mysteries) and of discerning norms for its both practical expressions and existential dimensions vis a vis formative spirituality?

In sorting through these transformational and formational dynamics, we do have Lonergan's conversions as a guide: intellectual conversion, affective conversion, moral conversion, sociopolitical conversion and religious conversion. We also have Merton's distinctions between humanization, socialization and transformation to guide us. We distinguish, then, between secular and religious conversions, however much they mutually inform one another. What role might be played by a foundational theology that architectonically holds together both our natural theologies and our systematic revealed theologies?

Here, we stand at the juncture between doctrine and practice, encompassing our approaches to truth in doctrine, to beauty in ritual, to goodness in law, or, as they call these correspondents of the theological virtues of faith, hope and love: creed, cult and code. How do we propose to normatively sort through the disparate creeds, cults and codes of the world's religions? What criteria, however implicit or explicit, essentialistic or existential, might one use, on one hand, in avoiding an insidious indifferentism, false irenicism or facile syncretism, otoh, in an attempt to shed one's exoskeletal protection of exoterically imparted faith and morals, having now grown an endoskeletal protection that is also aware of the more esoteric truths, wherein the previously obligational has truly become aspirational, whereby one takes possession of one's childhood faith and of one's humanized-socialized self in the process of surrendering them both to a more complete transformation?

One norm that I can offer from Gelpi's expansion and critique of Lonergan, and from his peircian pragmatism, is orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy. This is an empirical theology at its best. And, I think it is clear that, in terms of praxis, once again we have come full circle back to love. Further, the criteria for then measuring the true efficacies of any given set of essential doctrines and collection of liturgical approaches are going to be measured in terms of how well they effect the faithful's ongoing intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious conversions. So, when it comes to apologetics, we have long ago been given the essential criterion: See how they love one another! And that can be further nuanced by: See how they love God and one another with heart and mind and all their strength, with soul and spirit and body! (In spiritual direction, this can pretty much boil down to a consideration of how we pray and what happens in and as a result of prayer. Prayer is normative: lectio, oratio, meditatio, contemplatio, operatio!) Here, we have natural and revealed theology yoked up to plow the field of secular and religious conversion, where the natural faculties of memory, understanding and will grow to perfection in their grafting onto the theological virtues of hope, faith and love, the weeds left to grow among the wheat until Harvest, a harvest that's plenty but where laborers are few. Come with me into the field.

What does any of this have to recommend to interreligious dialogue? What does any of this have to say about evangelization and apologetics? Has this shed some light on how philosophical systems, however diverse and disparate, can be at least minimalistically normative, for instance, such as when we are discerning moral objects together, such as when we are developing criteria for the social and political transformations of entire societies, such as when faciltating secularization and democratization of tribal Islam or Africa?

I have elsewhere discussed the norms of pre-philosophical axiomatization, of metaphysical ontologization, of existential deontologization, of moralization, of ecclesiastical codification, of civil politicization and even of militarization. There is a great deal of convergence of opinion regarding many moral realities, more than one might first expect, that seems to transcend the many otherwise disparate hermeneutics as grounded in the plurality of philosophical, metaphysical and theological systems that seem to share a common commitment to some of these norms. It is the work of natural theology to sort through these systems, using philosophy as a lingua franca , as a language of the interreligious and interideological realm, as the exchange currency in the marketplace of ideas, looking for essential principles among their accidental articulations, principles such as are common, for instance, both to Catholicism and the American philosophical tradition. These seem to include a) catholicity ( e pluribus unum ), b) personalist principles (dignity and freedom), c) subsidiarity principles (consent of the governed and no usurpation of responsibilities), d) solidarity principles (advancement of the common good), e) natural law principles (variously conceived, sometimes minimalistically) and f) an understanding of liberty that resonates with Lord Acton such that we enjoy a freedom not merely to do what we want but to do clearly what we must. (liberty, btw, is not a gift of America to the world, but a gift of God to humankind -- Dubya MMIV A.D.).

Revealed theology, for its part, certainly expands the horizons of a natural theologian's imagination even if it is methodologically excluded from its projects. Whatever one's take on either revealed or natural theology, one thing both enterprises should share is a contrite fallibilism, as we are a People, whether of implicit or explicit faith, who are very much pilgrims, who haven't arrived at the Kingdom's shore.

In the final analysis, what then will evangelize and catechize a world in search for God, not placing these dynamics over against each other as was so often the norm of the past such as with Catholicim's preoccupation with catechesis and Protestantism's preoccupation with evangelization, both pretty much in an exclusive manner?

What about the imperative to be ready with a defense of the hope within you?

What of Tony deMello's trifold imperative to a) leave other people alone, b) be compassionate and c) bend the rules?

Well, I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways: intellectually, affectively, morally, sociopolitically and religiously. And if a fellow sojourner should ask to accompany me, I will, in charity, seek authentic dialogue toward the end of changing me for the better, out of compassion for those who suffer my foibles and flaws, toward the end of helping my kindred travellers progress toward ongoing conversion and transformation, too.

I suppose when it comes to evangelization, St. Francis gives us the norm to, by all means, preach the Gospel to everyone on every occasion and at every opportunity and, should it be necessary, of course, go ahead and use words. If the audience is a pluralistic and secularized society, or even another ideological or religious tradition, then the language of choice will be that of Athens and not rather of Jerusalem, the lingua franca of philosophy and natural theology and not rather dogmatic proclamations. The Gospel will assuredly come through in the lived witness of our charisms and supernatural virtues and it has been said that ten wo/men from every nation will come and take us by the sleeve and say: "We would go with you for we have heard and seen that God is with you" and they will see that the banner raised over you is love and, through your deportment and demeanor, it will read: John 3:16. And, assuredly, the opportunity to open a Bible will certainly have presented itself from time to time, such that, hopefully, those who have travelled with us will say: "Did not our hearts burn within as we travelled down the road with him/her and s/he opened us to an understanding of the Scriptures?"

I'd like to earn Luke 24:32 as an epitaph.

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

I've only skimmed (and added it to my folder of works to eventually read more closely), but it seems to be a good summary for an opus:

- "Johnboy's Summa Theospirituality"
- "Johnboy's State of the Cosmos"
- "Comme Je Crois"
- "Thoughts on a grand, unifying paradigm"
- "What I've learned in retirement"
- "What they didn't teach me in kindergarten"

What I've learned in retirement

LOL. How about then "What I did on my summer vacation"?

Of course this was headed somewhere ...

It is now my intent to embark upon the project of evaluating the major traditions based upon how well they have facilitated secular conversion processes (this is not the same as avoiding secularism, btw). Presumably, you see, the Spirit is perfecting these natural processes and we might discern our levels of cooperation with Grace, etc?

Let's begin with the grand East-West master paradigms. As Jaki persuasively argues and throughly documents, science was stillborn in most of the Eastern traditions. Chalk one up for the West, then, as far as facilitating intellectual conversion. Now, looking at affective conversion, at mastery of one's internal milieu through spiritual technology rather than mastery of the external milieu through scientific technology. Hmmm. I'm going to chalk one up for the East on this criterion.

Damn. Stalemate.

Okay, some of this is rather tongue-in-cheek, but one sees how this project might could be developed for critiquing the major traditions using Lonerganian criteria of conversion, so to speak, allowing orthopraxis to authenticate orthodoxy. IOW, right practice measured in terms of individual and societal transformation (socioeconomically and politco-culturally) as fostered by a tradition's efficacious facilitation of intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious conversion. And I don't want to engage in a superficial or facile analysis that is prejudicial coming out the gate or that smacks of either a spiritual or nationalistic jingoism BUT the so-called American Experience ... ... notwithstanding all of its foibles and flaws ... ... makes me very proud, very humble, very patriotic, very grateful ... ... and I think speaks authoritatively to anyone using Lonergan/Gelpi's criteria ... ... to both commend and recommend ... ... well ... ... you guessed it ... ... of course ...........................................................................................Liberal Protestantism

No, I'm not getting ahead of myself, just trying to stimulate some thinking further along the lines of how a natural theology might constructively critique the many revealed theologies and denominations within the major traditions.

Feel free to thus evaluate the Buddhist, Hindu and other Eastern traditions, both theistic and nontheistic, as well as the Abrahamic and other Western traditions, both religious and secular/humanistic. Who's got, not only the most compelling morality, but the most efficacious route to holistic conversion and spiritual transformation? This exercise may not lend itself to quick conclusions and hopefully would not degenerate into combative apologetics but, rather, authentic dialogue.

pax,
jb

just when I thought we were wrapped a tad bit too tightly, I find us perhaps not wrapped tightly enough...wink! wink! nudge! nudge!

http://www.junkpile.demon.co.uk/principia.htm

here's an altogether different type of energy...

http://www.deoxy.org/philo.htm

From a friend -- this looks like a good place to tuck it in.

pax,
jb

Dear friends,

Because of my work with the Association for Communal Harmony in Asia (an interreligious organization founded by a Hindu), I ended up on a Foundation for Pluralism list and was invited to write an essay on the Essence of Christianity for their website and publications. They already had a "Profile of Christianity" prepared from a very conservative, exclusivist perspective. This is my attempt to capture the "essence" of Christianity in a way that can be acceptable to the entire spectrum of Christians and place Christianity as a dialogue partner within the community of world religions.

What do you think?

Peace. Ingrid


Essence of Christianity

by Ingrid Shafer

Christianity is one of the religions of Abraham, and like its source, Judaism, Christianity evolved around the conviction of the possibility of a human relationship with a personal, caring, and just God who is also the omnipotent Creator of the universe. For Christians, this relationship is defined by the core belief that the divine became revealed in a unique, historic person, Yeshua/ Jesus of Nazareth, the Incarnation of God, the Anointed One, the Christ.

Thus, for Christians, Jesus is both the primary way of relating to God and the model to be emulated in life. The Christian is called to follow Jesus whose Hebrew name means �?oYHWH (Yahweh) is salvation.�?� In other words, for Christians, Jesus of Nazareth--his manner of thinking, acting, and being--is the standard that informs (or should inform) life as it is lived in the present.

Jesus lived almost 2000 years ago at a time when divinity was understood primarily in terms of imperial power and demand for absolute obedience. Jesus preached a message of radical love rooted in his experience of the Father as an implacably, passionately loving cosmic force, and that message is as relevant today as it was two millennia ago. The essence of Christianity, the living center, is that �?oradioactive�?� love that can spread, purify, and transform whatever it touches. Jesus challenges us not only to love family, friends, and associates, but to love our enemies. Jesus challenges us to turn the other cheek, to be kind to those who hurt us, to give to others without expecting anything in return, to go the extra mile. Jesus challenges us to overcome all innate tendencies we might have to hate or �?oget even,�?� no matter how serious the provocation. He lived by his own principles to the end. As he hung on the cross he asked that his tormentors be forgiven. Jesus challenges us to be the best we can be and to remember that we are created in the image of God, called to actualize the divine spark within us. This call to the practice of radical love is the essence of Christianity, and it transcends all denominational boundaries.

Jesus was born between 4 and 6 B.CE (Dionysius Exiguus, a sixth century scholar-monk miscalculated when he reformed the calendar to start with the birth of Christ) in Palestine, a small Jewish territory in the vast Roman Empire, a loose amalgamation of countless nations, languages, cultures, religions, cults, and competing deities. His preaching aroused the envy of some Jewish religious leaders and his popularity made him suspect among Roman authorities who routinely crucified political enemies and were always prepared to nip another Jewish insurrection in the bud. Jesus was executed, but after he was dead and buried his tomb was found empty and his followers reported seeing him alive in a resurrected body that bore the marks of his crucifixion. In that form he stayed with them for several weeks before being bodily taken up beyond the clouds toward the heavens.

Jesus had promised that he would never leave his people, and fifty days after his resurrection his followers were gathered together for the Jewish feast of Shavuos, a wheat harvest festival and a celebration of the giving of the Torah to Moses. Suddenly, as reported in the Book of Acts, the room was filled with a violent storm and tongues of fire leapt among them and they were filled with the Spirit of God, also called the Paraclete, who would give them the ability to share the message of their ascended Lord, the Good News of the Father�?Ts implacable love, with the world. Christians still celebrate that day annually as Pentecost, �?oThe birthday of the Church.�?�

This pivotal experience of their living, dying, and resurrected Lord became the kernel round which Christianity began to coalesce, first as one Jewish sect among others, and eventually as an independent religious tradition. For the first three centuries the Romans tried to suppress Christianity, in part because Christian pacifism was considered an expression of disloyalty to the military ethos of the state. Despite sporadic persecutions, the Christian Church as an institution became organized according to efficient administrative practices of the Roman Empire, with bishops as heads of dioceses and in charge of priests and other functionaries in parishes. Ironically, early in the fourth century, in 313 CE Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity because, according to tradition, he had won a major battle with the aid of the Christian God.

Twelve years later he called the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council, to decide such issues as the nature of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the dating of Easter. Some 300 bishops participated. They wrote the Nicene Creed which is still affirmed in many Christian churches. In 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius declared Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, persecution of non-Christians began, and by the end of the fourth century the canon of the New Testament was established, except for some disputed works. In 1054 CE the Catholic (Western) and Orthodox (Eastern) branches of Christianity formally separated, and in the early sixteenth century, Martin Luther, a German Catholic priest and theologian, started the Reformation which would lead to the eventual splintering of the Western Church into thousands of major and minor denominations whose �?odivisions are so extreme . . . that sincerely and devoutly held beliefs by the most conservative Christians may well be considered blasphemy by the most liberal, and vice-versa�?� (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi2.htm ). According to Adherents.com, The Encyclopedia Britannica now lists four major branches of Christianity �?" Orthodox (217,948,000), Catholic (968,000,000), Protestant (395,867,000), and Other Christians (275,583,000) ( http://adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity ).

Creeds, doctrines, dogmas, rules, holidays, liturgies, rituals, attitudes toward icons, saints, the role of scripture, beliefs concerning afterlife, are all part of the countless institutionalized traditions of Christianity and differ widely from denomination to denomination. Thus, the Catholic and Orthodox churches, along with some Anglicans, accept seven sacraments: Baptism, the Eucharist (Communion), Confirmation (or Chrismation), Penance (Confession), Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders. Most Protestants accept two sacraments, Baptism and Communion (the Lord�?Ts Supper). Some Christian groups accept no sacraments. This diversity can be deplored as a tragedy or grasped as an opportunity to shift our focus from the historic and doctrinal accidents that divide us toward the center that unites us: the essence of Christianity, Jesus and his call to the practice of radical love.


} Ingrid H. Shafer, Ph.D.
} Professor of Philosophy, Religion, & Interdisciplinary Studies
} University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, Chickasha, OK 73018
} Adjunct Professor of Human Relations, University of OK, Norman, OK
} Tel: 405.224.3140 (o) 405.224.3988 (h) FAX: 405.224.3044 (h)
} Home address: 511 Minnesota Avenue, Chickasha, OK 73018
} Email: ihs@ionet.net & facshaferi@usao.edu
} http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/ http://ecumene.org
} http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/ http://arcc-catholic-rights.org

"Dr. Ingrid Shafer" <ihs@i...>
wrote: re: invited to write an essay on the Essence of Christianity

What do you think?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's see, Ingrid, you covered creed, code, cult, ecclesiastical
history, both a concise christology (ontological/relational and
normative) and pneumatology, sacramental theology, both
essentialistic and existential approaches to our faith, the kerygma
and major paschal mysteries, an essential ecclesiology (its promises
and its scandals), even partially inventorying some well known
accidentals to put them into the proper context for other
traditions.

Yep, it's all there --- truth, beauty and goodness, and the IHS
Hallmark Hermeneutic of Love!

Ooops! You forgot the Magisterium. [place here: emoticon of choice]

Love,
johnboy

That sounded good to me, JB. It seemed to capture at least what I know of Christianity in both the spirit and the actual events. I�ll let slide the obvious oversight of any mention of Father O�Malley aka Der Bingle.

I found an even more succinct summation on the web:

Christ is the bread of life. If you search for more, you will just find junk food.

Alas, that might be from one of those conservative, exclusivist perspectives, but I like it all the same.

that is a really good description of Christianity nice and generic covering all the bases.

Re. Ingrid Shafer's article. I agree that it's a good description of Christianity along the lines of what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia of religions, which seems to be the kind of article she's writing. Notably lacking, however, is any reference to fall-redemption-atonement theology, which has always been central to the Christian message. I think that can be stated without being exclusivist or legalistic. So I'm wondering if she'd at least consider adding a "Christians believe Jesus' death on the Cross broke the hold of sin on the human race . . ." kind of section.

She writes: Jesus challenges us to be the best we can be and to remember that we are created in the image of God, called to actualize the divine spark within us.

Jesus actually never said or taught anything like this, and I'd have probably let it pass except that it's part of her summary of the "essence" of Christianity. It sounds kind of new-agey, quite frankly.

This call to the practice of radical love is the essence of Christianity, and it transcends all denominational boundaries.

That is the call and the essence of Christian morality, all right, but you need not be a Christian to heed that call nor even believe in God, for that matter, to embrace it. But Jesus never, ever assumed that people could love in this manner without the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is God's own love moving and loving through us. I know she mentions the gift of the Spirit, but that should really be tied to her statement above, somehow.

The essence of Christianity (or the Christian message), imo, would be more along the lines of Jn. 3: 16-18 and similar quotes. It has to do with the supreme gift that the Incarnation really is, how Jesus, the New Adam broke the hold of sin (which prevents us from loving) through his death and resurrection, and established the human race in the Trinitarian flow of love through the person of Jesus Christ. That's the hard-core essence of it, imo, and what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion or instance of the perrennial philosophy.

Christians' belief in God as Trinity is also of the essence, imo, so much so that even religions like Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons (who both believe Jesus is the Messiah) aren't considered part of the Christian family because they do not believe in the Trinity. So while the article mentions Jesus as Lord, and mentions the Father and the Spirit, it's not clear that these are just different names for God, or that Christians believe Jesus is the Word (2nd Person) incarnate, who is considered Divine because he sends the Spirit, who is divine.

Sorry if this sounds too critical, but the article does presume to speak of the "essence" of Christianity rather than a kind of historical sketch of the movement. If I were editing it, I would ask her to say more about these issue. I wonder, however, if those kinds of points were what she considered "a very conservative, exclusivist perspective?" I don't think they are, but I'm not sure what that means to Ms. Shafer.

Let me add, here, some of my additional comments, redacting as necessary to preserve my correspondent's remarks:

I am curious, &*^%$ (this was not Ingrid), how broadly or narrowly you might conceive "what
Yeshua wrought." Specifically, does your analysis stop at the end of an historical-critical review of the New Testament, so to speak, with the Historical Jesus, or, as with those who critique the Jesus Seminar, does it also include what they are calling the Jesus of
Faith, which suggests there is a pneumatological dimension that bears examination regarding the activities of Jesus throughout the development of classical and even modern Christianity?

I note you use the term "final measure" and add the nuance, as I read it, that verious authoritative sources can help in accessing
the Ur-Figur: Yeshua. My tendency is to lean toward an empirical theology wherein orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, with Jesus certainly being the final measure of praxis. This, then, gets calibrated very much in terms (following Lonergan/Gelpi) of how well a given doctrine facilitates ongoing intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and religious conversion, both of individuals and groups. This helps one discern what is of Christ in the historic tradition as well as on the growing end of an Ecclesia semper reformanda.

After all, moral/spiritual theology deals with some very specific, complex moral realities nowadays that don't too very readily align
themselves with formal, general moral realities. In modernity, all morally relevant and specifying circumstances required for the
evaluation of a moral object, and all spiritually relevant and specifying circumstances required for discernment in formative spirituality, are not going to be discoverable in the concrete circumstances of Jesus' life on earth. Thus, on the growing end of
things, the discernment of the sensus fidelium presumes a pneumatological dimension to what Jesus continues to do in and through the Mystical Body and, not without a contrite fallibilism, we are going to have to try to access Yeshua in an historical personhood that is more broadly conceived, to me, the moral
dimension just as much probed by Bernard Haring, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, and the hoi polloi, as in the spiritual dimension probed by, let's say, the Carmelite and Ignatian
traditions, classical and new, in pulpit and pew.

I see Jesus, and the measure of orthodoxy/orthopraxis, as being necessarily contained in Scripture and Tradition and the
Magisterium, (not without the limitations of our fallibilistic discernment) but a Magisterium as properly conceived by Danny Maguire, who wrote:

quote:

"Dulles aligned himself with those theologians who do not limit the term magisterium to the hierarchy. He spoke of "two magisteria-that of the pastors and that of the theologians." These two magisteria are "complementary and mutually corrective." The theological magisterium may and indeed must critique the hierarchical magisterium. Dulles concluded: "we shall insist on the right, where we think it important for the good of the Church, to urge positions at variance with those that are presently official."

Cardinal Dulles was only two thirds right. There is a third magisterium, the sensus fidelium, the experience-rich wisdom of the faithful. Catholic theology at its healthiest said the search for
truth rests on a tripod: the hierarchy, the theologians, and the wisdom of the faithful. Again Paul's words: "In each of us the Spirit is manifested in one particular way, for some useful
purpose." (I Cor. 12:7) Historically, none of them has turned out to be infallible. At times each has led."

I still intended my Magisterium comment as tongue-in-cheek insofar as the common understanding doesn't remotely resemble the one above.

But you have caused me to reflect.

Enough of all that.

Here is the preamble to the Maguire quote from above. I'll toss it in for merry measure:

"My next keynoter is Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ In his Presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America, he said that
Vatican II "implicitly taught the legitimacy and even the value of dissent." Dulles conceded "that the ordinary magisterium of the
Roman Pontiff had fallen into error, and had unjustly harmed the careers of loyal and able theologians." He mentioned John Courtney
Murray, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, and Yves Congar. Dulles said that certain teachings of the hierarchy "seem to evade in a calculated way the findings of modern scholarship. They are drawn up without broad consultation with the theological community. Instead, a few carefully selected theologians are asked to defend a pre-
established position..."

I do agree that the invitation to, and the empowerment for, a radical transformation are part of the essence of Christianity. I think, too, we have to be clear about how they are to come about. At the same time, I argue, below, that we must be clear, that a radical transformation is not "essential" for salvation.

Here, presented first, is the concluding paragraph of my post. One need only read further to see how it was developed.

So, I would say, in this sense, that the "IDEAL end objective" is radical transformation but that the "REAL end objective" is "getting to heaven." (*&^% has identified a real problem in our fairly recent heritage, which manifests itself in many different ways, for instance, such that a minimalistic and obligational approach to moral theology (such as gave us manualism and a sterile scholasticism) was overemphasized to the exclusion of the more aspirational ascetical, mystical and spiritual theologies. In my book, moral and spiritual theology ain't but one and the same thing! But you'd never damn well know it from our master paradigm of "hoop jumping," as Brian called it.

Paul Knitter, in an article entitled "Theocentric Christology" published in _Theology Today_ at click here describes John Hick's project as "trying to move beyond the Chalcedonian categories drawn from an Hellenic metaphysics of substance" saying that "he views the divine nature not as a quantity of substantial stuff, but as an activity carrying out a purpose" and makes clear that this activity is agape, love at work.

You distinguish between the objective of "getting to heaven" and the objective of radical transformation. These distinctions echo those we draw between 1) eros (what's in it for me) and agape (what's in it for God and others); 2) imperfect contrition (fear of just punishment, sorrow for consequences to self) and perfect contrition (fear of offending God and others, sorrow for consequences to them). The ecclesiastical structures of Christianity haven't come to grips yet with a consistent set of doctrines for soteriology, justification, sanctification and theosis, I suppose, in part, because they don't share a single theological anthropology and they don't rely, nor should they, on any particular metaphysics. Thankfully, agape and love, transcend doctrinal categories, anthropoligies and metaphysics, and you have well expressed what I think is a good theosis, which includes the dynamics of sanctification or deification or divinization, which you called "the business of growing in holiness."

Knitter writes: If, as Christianity has always held, this activity is Agape ("God is love" -- I John 4:8), and if this love is at work in history "from the inside," then someone described as the incarnation of God would be a clear case of the "inhistorisation" of the Divine Agape. There would be a "numerical identity" between God's Agape and Jesus. "Jesus' Agape is not a representation of God's Agape; it is that Agape operating in a finite mode; it is the eternal divine Agape made flesh, inhistorised" (1973: 148-158).

It has been said that there are far more annunciations than incarnations in that so few of us respond generously to the call of radical transformation, settling for less, as you clearly lament. I think we should make clear, by teasing out an additional nuance, that our transformations moreso resemble an assumption and not rather an ascension, though both dynamics are at work. The process of training, taming and maturing is NOT one of simply modeling our lives on that of Jesus as Divine Exemplar, such that our ascent up Mt. Carmel or the Seven Storied Mountain is accomplished by mere human exertion, and perhaps this is what you allude to when you note that "it is through the training and maturing of those three tangible dimensions of being that we tame, train or mature that intangible dimension of being -the spiritual." Cleary, rather, our transformation is, in the end, effected by grace as we cooperate with the Spirit, Whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine or, iow, moreso like an assumption.

I was using this distinction as a criterion in reviewing Ingrid's essay and, in this regard, she captured what was essential, with Jesus as both Divine Exemplar as well as "inhistorisation" of the eternal Divine Agape, operating in a finite mode, Whose love remains at work in history from the inside as an agapic activity carrying out the Divine purpose, Love. Thus she wrote: "Jesus is BOTH the primary way of relating to God AND the model to be emulated in life" and I took "way" to have ontological significance and "model" to have normative signficance. Ingrid wrote: "Jesus of Nazareth--his manner of thinking, acting, and being--is the standard ..." and that speaks of His role as model and exemplar. I invested an ontological meaning in her phraseology: 1) passionately loving cosmic FORCE 2) "radioactive" love that can spread, purify, and transform 3) actualize the divine spark 4) the Paraclete, who would give them the ability. By all of this, I simply meaning to recognize that Jesus both empowers and invites emulation.

Ingrid well captured these essential dynamics as part of the essence of Christianity. In my view, however, we must not set 1) eros and agape 2) imperfect and perfect contrition 3) justification and sanctification 4) getting to heaven and radical transformation as, in any way, over against each other. We must recognize that, although the concept of theosis acquires much nuancing as we move from western to eastern Catholic traditions, through various Protestant traditions, to even Mormonism, Christendom, as a whole, simply has not seen theosis, perfect agape or perfect contrition as essential for salvation. Of course, justification and sanctification are just two aspects of the same thing and, in that sense, there is a radical transformation we undergo as our human wills, remaining free under the influence of grace, cooperate toward our salvation.

In another sense though, if, by radical transformation, we mean theosis manifest in perfect agape and perfect contrition, effected as one progresses toward an advanced phase of contemplation through the purgative and illuminative to the unitive way, or any similar conceptualization of formative spirituality, then we must be clear that such a transformation isn't essential, is not necessary for salvation.

Borrowing from St. Bernard, since his feast was yesterday, we progress in Bernardian love from 1) love of self for sake of self to 2) love of God for sake of self to 3) love of God for sake of God to 4) love of self for sake of God. So, to nuance what we might mean by transformation, simply getting from love of self for sake of self to love of God for sake of self is all the transformation required to "get to heaven." Moving beyond to love of God for sake of God would involve a "radical transformation," and even moreso for a move to love of self for sake of God, which likely is experienced rarely, in this life, as unitive glimpses of what will be a Beatific Vision.

So, essentialistically speaking, I wholeheartedly agree that the "end objective" of religious observance is radical transformation. From an existential perspective, as we best attempt to live out our ideals in this world in which we are immersed in both sin and finitude, an enlightened pastoral sensitivity would set forth the "end objective" as "getting to heaven." This is the "half a loaf" approach, to be sure, a type of existential morality/spirituality or what Maritain would call a "moral philosophy adequately considered." My friend Jim Arraj has said: "It is not a question of different laws [I would substitute, in our context, goals or aspirations] for different people, or that human nature in its essence changes, but rather the concrete situation that we find ourselves in effects how we can respond to the law [I would substitute, here, invitation]." Rahner wrote, regarding Humanae Vitae: "After all it is conceivable, in principle at least, that what is being formulated here is an 'ideal norm' such that it is not ipso facto clear that it can effectively be 'realized' in all its moral obligations in every situation in human life, or by every individual and every social group."

So, I would say, in this sense, that the "IDEAL end objective" is radical transformation but that the "REAL end objective" is "getting to heaven." &*^%$ has identified a real problem in our fairly recent heritage, which manifests itself in many different ways, for instance, such that a minimalistic and obligational approach to moral theology (such as gave us manualism and a sterile scholasticism) was overemphasized to the exclusion of the more aspirational ascetical, mystical and spiritual theologies. In my book, moral and spiritual theology ain't but one and the same thing! But you'd never damn well know it from our master paradigm of "hoop jumping," as Brian called it.

Ingrid, when I wrote the following paragraph, using Paul Knitter's thoughts on John Hick, in response to Brian's fine critique, I had another angle in mind. Read the paragraph, first, and I'll give you my angle, after. I wrote:

"I was using this distinction as a criterion in reviewing Ingrid's essay and, in this regard, she captured what was essential, with Jesus as both Divine Exemplar as well as "inhistorisation" of the eternal Divine Agape, operating in a finite mode, Whose love remains at work in history from the inside as an agapic activity carrying out the Divine purpose, Love."

Here is the angle. One could qualify "inhistorisation" with either an indefinite or a definite article, to wit, using "a inhistorisation" or "the inhistorisation" or could just be coy, like
I did, and use no article, so as not to muck things up re: normative and non-normative, high and low, Christologies, or re: theocentrism
and Christocentrism. There is such a plurality of views in Christianity. You clearly did a yeowoman's task in distilling your fine elixir!

From my extensive past missives, you know that I agree with you 100% on those points, including apokatastasis, including anunqualifiedly unconditional love, just because ...Allow me to share one of my more recent contributions to thelistserv for the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science : There is a concept known as apocatastasis (apokatastasis), which amounts to a universal salvation, an idea that can be heterodox ororthodox in catholicism, depending on its nuancing. This greek word occurs in the New Testament (albeit only once). The concept was explored at length by the early church fathers, such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen, in the patristic period. It was further nuanced in the twentieth century by such Catholic notables as Jacques Maritain, Karl Rahner, Edith Stein and Hans Urs von Balthasar. It's also recently been discussed by such as the popular Franciscan author and lecturer, Richard Rohr, and by Cardinal Avery Dulles.I won't tease out the nuances here but would like to point out that they are usually bound up with the affirmation of human freedom and the idea that love relationships should not be coerced, hence leaving open the theoretical possibility that there could be a state or place wherein or whereby one could exist free from any coercive relationships, including one with God.

In catholicism, such ideas as eros (what's in it for others) and agape (what's in it for me) , as extrinsic rewards and intrinsic rewards, as imperfect contrition (sorrow for consequences to self) and perfect contrition (sorrow for consequences to others), are not placed over against each other but are affirmed in their proper roles. Sometimes they are maintained in creative tension while, at other times, they get resolved dialectically. From the standpoints of formative spirituality and developmental psychology, although agape, intrinsic reward mechanisms and perfect contrition are the hallmarks of the higher stages of spiritual and moral development, eros, extrinsic rewards and imperfect contrition can still be considered integral aspects of a transformed and individuated person, not something to be obliterated even if taken up and transformed.All that said, I subscribe to a realist but still optimistic theological anthropology and further believe that, notwithstanding what one's doctrinal position is regarding the afterlife, it is simply unsound pedagogy to use such a concept as hell at earlystages of moral development. Only in advanced catechesis would Ieven introduce a nuanced (as above)apokatastasis. Whatever the stage of moral development, whether of this or that child or culture or even humankind, love and compassion should be stressed and, in that regard, more is caught than is ever taught. Finally, notwithstanding the un/soundness of the pedagogy, I personally find it thoroughly and unequivocally abhorrent to use hellfire and brimstone as a stick or 72 virgins in heaven as a carrot in the process of forming mature and upright consciences. Believer or unbeliever, no eye has seen nor ear heard nor the human heart conceived ... what awaits in any putative afterlife, anyway. There are enough intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and punishments available in this life to employ in the early stages of moral development and, heaven knows, we need 'em, without dragging in non-instant karma. Kudos to John Lennon insofar as he was on to these dynamics in a big way.

end of my IRAS post

You may now better appreciate that my distinction between the IDEALend objective and the REAL end objective was rooted in the distinction between the essentialistic and the existential realms.It was a descriptive enterprise of mine (cynical? nah, we're a bunch of pilgrims) to describe much of present day Christianity as being, collectively, at the earlier stages of moral and faith development(after Kohlberg and Fowler, even Lonergan), primarily motivated by the threat of hell and promise of heaven. That is what is REALly going on but not at all what I believe should be IDEALly going on. Notwithstanding all of that, if you define salvation as living as good a life as possible, in this world or the next, then I'd wholeheartedly agree that radical transformation is essential. Salvation as at-one-ment from the Priest, empowerment from the King and establishment of truth from the Prophet probably renders the phrase radical transformation -- redundant. Still, complete theosis and unitive living, here and now, are not essential for living a good life, just the best life, you know, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, as our Jesuits friends like to say! The Invitation to unitive living has gone out, to be sure, but if the Banquet Hall doesn't fill up with proficients in the Unitive Way, I'm sure Jesus will send out to the lamp lit streets of those on the Illuminative Way and the candle lit back alleys of those crawling along the Purgative Way, to drag us all in, kicking and screaming, into the banquet where the Banner Over us will be Love!

More emphasis on the salvation is NOW aspect is indeed part of the cure for what ^&*%$ so eloquently described as ailing us re: our end
objectives. This salvation belongs to our present as well as our future insofar as our deepest legitimate aspirations are concerned.
There has been too much emphasis on what concerns us after this our exile, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. If salvation is
realized in history, in society and in the world, then Shalom is not the mere absense of turmoil but the presence of peace, the calm, if
you will, in the midst of the storm. And, Ingrid, you speak authoritatively to this joy in the midst of suffering, as close as the nightmare of the Holocaust has remained in your heart and mind, juxtaposed quite like the Feasts of the Incarnation and that of the Protomartyr, Stephen.

If salvation comes somewhat proleptically and anticipatorily, both for the individual and the People, this does not mean that it is not
concretized, here and now, in the form of down payments, first fruits, earnests and guarantees, sealed by the Spirit. Thus we can witness to its reality, both through our celebration of the
beautiful and our advancement of the good, creed birthing cult and code, precisely what we need to stay in contact with this salvation, exactly what the world needs to see by way of invitation to the Saving Mystery.

If we don't proactively undertake our intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and religious conversions, cooperating with
grace, we will not only turn down the invitation to salvation for ourselves, but will deprive the world of an effective counter-witness to all the dissonant voices conspiring in grand chorus to
drown out the call to salvation. If salvation perfects our vocation in fostering our sonship and daughtership with God, it also effects
our brotherhood and sisterhood with all humankind, NOW.

Thankfully, the Kingdom now and eschatologically, is NOT the same as the Church, for God clearly already reigns in the Kingdom for those who have discerning hearts, and there is, ergo, no call for scandal insofar as the Church is badly in need of institutional reform. We have enough theodicy issues going without adding that one. Let us be salt and leaven and light for the world and let us get on with it,
indeed. It is only through dialogue that I have even figured out who I really am (a yeast and leaven, though some welcome me like a yeast
infection) and what I'm to do. Curious how that works. The Church could figure out Who it is if it would more proactively dialogue with the world where salvation is incarnate, with no secular and sacred distinctions to cloud the issue.

Deep Shalom,
johnboy

re: Sorry if this sounds too critical

No one is more open to constructive critique and dialogue than Ingrid Shafer, in my experience. Not to worry. She is preoccupied presently but if an opening occurs, I'll pass along your comments. Muchas gracias and well considered.

http://www.megspace.com/religi...f/aninclusivist.html

http://www.lccs.edu/~jsennett/...he%20Inclusivist.htm

http://www.faithandphilosophy....enbach-atonement.htm

I can seldom see the truth which I do not wish to see. I have prayed many times to be delivered from the exclusivist view to a higher level of truth, as long as I do not compromise the truth revealed by God's son. These articles were helpful to me.

peace,

mm <*))))><

More ruminations. In nurturing the tension between the Kingdom now
and to come, salvation now and to come, recognizing an
eschatological dimension, we have agreed that more emphasis is
needed on the now and the present inasmuch as too much emphasis has
been placed in atonement theology on both the past and the future.
Bu the past and the future, I specifically mean, re: the past, the
felix culpa of The Fall, re: the future, in the words of JC
Superstar, too much heaven on their minds.

Still, it is important that we not lose sight of the proleptical and
anticipatory dynamic as it impacts the eschatological realization of
Kingdom possibilities, because, if we do, we will create even more
theodicy issues for those who are struggling mightily to discern if
this Good News is credible or, rather, some fanciful pipedream, such
as in Freud's infantile illusion, or Feuerbach's anthropomorphic
projections. The plain fact of the matter is that, notwithstanding
the establishment of the Reign of Christ the King, that there
remains a profound rupture between our essentialistic possibilities
and our existential realizations, and that we must attempt some type
of theological accounting for same.

In the early Church, when Christ did not return as quickly as
anticipated, there was clearly some explaining to do about this
Apocalypse Delayed. There are artifacts of this problematic in the
millenarianism we've experienced throughout Church history, as
recently as 2000 A.D. and there are related lingering problems, as
we witnessed recently with the MelGibsonism, with atonement theory
re: the precise origin of this essentialistic-existential rupture.
The rupture cannot be denied. The evidence is too strong for that.
Not that some don't see suffering as maya but I'm not buying in.
What, then, of its origin and what of its repair?

The Passion of the Christ episode helped to set different atonement
theories off in rather sharp relief, striking right at the heart of
the issue of high and low Christologies, which speak directly to
exactly what is salvation and how has it been accomplished, that's
to say, if it has been accomplished. This is a serious issue both ad
intra and ad extra for Christianity in the modern world.

We can consider the project to be that of explaining existential
rupture and repair. The classical way is through original sin and
this apologetic explains away the theodicy issue of how we can be
saved already but still not fully enjoy salvation. It is said, here,
that what we experience NOW is a fallen-redeemed condition, saved
from the effects of sin and death but still otherwise immersed in
the effects of original sin. This, then, locates the essentialistic-
existential rupture in the past and, for the most part, the
essentialistic-existential repair in the future, taking our focus
off of the present and, as &*^%$ laments, in my manner of speaking,
off of Transformation Now. This impacts societal transformation just
as much as personal transformation.

Perhaps this fallen-redeemed paradigm is due, in part, to our
classical substance-oriented metaphysic, which would approach the
essentialistic-existential rupture as an ontological rupture, being
breaking away from Being. But that's not the only metaphysic around.
In his pragmatic realism (semiotic realism), Jesuit Don Gelpi, at
the Jesuit school at Berkeley has defined original sin as the effect
of our finitude plus the effect of everyone else's personal sins on
each one of us. Grounded in a semiotic metaphysical realism, I guess
one could call this, in part, an epistemological rupture. For you,
this would include my personal sins, and, for me, yours. This
locates, as I see it, the essentialistic-existential rupture moreso
in the present, and, hence, also, in part, its repair. This
relocation is of crucial importance due to its implicit moral
imperatives, which suggest that we need to get on with the business
of personal and societal transformation, NOW.

Jack Haught, a process theologian at Georgetown, has suggested a
relocation of the essentialistic-existential rupture into the
future, entailing not so much an ontological rupture but, instead, a
teleological striving. This has even more exciting implications as
it situates humankind more unambiguously in the role of Created Co-
Creators (to use Phil Hefner's notion). We participate much more
proactively, with the Creator, in the eschatological realization, in
the essentialistic-existential unitive striving, still very much
proleptical and anticipatory but with us blessed with the ability to
help shape and mold the final outcome of the glorification that will
follow our justification and sanctification. Which paradigm we adopt
has profound implications for all of our normative strivings.

It is not that we merely get passively washed up on the Kingdom's
Shore (the assumption paradigm) or that we simply swim to Shore (the
ascension paradigm). It is more like we get rescued at sea and
placed in rowboats. And off we go with our compass and map (the
Gospel of Yeshua and Credo, our creed), singing Merrily, Merrily,
Merrily, Merrily (our prayer and worship and liturgy, our Cult) and
Row, Row, Row your boat (our Moral and Spiritual strivings, our
code), but, make no mistake, life is not a dream.

quote:

And Jesus was a sailor when he walked apon the water
And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain only drowning men could see him
He said all men shall be sailors then until the sea shall free them

Suzanne
By Leonard Cohen

Whatever atonement, at-one-ment, paradigm we adopt, for the
essentialistic-existential rupture, whether the ontological rupture
of the past, or the epistemological rupture of the present, or the
teleological striving of the future, our theology must account for
this "condition" and our pastoral response must be compassionate,
both to ourselves and to others, realistic in our expectations of
just how much any of us can existentially realize our essentialistic
possibilities. Thus we deal with the faithful in a developmentally
appropriate manner, not placing so heavy a yoke on them that they
get discouraged and, mixing metaphors, give up the ship, quit rowing
their boats. As the Desiderata counsels, beyond a wholesome
discipline, we must be gentle with ourselves (and others) for,
whether or not it is clear to you or others, the universe is
unfolding as it should, even as you would.

pax,
jb

C.S. Lewis on inclusivism:

http://www.lccs.edu/~jsennett/lewis.htm

I guess if we had to repel an alien invasion or a huge asteroid hurling toward the earth, we would set aside our differences. Nevertheless, both our quest for the divine and our being different seem to be a universal trait.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

I no longer find it too very exceptional, when, after hacking and slashing and, as us Cajuns like to put it, macheteing my way through a rather dense theological underbrush, I arrive for a daily or Sunday worship and there encounter, in the liturgy of the Word and homiletics, an already well cut and well lit exegetical clearing.

Today was one of those increasingly not so rare liturgies which, in its bells and smells, stories and lessons, issued forth with simple clarity and deep resonance regarding such issues as we�ve labored over the past few days as pertaining to the essence of Christianity.

The first synchronicity was the fashionable-since-the-60�s burlap type liturgical banner, decorated with a City on a Hill overarched by a rainbow and inscribed in big felt letters with: �How Close Is Heaven?� Now, one doesn�t have to travel by hermeneutical dromedary inasmuch as a simple mule will getcha to the exegetical destination where the tensions between the Kingdom now and the Kingdom to come, between salvation on earth and salvation in heaven, between our essentialistic possibilities and our existential realizations, get nurtured and not rather dissolved. But I am getting ahead of myself, who�s not the accomplished story-teller but moreso the drab, colorless peripatetic philosopher, and hack philosopher at that.

After ruminating over our recent exchanges about the manner in which the Kingdom unfolds, about the different approaches to atonement theology, about Christologies both high & low and ontological & normative, about Christocentrism and theocentrism, about transformation and beatification (are we called to radical transformation as our end objective or, rather, to getting to heaven?), about theosis and theodicy, I still had some cud left to chew, so much like a cow that I am with my different hermeneutical stomachs regurgitating my never fully digested perspectival boluses (I know this is a Catholic forum but I refuse to use a plural form such as �boli�.), sparing no one any of my off-putting eructations (that�s what you call the belch of a cow), but at least sparing myself the uncomfortable condition of philosophical bloat. So, before headin� off �to make mass,� as we say in these here parts, I hurriedly scribbled some notes on an index card, pregnant as I was with another essay, this stuff coming furiously and with a flourish sometimes like a lyricist/musician scoring a new song, as if it were being sung to her from an entirely different realm, not to invoke a mysticism but only to recognize how prior cognitions regress into the subconscious and then resurface in the form of intuitions, sometimes when you least expect it. What I won�t demythologize, though, is the previously mentioned synchronicity.

What I scribbled were some key concepts and similes that would enable me to build on previous ideas and metaphors. Regarding the essentialistic-existential rupture, I wanted to explore possible axiological and cosmological angles, building on previous explorations of the ontological, teleological and epistemological. Regarding the �row your boat� and �climb that mountain� metaphors, I wanted to extend them with the Holy Spirit as the Wind in our sails, and with a few verses from Leonard Cohen�s song, Suzanne, vis a vis �all men shall be sailors, then, until the sea shall free them.� Further, I recalled an earlier contemplative interpretation of the �Row, Row, Row Your Boat� tune to which I wanted to allude. I wanted to further elaborate on Hefner�s embodiedment & determinedness versus autopoiesis & freedom, within the context of our finitude & sinfulness but also of our transformative journey. Regarding that journey, I wanted to explore both the Divine pedagogy of suffering and finitude (as a theodicy) as well as the invitation to become a Created Co-Creator, to accept our commissioning as priest, prophet and king. Expanding on that theodicy consideration, I was going to explore how the Good News has been imparted to us as an inheritance that is not unlike that conveyed to heirs in what we bankers call an Incentive Trust, a trust designed to help the heir reach personal, social, moral, educational, philosophical and religious goals (cf. Lonergan) by distributing the wealth in increments so as not to spoil the heir or thereby deprive them of the struggles that build character, form consciences and teach compassion. I also was going to mention the pedagogy in James Taylor�s �Fire and Rain�: �Been walkin' my mind to an easy time, my back turned towards the sun. Lord knows when the cold wind blows it'll turn your head around.�

To wrap this up, I decided not to write the essay after all. It would seem like a trivialization of the luminosity and numinosity that came over me during worship, this 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time.

From Is. 66:18-21: �I will set a sign among them; from them I will send fugitives to the nations: to Tarshish, Put and Lud, Mosoch, Tubal and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have never heard of my fame, or seen my glory; and they shall proclaim my glory among the nations.� How well this instructs us of the importance of the Church�s celebration of Christ�s love ad intra and ad extra, reinforced by the Responsorial Ps. 117: Go out into all the world and tell the Good News.

From Heb 12: My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him; for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges." Endure your trials as "discipline"; God treats you as sons. For what "son" is there whom his father does not discipline? At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it. So strengthen your drooping hands and your weak knees.
Make straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be disjointed but healed.� And I would presume, now, to write another treatise on Divine pedagogy as theodicy?

The Gospel was Luke 13: �Someone asked him, "Lord, will only a few people be saved?" He answered them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate ... � And as I arrive at this paragraph, after a dozen or more Elton John, James Taylor, Beatles and Cat Stevens MP3�s (no, I�m not 50 yet), all of a sudden, our singing family Sylvest (6 siblings and me) version of �Lead Me On� comes on, an audio capture from some yesteryear wedding: �Lead me Lord, Lead me Lord, by the light of truth to seek and to find the narrow way ...� What more confirmation could one need to view the invitation to theosis and �radical� transformation as part of the very essence of Jesus� teaching? The Gospel closes, however, with: �And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." And who cannot see an intimation of a nuanced, even orthodox apokatastasis? And who cannot hear the clarion call, to borrow from the Marines, �to be all that you can be,� although our sensitive and wise homilist, a Jesuit native son, home to roost in retirement (gotta be semi- in this cluster!) noted that, in these Spiritual Special Olympics, if we do our best and still come out last, we�re still winners in the Kingdom of Jesus. I think this goes for the masses of us who don�t quite follow the AMDG motto in every last thing we undertake. Don�t you?

And, not the least of all, even if last, these lessons were amplified by the fact that our lector was a very dear friend, a young widow, who, in the space of less than 30 months, a)lost her husband in a tragic accident, a Customs Agent overcome by lack of oxygen and fumes, in the hold of a ship on our beloved Mississippi River, along with the Russian ship captain and first mate who went in after, in succession, to find him, to find them, after too long an absence, b) lost her Father to a debilitating disease that had run a not so very long course, and, most recently, c) lost her son, who went to be with his Dad and Papa, after a tragic car accident. I shared this with my favorite singer songwriter, Billy Joe Shaver, who'd similarly lost wife, mother and son in less than 3 years and who wrote many more songs from these tragedies, the latest entitled: "Try and Try Again." That album has a picture of him on his knees with his face and arms reaching to heaven. He was profoundly moved by the common thread in life stories.

In the pew, immediately in front of me, was another young widow, across the street neighbor of the lector, in fact. The thought could not help but stay with me during Mass, as I handed my daughter my handkerchief to dry her tears, that I was privileged to witness a definite Kaddish. The Kaddish is a Jewish mourner�s prayer, recited during the first eleven months following the death of a loved one and on each anniversary of death. What is significant about the Kaddish, and so very poignantly moving, is that the prayer contains not a word or reference dealing with death. It�s theme is the greatness of God. I was always told that the purpose of the Kaddish was to inspire the onlooking community with a great witness such that, if SHE can manage to lavish praise on God, then ANYBODY, not only can, but, MUST! Another coincidence, now, as I type, Elton John sings in the background as I write: �I know not if it�s dark outside or light. I know not if it�s dark outside or light.� and �I thank the Lord for the people I have found. I thank the Lord for the people I have found.�

Well, this will be a difficult week in that I must testify in a wrongful death lawsuit, as a character witness for our beloved deceased Custom Agent, wife of today�s lector, and, in the months leading up to this trial, I just have not come to grips with how I�ll be able to do anything but cry on the stand. Every time I think about it, I am pretty much overcome. I prayed to his son last week, asking him to send my daughter a sign (they were close), thinking maybe she�d get some inspiration in a dream, for she was struggling with normal 20 year old issues and the next day was his birthday. [Elton John is now singing �how wonderful life is while you�re in this world.�] The next day, my daughter went to visit her Grandparents and they were not home, so, she decided to visit this young widow�s son�s grave. Just as she arrived, his bereaved Mom and siblings arrived at the gravesite, too, with a passel of colorful balloons to release into the cloudless sky! It was flat-out gorgeous in Louisiana last week. Early autumn (we don't have winter.) My daughter was very touched and consoled at the fortuitous happenstance and especially so after I told her I had prayed the night before for a sign for her, though I�d forgotten afterward and hadn�t told her about it. She got goosebumps and so did I. We�re like that (and so are my wife and three sons).

The week also holds a transitional life moment as I�ll now I have three in college, and tomorrow�s the first day at LSU for my college freshman. Another tug on the old heart as James Taylor now sings: �Won�t you look down upon me, Jesus ...� But after all of this catharsis in my writing and worship of today, I think I know how I�ll come to grips with it all. I�m going to print off a copy of the Kaddish and carry it around with me this week. Yeah, that�s the ticket. If she can do it, then I simply must. You�ll note it calls for the establishment of the Kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, forever and to all eternity. No false dichotomies there.

MOURNER'S KADDISH

Glorified and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

Elton John now sings: �It�s people like you that keep me turned on.�

And say, Amen.
jb

JB's taking a break 'til after Labor Day. Need to recollect.

pax, amor et bonum,
johnboy

jb,

Enjoy We have the same album collection, which of course, the youngsters have in mp3s. My little brothers got stuck with hundreds of LPs, but I had to come up with something for all their birthdays and Christ-masses when I was broke.
Careful with the spices when you make that gumbo and jambalaya.
m <*))))><

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]
No one is more open to constructive critique and dialogue than Ingrid Shafer, in my experience.. . . [/qb]

. . . except for me, provided I agree with it.

Enjoy your break. I'll be catching up on my reading in the meantime.