A thesis sheet for moral theology midterm exam

1.     Morality begins when I realize that I am not the only person in this world. Morality also emerges from situations in which the dignity of the person is shaken; such situations are “intolerable”.

2.     The Decalogue, during the Sinai-Covenant event, was given so that the people will not live with slavery when they enter Canaan. The Laws given by God were not designed to cut away human freedom. They were meant to give shape to that freedom. Applied to morality, then, we say that morality is more about a healthy exercise of freedom because we understand why we have such Laws.

3.     The Decalogue can be “chopped” up into three parts. There is the part dealing with our relationships with God and there is the part dealing with our relationships with one another. “Sandwiched” in between is the part on the “Sabbath” telling us to be “like God”. 

4.     The Laws dealing with our relationship with God tell us to relate with the Lord as LIBERATOR (from slavery). The Laws saying “do not” tell us that we can do anything we want as long as we recognize the limits—respect and reverence for others.

5.     There is a relationship between Creation and Covenant (or Redemption). We have been created by God and we have been redeemed in Christ. Our moral frame of thinking is not limited to the redemptive side wherein morality is a “correction”. We were not only corrected by God we were also affirmed by God. Jesus came not just to redeem us but also to affirm our dignity given to us in Creation. We agree that we sin and we need the grace to be free from the hold of sin; we need to be “corrected”. But we also admit that we have always been “ok” in the eyes of God from the very start. This line of thinking helps present morality in a more matured and healthy way.  

6.     In the New Testament we read about the “Sermon” (Matt: “mount” and Lk: “plain”). There Jesus showed the path of “happiness”. Jesus taught us about our being God’s children and our fraternity to each other. We can see this in the “Our Father” prayer.

7.     In the “Sermon” we are taught to live as children of the Father. This included a good sense of justice and love. Part of our moral discernment is to know how to balance justice and love.

8.     Christian morality, as the “Sermon” teaches us, is really more “from the heart”. Of course we do not discount external rules and norms; but because we recognize how we are loved by God we respond “from the heart”. We admit that we need external rules and norms but we seek to choose, decide and act “from the heart”. Jesus, in his Sermon, taught this himself.

9.     In the perspective of St. Paul we act in faith rather than in mere obedience to the Law. St. Paul did not reject the Law but he went against the way people observed the Law. Their observance of the Law gave a wrong image of God. God was someone to please. For St. Paul, however, God graced us—or gifted us—with the presence of Jesus. So we would rather respond in faith.

10.            This does not, however, give license to doing anything we want. Faith does not allow us to do “bad things”. In fact, if we are serious with our faith we prefer to “do good”. Our Christian morality is a faith response to the grace of God for us. Christian morality is “in conformity” To Christ.

11.            For St. John we are branches to the vine. From the very start the Word already “remained” in us. Thus he (the Word) teaches us to “remain” in him. We take “sap” from the vine. Applied to morality then we decide and act and behave as Jesus. We love as Jesus loved. We love because God loved us first (see 1Jn4/19). What we do is based on what was done by Christ.

12.            Do you notice anything COMMON to ALL of the Biblical themes we studied, from the Decalogue to St. John? In history we have been so criticized for us having perverted cultures. Christian morality, so some people say, has damaged people’s pursuit of happiness. But a reading of the Scriptures will show that this perversion is never in the mind of God.

13.            The CCC says that “lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (#2351). Do you see how the CCC approaches this Biblically? Do you see the reliance of the CCC on the Biblical themes of Creation and Decalogue and even the ideas in the Sermon of Jesus?  Of course, for us modern people, the CCC  may look “corny”. With our exposure to modern psychology and anthropology we might find the CCC as “too conservative”. But if we just give the CCC a chance to explain itself to us, we can also see the wisdom behind its discussion on lust. Consult CCC #2331-2359.

14.            Many young people might think that they will not do bad things “when someone is watching”. How will you help them improve on this? What can the BIBLICAL morality we studied say about this?

15.            Many Christians may have been taught that they have to do “good things” in order to “satisfy” and “please” God. God will love them depending on their “performances” in life. Maybe you know someone who thinks this way. How can you help that person improve on this? What can the BIBLICAL morality we studied say about this?  

The “Moral Theology” of St. Paul and St. John (plus a Conclusion)

St. Paul

1.    During the time of St. Paul the practice was that observance of the Law made one “justified” before the Lord God. One was “ok” in the eyes of God if one followed the prescriptions of the Law—the Torah. St. Paul was provoked to disagree with this by the Pharisaic tradition. Let us explain.

2.    During his time the Pharisees were so adamant in following the prescriptions of the Law that society became marked by “separation” between those who follow well and those who cannot follow well. To put it in terms we are familiar with, the Pharisaic tradition cracked the “fraternal” relationship in society. Some can claim to have successfully observed the Law and they marginalized others. Unfortunate still was the fact that most of the emphasis was given to the ritual purification observances.

3.    This also meant a separation of the Jews from the other nations. The other nations were “impure”; they did not have the Law; they were not part of the Covenant with God. So even the possibility of “fraternal” relationship with them was denied. But a close reading of Scriptures, like the prophetic texts, will show that God precisely wanted the people of Israel to be “light of the nations” and enter into fraternity with the nations. The obsession to observe strictly the Law, for St. Paul, was counter to the original intuition of the Lord God. St. Paul then did not reject the Law, he rejected the way the Law was observed. The core intuition of the Law was missed. So people started to live under that “miss”.

4.    St. Paul’s problem was thus this: on what basis is one “ok” in God’s eyes? Is the observance of the prescriptions of the Law enough? One merits God’s approval by the mere legal-traditional observance? But if we look at ourselves, said St. Paul, we are bound to sin…we cannot quite overcome this. So even with fidelity to the Law we sin…and that’s “not ok”. See Rom7/7-25. The deeper problem is this. The mere observance of the Law inverts relationship with God. We stand on our head, so to speak, in front of God. Why? We lose the free giving of God, we lose the initiative of God to love us. Our “justification” in God is a result of the things we do and not of the love of God for us. We “buy the stairway to heaven”, as the Led Zeppelin band would say. By doing the traditional practices we think we are already “ok”.

5.    For St. Paul God welcomes all independent of what people do; independent of performance. So we read about the famous passage in which, for God, there is no Jew, no Greek, no slave, no freeman, no man, no woman (see Gal3/28 and Rom10/12)…let us add: no religious, no lay, no rich, no poor, no highly educated, no illiterate, no handsome, no ugly, no pretty, no unappealing etc. Just think of the ways we separate from each other in our cultures.

6.    God loves all, God is concerned with all and this relationship God makes with us is a “grace”…a gift. We thus enter into the gift and not “buy” our way in. We do not need to have “credentials” to enjoy the love of God. So no matter how well we follow the purification rituals prescribed by the Pharisees, for example, we are “ok” in God. No matter how we fail in those rituals, we are “ok” in God.

7.    Notice then what the emphasis is, for St. Paul. St. Paul gave it a word: faith. St. Paul swings to the side of faith. No, it is not a matter of what we do but of our adherence to Christ. We have already been gifted with God’s love in Christ so from hereon it is not “works” but “faith” that matters most in our way of living.

8.    Apply this to morality. Our moral life is to be based on our faith in Christ—our conformity to Christ—and not on “works” we do. A person might want to walk on knees from the door of a Church to the altar…that is not what God really wants. A person might want to go on a three day fasting, wear coarse clothing with thorns inside…well, that is not what God really wants. A person might go on vows and beat his chest for the rest of his life…well, that is not what God really wants.

9.    Now a question can arise. Does faith mean that we can do anything we want? Since we are “ok” in the eyes of God, he has gifted us with Christ, can we also do “bad things”? St. Paul himself asked this question. “What then”, he wrote, “shall we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?” St. Paul gave the reply, “Of course not” (Rom6/15).  

10.           For St. Paul when we accept to enter into the gift of God we do not anymore live according to our performances. We are under grace and not under the Law. We are in a new life. This life is characterized by the service of love and openness to others. Our new life in faith expresses itself in justice, in work for peace, in self restraint against sinful actions, etc. This new life in faith leads us away from a “separatist” identity to a “fraternal” identity. Moral life is a life that is new. We “die” from sin and we “rise again” with Christ. We move away from servicing sin and we live in the service of justice. We present ourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and we become “weapons” for justice (see Rom6/13). See also Gal5/20-23.

11.           Thanks to Christ we are free from the burden of “performances” and “merits”. We can live according to the core intuition of the Law which is love. We can love. See Gal5/1 and 5/13-14.

12.           St. Paul shows us how we can take an attitude towards the Law…and we can add our own laws in our countries. The Law is placed in the perspective of love. The Law is designed for making us live in fraternity, service to one another. We are not very far from what we have said at the start of this semester about the Decalogue. The Decalogue, we said, is a fruit of God’s liberating act and it was given to the people of Israel so that they do not repeat the life of slavery. To miss that point is fatal—it will entail creating a system of separation, elitism, the absence of fraternal relationship.

13.           Again for moral theology we see in St. Paul a sense of maturity in moral behavior. Morality is conformity with Christ who taught us to love one another, serve each other, be fraternal to each other, to “go down” so that others, like the poor, may “go up”. It is very matured because it is no longer about “performances” and “gaining ‘handsome’ points”.

St. John

14.           For St. John we follow Christ, yes, and we remain in him. Jesus is the vine. In John (Jn15) we see this clearly.  The Father is the vine dresser. (It may be difficult for us to imagine this because we do not have such vines in our countries…but you know what it means. Imagine other plants similar to the grape vines.)

15.                       The Father removes the dead branches. This is called “pruning”. Pruning is done to make vines bear more fruit. Jesus is the true vine sent by the Father and he accomplishes fully the fidelity expected from the people of Israel before.

16.                       Jesus says that we, his followers, are his branches. We cannot see ourselves separated from this vine. We have been “pruned” by the liberating Word of God. “You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you” (15/3). We are already a living community grafted in Christ.

17.                       In the prologue of the 4th gospel we read: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (1/14). In other words the Word “remained” among us. The Word took the initiative to remain in us…long before we remained in him. He did the first step. To “remain” means to “choose living with”…be in “domicile with”. Hence the Word “pitched his tent” among us. The Word had his feet on the ground with us.

18.                       “To remain” therefore is to relate with us, to enter into friendship and intimacy with us. It is a way of entering in communion with us. Just think about this beautiful word of St. John’s account. Being with us, among us, dwelling in our midst, the Word tells clear the message: we are accepted and not matter who we are, “warts and all”, the Word is with us. The Word became flesh. Hence the Word has revealed the splendor of our humanity. The term “to remain” is an affectionate term. And it is deep.

19.                       Now, we are asked to remain in him. We might want to stay far from him. We might want to quit. We might want to reject the project of God for us. Jesus insists that we remain in him as he remains in us. Keep the fire burning. We are invited to receive the gift of the presence and message of Jesus…in patience, perseverance, in union with the Father and with each other fraternally.

20.                       Note that in this dwelling together (or as the Jesuit poet Gerald Manly Hopkins…if I am not mistaken…terms it, “indwelling”). By dwelling together, remaining together, “ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you” (15/7). Of course we will not ask to be allowed doing “bad things”; not even “silly things”. In the theology of St. John we ask that we be allowed to love and serve in truth each other all the more especially since we have been given the Spirit (see 1Jn3/18-24). In other words, we ask for a deeper fraternal life because this is so important for our Christian living. See the application to morality then?

21.                       Keep in mind that it is Christ who took the initial step to remain in and dwell with us. We need to recognize that so that we do not rely simply on our own performances of love and service (which sounds Paulinian, right?) We, branches, do not “fertilize” ourselves. We graft ourselves to the true vine. Branches do not make the vine more “juicy”. Branches do not enrich the vine. Instead, branches receive from the vine. We receive from the vine the “living sap”. Hence we appreciate the importance of being permanently in Christ. 

22.                       No matter how small or big our gestures and actions are, they can always give joy and hope whenever we see them grafted in Christ. Following the insight of Maurice Zundel, there is the hidden and “humble presence” to whom we are grafted so that even in our own “humble presence” we can bring seeds of joy and peace around us. Isn’t this wonderful?

23.           Note the consequence of this reciprocal in-dwelling. When we love, our love is not just any kind of love. It is a love that is the love of Christ. The sap of the branch is from the vine itself. Love as Christ has loved us (see Jn13/34 and 15/12). We imitate Christ just as Christ imitated his Father. As the Father has loved him, he has loved us (Jn15/9) and we love each other. This is a very fascinating chain of love.

24.           This love is interior to us because we are “in” Christ, united with him, “in-dwelling” with him. We do not just consider him a model, we are grafted in him. Think and meditate about this…it is so deep and liberating. It clarifies so much the nature of our Christian moral living.

Conclusion

25.           We end our Biblical discussion on moral theology here. Take note of how the Bible can impact our moral discernment.

26.           The Bible offers us a vision about life and about the human person. We are gifted with existence—Creation. We are also gifted with Redemption—Covenant. The human therefore is both Created and Redeemed. This is Biblical. How can this be a basis for moral discernment? Check out the Decalogue and the New Testament theology. One thing we can keep reminding us of is this: God’s initiative—to Create us and Redeem us—is the starting point. He loved us so we respond. Morality is this response.

27.           Biblically morality is not a way of “buying the stairway to heaven”. We do not do moral good to win God’s love. God’s love precedes us. He has always considered us his beloved children. So we graft ourselves to God. We respond with faith and thanksgiving. We extend this response to our relationships with others.

28.           In the Biblical world, such as in the miracles of Jesus and his treatment of the “little ones” we can see how Christian morality is alive. It is not a dry and infertile morality that is obsessed with keeping people from happiness. The criticism against Christian morality as “anti-sex” and “anti-pleasure”, anti this or that, is a cliché criticism. Just look into the Scriptures and we will see how invalid the criticism is.

29.           Bible tells us to orient our lives—our moral lives—to the love and liberation of God. We live to be truly free.

30.           Of course there are “technical” approaches to the Bible and we need a good dose of this technique. We cannot take all the precepts literally. What is important, and this the Church has emphasized over and over again, is that we see the underlying core theology…the “wisdom” behind the texts we read. If this sounds abstract, look at Jesus and St. Paul. Jesus questioned some scriptural-traditional practices but he pointed out the underlying motivation of God in them. St. Paul, as we have just seen above, questioned the Law and its precepts. But in the end he also endorsed the Law by pointing out the underlying wisdom there.

31.           For us then, we need a bit of “technique” to discern the underlying wisdom of Scriptural passages. This is why we have Bible studies too.

32.           In computer anti-virus applications we are offered “quick scans”. Let us try a “quick scan” of the Bible as it can be applied to our moral discernment. Here are two helpful “scans”.

33.           What is God’s primary plan in Creating us? (How does the Bible reveal our created nature? This is the “creation” part of Scriptures.)

34.           What is God’s plan to keep us free from “slavery” and sin? (This is the Redemption-Covenant part of Scriptures.)

35.           Of course the summit of Biblical revelation is Christ. He has shown to us who we really are as designed by God in creating us and he has set us free—redeemed us—from the darkness we often fall into. Both go together. For example, we are created to live in communion with God and be truly happy and live as God’s children. This has always been in the created order. Redemption is Christ’s way of bring us back to that created order. His message with his Passion-Resurrection contains the Beatitudes, the call for justice and love, the call for service. We are meant to be happy, to be just and loving.

36.           Think of lust. The Church considers it as a “moral issue”. Maybe modern thinking will see it otherwise, given the advancement of modern science and secular ethics. But let us give ear to the argument of the Church. See the Biblical intuition she has in questioning lust. Notice how the Church views lust in terms of how we were created and how we try to set free from the “slavery” accompanying lust. Notice how the CCC picks up from Christ and how Christ reveals our created nature and how Christ leads us away from the negative impact of lust. The CCC may look “conservative” but give it a chance and discover the Biblical wisdom it is trying to teach us. The CCC has “loopholes”, but it is a work of people who do their best to be faithful to Christ. Seek the wisdom in that effort.  

The “Moral Theology” of St. Paul and its Application to Mission

St. Paul

During the time of St. Paul the practice was that observance of the Law made one “justified” before the Lord God. One was “ok” in the eyes of God if one followed the prescriptions of the Law—the Torah. St. Paul was provoked to disagree with this by the Pharisaic tradition. Let us explain.

During his time the Pharisees were so adamant in following the prescriptions of the Law that society became marked by “separation” between those who follow well and those who cannot follow well. To put it in terms we are familiar with, the Pharisaic tradition cracked the “fraternal” relationship in society. Some can claim to have successfully observed the Law and they marginalized others. Unfortunate still was the fact that most of the emphasis was given to the ritual purification observances.

This also meant a separation of the Jews from the other nations. The other nations were “impure”; they did not have the Law; they were not part of the Covenant with God. So even the possibility of “fraternal” relationship with them was denied. But a close reading of Scriptures, like the prophetic texts, will show that God precisely wanted the people of Israel to be “light of the nations” and enter into fraternity with the nations. The obsession to observe strictly the Law, for St. Paul, was counter to the original intuition of the Lord God. St. Paul then did not reject the Law, he rejected the way the Law was observed. The core intuition of the Law was missed. So people started to live under that “miss”.

St. Paul’s problem was thus this: on what basis is one “ok” in God’s eyes? Is the observance of the prescriptions of the Law enough? One merits God’s approval by the mere legal-traditional observance? But if we look at ourselves, said St. Paul, we are bound to sin…we cannot quite overcome this. So even with fidelity to the Law we sin…and that’s “not ok”. See Rom7/7-25. The deeper problem is this. The mere observance of the Law inverts relationship with God. We stand on our head, so to speak, in front of God. Why? We lose the free giving of God, we lose the initiative of God to love us. Our “justification” in God is a result of the things we do and not of the love of God for us. We “buy the stairway to heaven”, as the Led Zeppelin band would say. By doing the traditional practices we think we are already “ok”.

For St. Paul God welcomes all independent of what people do; independent of performance. So we read about the famous passage in which, for God, there is no Jew, no Greek, no slave, no freeman, no man, no woman (see Gal3/28 and Rom10/12)…let us add: no religious, no lay, no rich, no poor, no highly educated, no illiterate, no handsome, no ugly, no pretty, no unappealing etc. Just think of the ways we separate from each other in our cultures.

God loves all, God is concerned with all and this relationship God makes with us is a “grace”…a gift. We thus enter into the gift and not “buy” our way in. We do not need to have “credentials” to enjoy the love of God. So no matter how well we follow the purification rituals prescribed by the Pharisees, for example, we are “ok” in God. No matter how we fail in those rituals, we are “ok” in God.

Notice then what the emphasis is, for St. Paul. St. Paul gave it a word: faith. St. Paul swings to the side of faith. No, it is not a matter of what we do but of our adherence to Christ. We have already been gifted with God’s love in Christ so from hereon it is not “works” but “faith” that matters most in our way of living.

Apply this to morality. Our moral life is to be based on our faith in Christ—our conformity to Christ—and not on “works” we do. A person might want to walk on knees from the door of a Church to the altar…that is not what God really wants. A person might want to go on a three day fasting, wear coarse clothing with thorns inside…well, that is not what God really wants. A person might go on vows and beat his chest for the rest of his life…well, that is not what God really wants.

Now a question can arise. Does faith mean that we can do anything we want? Since we are “ok” in the eyes of God, he has gifted us with Christ, can we also do “bad things”? St. Paul himself asked this question. “What then”, he wrote, “shall we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?” St. Paul gave the reply, “Of course not” (Rom6/15).  

For St. Paul when we accept to enter into the gift of God we do not anymore live according to our performances. We are under grace and not under the Law. We are in a new life. This life is characterized by the service of love and openness to others. Our new life in faith expresses itself in justice, in work for peace, in self restraint against sinful actions, etc. This new life in faith leads us away from a “separatist” identity to a “fraternal” identity. Moral life is a life that is new. We “die” from sin and we “rise again” with Christ. We move away from servicing sin and we live in the service of justice. We present ourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and we become “weapons” for justice (see Rom6/13). See also Gal5/20-23.

Thanks to Christ we are free from the burden of “performances” and “merits”. We can live according to the core intuition of the Law which is love. We can love. See Gal5/1 and 5/13-14.

St. Paul shows us how we can take an attitude towards the Law…and we can add our own laws in our countries. The Law is placed in the perspective of love. The Law is designed for making us live in fraternity, service to one another. We are not very far from what we have said at the start of this semester about the Decalogue. The Decalogue, we said, is a fruit of God’s liberating act and it was given to the people of Israel so that they do not repeat the life of slavery. To miss that point is fatal—it will entail creating a system of separation, elitism, the absence of fraternal relationship.

Again for moral theology we see in St. Paul a sense of maturity in moral behavior. Morality is conformity with Christ who taught us to love one another, serve each other, be fraternal to each other, to “go down” so that others, like the poor, may “go up”. It is very matured because it is no longer about “performances” and “gaining ‘handsome’ points”.

Application to mission

Pope Paul VI gave a strong emphasis on inculturation. Culture, he said, needed integration. He meant this for all human cultures, everywhere. All humanity, he said, needs transformation (see Evangelii nuntiandi 18). This transformation must happen interiorly. Here is where the Gospel comes in. The Gospel should “upset” cultures whenever cultural lives are in contrast to the Gospel (EN 19). The Gospel, if introduced in cultures, is to counter deviation from our true humanity.

Think about this well. Our “true humanity” is that of fraternity, service, justice, peace. Cultures are in search for that. A psychologist named Paul Diel said that culture is really designed to organize people so that people will not be caught in “multiple desires” scattering without control. Just imagine a society marked by a wide inequality in access to wealth, prestige and security. Imagine a society marked by hideous injustice due to “separation” among social members. Paul Diel would say that in such a situation people are stuck in their exalted imaginations about themselves and others; people are caught in the web of vanity and culpability. In principle culture should help. But note how, in all parts of the globe, cultures struggle.

Pope Paul VI will be quick to say that there is really need for transforming. So “evangelize cultures” (EN20). The Gospel is a message of humanization. It is a message that tells us, humanity, about ourselves. It tells us about the truths Christ gave about ourselves and the program of life we can lead within culture so as to live more authentically.

Let us return to St. Paul. His message—his “moral theology”—is itself rooted in the Gospel; in Christ. Note what St. Paul emphasizes: NOT PERFORMANCE BUT JUSTICE AND SERVICE. Culture, as we experience it, is so marked by “performance”. In cultural studies we note that with the domination of price market system and finances everything is now characterized with “how much”. It is all about money and survival and competing for a place. Hence in culture today we need to “perform” and perform well. This is global.

How then is morality gauged today? Is it about how “good” and “just” we are? Is it about “service”? Is it about being “fraternal”? Today we need to be Jew, Greek, freeman, rich, fast, sexy, “on the top”. Fraternal relationships will be evaluated according to how much we profit from each other.

We understand then the call to “evangelize” culture. We understand then the value of the morality proposed by St. Paul. This Paulinian morality is, in principle, underneath the yearning of all cultures. Paul Diel would say that ingrained in the human conscience is the “essential desire” to bring peace and harmony in our lives. The Gospel is precisely that message brought by Christ. Mission is to present that. And we, Christians, having experienced the liberty brought by the Gospel message, want to share it in all cultures. What’s wrong with that?

A misunderstanding takes place when we say that Gospel intrudes in and violates culture. Hopefully it is clear that this is not true.  

Feast of the Holy Family: two reflections

The Family of Jesus

1.     What exactly happened in that family?

2.     The family of Jesus wanted to bring him back home because he might have lost his head. We see this in Mk3/20-21 and 31-35.

3.     In this passage the family “set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind’’ (Mk3/21). They wanted to SEIZE him; arrest him; put their hands on him; lay hold of him. The same word, “seize”, will be used later in the Mark account (see Mk14/1) to refer to the action of the Roman and Jewish authorities when they will arrest Jesus. So at this point the family of Jesus plays the same role as the social authorities.

4.     Then Jesus responds by taking a distance from his own family and pointing to AN OTHER FAMILY. To belong to that other family, he says, is to do the will of God. A new fraternal “family” life starts to revolve around Jesus based on listening to him and doing God’s will.

5.     Later in the account of Mark we read again something about the family of Jesus. See Mk6/1-6. Jesus notes that a prophet is with honor OUTSIDE and NOT INSIDE the family.  Honor is elsewhere EXCEPT in the native place and family.  “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house” (6/4). Again here is a picture of what may have been going on between Jesus and his family. Bible experts will say that this must have a historical base too; it is not just theological.

6.     In the Acts of the Apostles and in some letters of Paul we get a glimpse of the way the family started to behave after the death-resurrection. If the gospel accounts speak of pressuring Jesus to silence him, now we see family members being in the midst of the Christian communities. We can think of James who became head of the Jerusalem community (Act12/17; 21/18 and Gal2/9). There must have been a “CONVERSION” in the family of Jesus.

Lost in the Temple

1.     Luke does not offer historical the details of the infancy of Jesus. He offers a “theological” view of the traits of the adult Jesus through his infancy narrative. Luke offers a scene that announces the mission of the adult man, Jesus. He makes a “catechism” for his readers.

2.     In the caravan the men and women move together. Jesus is 12 years of age, as Luke writes, and this is an age not of little kids nor of adults. Jesus can thus join the women or the men in the caravan. There is no reason for Mary and Joseph to worry about his whereabouts. At the moment when each family gathers, Joseph and Mary discover that Jesus is missing. The two leave the caravan to turn back towards Jerusalem.

3.     After three days of searching Mary then asks a question. The question is not about Jesus! It is about the couple: “Son, why have you done this to US? YOUR FATHER AND I have been looking for you with great anxiety (Lk2/48)”. Bible experts have ways of interpreting this statement. One element is worth mentioning. Mary calls the infant “son” and not “my son” or “my child”. She says “son”. Experts will say that this “captures” the identity of Jesus.

4.     Luke is not doing history here. He aims to “teach” the reader about the identity of the Jesus who will be adult. His identity is not defined by the mother who gave birth to him but by his relationship with God. That identity has been given by the Angel Gabriel, by the angel in Christmas Eve, by Simeon and Anna at the Temple.

5.     And so Jesus, in the question of Mary, is not the child of the couple. He is not “their” Jesus. The story goes to say that Jesus returns to Nazareth with Mary and Joseph. Yes, Jesus becomes “obedient to them” (2/51) and some commentaries say that this is his way of obeying the Father in heaven by accepting the conditions of the incarnation which includes cultural life. Yet, now this Jesus is quite “different” in the eyes of Mary and Joseph. The earlier cold reply, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house? (2/49)” has marked a break, a crack. Later in Luke’s account this will be clear. The members of his family…”are those who hear the word of God and act on it.” (8/21).

6.     Experts say that Jerusalem, for Luke, is the city of beginnings. Annunciation to Zechariah was done there Luc, Jerusalem is the fulfillment of the cross, the first apparitions of the Risen one is in Jerusalem, the Pentecost that starts the Church is in Jerusalem. So to place the 12 year old boy in the Jerusalem Temple has its theology too. His first words about his Father are said here.

7.     On the road from Jerusalem Jesus explains to two disciples on their way to Emmaus the meaning of the scriptures and shows how scriptures relate to his mission. The adult Jesus has a way of understanding the scirptures that disturbs others. He provokes surprise and controversy. This has been announced by Simeon when the child Jesus was brought to the Temple: “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted” (2/34).

8.     Mary and Joseph may have enormous difficulty comprehending the response of the 12 year old boy. Luke presents them as faithful followers of the Jewish tradition and he also portrays them as confused. Just like the disciples, the couple “incarnate” the struggles of an adventurous faith.

9.     Now Luke writes about three days of seeking for the child. That evokes, for his readers, the three days of the empty tomb and then the apparitions. Jesus asks, as a child, “Why were you looking for me?” The same question will be raised in the empty tomb, a question of the two men in dazzling clothes: “Why do you seek the living one among the dead?” (24/5). Luke has his style of writing.

10.           On the road to Emmaus the two disciples lost “their” Jesus. Their expectations about Jesus did not allow them to recognize Jesus as they walked along. Mary and Joseph could not understand the response of Jesus.

11.           The disciples on the road to Emmaus then had their hearts burning. Mary, herself, keeps the events in her heart. It is in the heart that understanding happens. The disciples, after understanding, had to renounce their expectations of Jesus. Mary must have passed through the same process.

12.           In Luke’s “theology” what we know in faith is not acquired. For Luke the theme of moving…walking…taking a path…is important. Like Mary and Joseph and like the disciples to Emmaus we begin with expectations about God and, as my teachers in college like to say, with “pre-judgements”. But suddenly God is not present as we expect. He shows up differently. Unexpectedly. Disturbingly. He takes us on a different route. The story of the lost Jesus in the Temple may tell us that we are led to unexpected routes to pursue our search for God.

The Justice of the Kingdom and Mission-Dialogue

The Justice of the Kingdom

1.   The “Sermon on the Mount” in the Matthew account (Mt5-7) shows the condition for entering the Kingdom. A conversion is called for and this has been signaled prior to the Sermon: “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (4/17). This conversion expresses itself in justice (or “righteousness”). For Jesus this justice is not just any kind of justice; it is justice of the Kingdom.

2.   To understand this justice we try to see what it is not. There is another form of justice and it can be called justice nonetheless. But it still is not the justice of the Kingdom. What is that other form of justice? Jesus tells his listeners in these words, “…unless your justice surpasses that of scribes and Pharisees” (5/20). The justice of the Kingdom surpasses that other form of justice. What is the justice of scribes and Pharisees?

3.   The scribes are the learned in Scriptures. They can give expert commentaries. The Pharisees are the “radical” believers. They want to respect strictly the Law; this Law being so deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition. Scribes and Pharisees have thus attained a certain perfection in the observance of Jewish tradition. They have come to the point of seeing themselves able to evaluate others and say how others should be like them. Hence they impose rules and observances that the very weak cannot, however, follow too well. In fact the observance of the practices does not really open hearts to the possibility of charity. Submission to the observance of rules has become an external gesture forgetting the basic justice in front of God. It has been so external that it has become the mark of separating people from each other. There are those who can follow well the external practices and they are “better” than those who cannot. The social-cultural climate at the time of Jesus was marked by this distinction between the “better” ones and the “lesser” ones.

4.   The justice of the scribes and Pharisees would then be this type of justice; a justice that separates. It is selective justice well applied exclusive to the “better” members of society at the cost of marginalizing others, the “lesser” ones.

5.   To surpass this justice is to accept placing ourselves in the path of happiness; the path of the Beatitudes. We place ourselves in the hands of the Lord God and accept avoiding the separatist justice. We avoid getting stuck in conditions that select who shall be “neighbor”. We avoid getting stuck in conditions that select who shall be “my brother” or “my sister”. The justice of the Kingdom stretches the justice of scribes and Pharisees beyond its exclusive applicability. The other who is not of “my resemblance” is still a neighbor. The other who does not “resemble” me is still my brother, my sister.

6.   The human heart is made to love. The human heart is called to love like the Father. The Father is not selective. He does not choose who to respect and who to accord dignity. Every single person is, for the eyes of God, a beloved. This is so different from the perspective of scribes and Pharisees. Justice thus needs love for it to be justice of the Kingdom. Justice needs to recognize the dignity of each and every single human person, be that person my resemblance or not. The justice of the Kingdom is opposed to “ghetto” justice. The justice of the Kingdom is defined by the demand of perfection that goes beyond the strict observance of the “letter” of the law. “Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect” (5/48).

7.   A conversion is called for. “Repent”, says Jesus. What does this word mean?

8.   We tend to oppose in clear terms bad from good. And then we include opposing “bad people” from “good people”. This might even make us see persons in the light “eternity”…shall they go to “heaven” or to “hell”? Jesus has a different way of putting things. He is more nuanced. The scribes and Pharisees are very clear with their distinctions. They have their erudition and ritual purification to say who’s who in the ranks of the saved. When John the Baptist was ministering he was accused of doing sacrilege; he was accused of doing an illegitimate practice of baptism. Now Jesus notes that publicans and prostitutes he encounters, sinners in the eyes of the ritually pure, feel themselves forgiven by God. Jesus reproaches the ritually pure persons for not having recognized in the practice of John the Baptist the work of the living God.

9.   Whenever we recognize and admit our ignorance we learn more; we deepen ourselves. The good teachers and formators are those who consider themselves as still on the path of learning. A humble sinner has chances of becoming available to the mercy of God. We are, indeed, sinners. We need the mercy of God to have access to his Kingdom. What is important is to recognize where we are; who we are truly. This is “to repent”. In the letter to the Philippians Paul writes, “Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves” (Ph2/3). Do not bloat your virtues. Rather, have the humility to recognize the virtues of others. See their dignity. In doing this we pursue unity, fraternity, mutual respect, solidarity. In doing this we reject division and paralysis of relationships. We reject the option to deny God’s plan. Why should we create division among ourselves when God’s plan is that we be one?

10.        By following the humility of Christ we become servants to each other and servants to the Kingdom. We perceive in others, including those we think are “bad” and “sinners”, as having qualities that can inspire us and help us improve.  To enter the Kingdom we certainly need to discover goodwill of God and the dignity and goodwill of others, no matter who they are. This is “to repent”.

11.        To repent is to step out of being too full of ourselves and assuming reverence towards others. This is “conversion” too. We turn ourselves away from pretending to have completed ourselves fully. We repent, we go down, we humble ourselves and we open doors to the dignity of others. We practice the justice of the Kingdom.

Applied to Mission and Inter-religious dialogue

12.        There is the tendency to think that mission and dialogue impose on others; they harm cultures. The gospel is perceived as interfering in the cultures of peoples. It is best to “do nothing”. Christians should “do nothing”. If ever they enter into dialogue they can compromise their faith. For the sake of dialogue Christians can drop the Gospel and drop Christ.

13.        This is partly due to the notion of “conversion” as pulling people out of the tranquility of their cultures and religions and leading them to a very alienating life form within the Church. Because of this type of “conversion” it is wiser to leave people alone; let them stay in their own cultural and religious traditions. If ever their traditions need improvement and further integration, the Gospel is not necessary. Leave those people alone and let their resources take care of their own wounds. They do not need Christ and they do not need the message of Christ.

14.        This type of thinking is attractive for those who have axes to grind in history. History, they say, proves the many blunders of Christianity and the Church.

15.        But then a closer look at Biblical evidence will reveal that neither Christ nor his message wanted harm against cultures. The Good News of Jesus is for liberation.

16.        What really gives harm to people and their traditions is the indifference and hatred and separatism that people make towards each other. The human heart is made for love and justice. When justice turns selective and exclusive, love comes in to remind people of the dignity of the rejected. When love is abused and turns promiscuous and blind, justice comes in to remind people of principles of respect and equality. This is what Jesus presents in his Sermon. This is what Jesus presents as justice of the Kingdom. It is a justice that is opposed to what separates people and to what makes social life unbearable. This is the message—a liberating message.

17.        Conversion is to this justice. Conversion is not about “club membership”. It is not about pulling people out of their cultural roots and forcing them into something alienating. Conversion is precisely this repenting against egoism, self-centeredness, ghetto centered practices.

18.        Now there are people who have seen the glory of Christ and have seen the enormous beauty of his message. These people have been assembled to share that experience. These people have formed a community called the Church. The Church is a community of persons touched by Christ. The Church is a community of persons doing their best to observe this justice of the Kingdom. The Church is so convinced of the validity of this justice; she wants to share and promote this to other cultures. What’s wrong with that?

19.        To opt for “doing nothing” is marked by ghetto thinking; it is to tell Christians to refuse sharing the message of Christ, to refuse sharing the justice of the Kingdom. It is to tell Christians to lock themselves up and avoid provoking other people. It is to tell Christians to throw Jesus and his message out of the window every time dialogue occurs; and they are to do this for the sake of dialogue. This is ghetto thinking.