Some Christmas Thoughts (with the help of Blessed Charles de Foucauld)

1. Adam and Eve ate from the prohibited tree. A command was given, "You may eat from any and all trees EXCEPT from the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil". There is nothing wrong with knowing what is good. There is nothing wrong with knowing what is evil. The problem lies in the word "and"; hence "good AND evil". 
2. With the help of a Biblical concordance, when this phrase with the word AND emerges in a Biblical text it indicates a problem, a risk. Good AND evil implies the risk of transforming evil into good and transforming good into evil. For example I like to kill my fellow. It is evil but I want to make it a good thing to do. Nobody will tell me it is bad because I consider it good. A confusion is thus described in the phrase "good AND evil"; it is the confusion of mixing up good with evil and losing proper discernment. 
3. Hence the command of the Lord God in the garden is a description of the human condition as created by the Lord God. The human condition involves freedom. You may do anything you want; BUT know the limit. Feel free to do anything you want, BUT recognize the limit. If the human rejects the limit "you will die". It is deadly to live with mixing up evil with good and not knowing which is really good and which is really evil. It is no longer a happy and vibrant life to live according to the intolerable; that is, to live with evil as if evil is good.
4. When the Lord God gave the command, the Lord God immediately supplemented it by saying, "it is not good for the human to be alone". Hence you may do anything you want to do, but know the limits by living with the other. It is in living with the other, or as the book of Genesis would say, with a "helper" that you will know how to manage limits. The "helper" will guide you with the limits. Both Adam and Eve, then, were to be helpers to each other. Life becomes an adventure in which the partners in the garden will explore the whole garden, discover what is in there and do anything they want within the given limit of not eating from the prohibited tree. The adventure dies if they eat from that tree. If they eat from that tree they will start saying that they have no more limits--hence there is nothing more to discover, to learn, to see, to enjoy; there is no need to adventure.
5. Hence the Garden of Eden story, as written by human authors, is a description of human life meanto to be adventurous; and we might add as "socially adventurous". We know the story, Adam and Eve, each ate a fruit from the prohibited tree. They accepted the story line of the serpent and lost the fun and joy of adventuring in life.    
6. I would like to appreciate the story in the perspective of philosophy. The human has limits starting with the limits of human incarnation. I have a body and at the same time I am my body. Hence this body is not just a thing, not just a material object for scientific scrutiny. This body is also me. 
7. Beginning with the human incarnation the world is then delineated into space, time and society. Clearly the delineations indicate human limits. For example in terms of space the human can reach certain places and the human cannot reach certain places. I can reach the pen next to me but not the top of, say, Mount Apo. I can see the computer screen but not the wall behind me. I terms of time I can pace in my own way but I must recognize the pacing of the world around me. I might want to rush planting papaya seeds in my garden but I also must recognize that the best time to do this is during the next rainy season. I may want to drink my cup of coffee but I must wait for the coffee to somehow cool a bit so I will not burn my tongue. In terms of society I may have my own thoughts and feelings and express them to others, but other people also have their own thoughts and feelings. I must recognize that fact and not violate their own access to their own thoughts and feelings. I might want a child to master at once algebra in school but I must also recognize the pacing and capacities of the child for learning algebra. With others I need to keep in mind that they have their thoughts, feelings, joys, pains, plans and goals. Others are my sabbath too.
8. What can I do? This is the human condition with all its limits. I can adventure and adventure with others, in the family, in the neighborhood, in society. Forgetting the limits can create a hellish life. 
9. Just think of the violation we have been doing to the carrying capacity of nature. We demand so much from nature and if nature cannot give in to our demands we intensify our demands and production to the point that we do not care about the plastics we throw into the sea and the carbon we spit into the air. 
10. Just think of conditions of many workers. From many workers are demanded profitable work but with salaries that cannot sustain a decent family life.   
11. Returning to Biblical reflections I am reminded, this time, of the first creation story--the seven-day story. The Lord God is such a marvelous and powerful creator but on the seventh day the Lord God takes a distance from being the marvelous and powerful one. The Lord God takes a distance--a "sabbath distance"--from God's own mastery over the world and allow the created order to take its own stand. Some biblists would poetically say that as soon as the Lord God takes this sabbath distance the created world sings joyfully and thank the Lorde God.
12. Among the creatures is the human being created in the image AND LIKENESS of the Lord God. This word "likeness" specifies that the human being is TO BE LIKE GOD by ALSO taking a Sabbath distance. The human is master of the world, ok, fine, great. But the human is commanded to take a distance from that mastery. The human is created male/female BUT must also be man/woman. You may be male/female BUT BE MAN/WOMAN. You may be master BUT know how to take a distance from that mastery. Note the same structure found in the garden of Eden story: "you may, but". In the case of Adam and Eve, the other person is a "sabbath". The human can be master but the other person must be recognized in his/her sabbath status. Know when to distance from your mastery in order to allow the other person to be himself/herself. (This is one reason why, in the first creation story, the human is told to be vegetarian--eating without competition with the animals. It is only in the Noah's ark story where the Lord God agrees that the human can also eat the meat of animals--BUT not the blood. The same structure is insisted on: "you may, but...")
13. So comes a Christmas meditation. The Word became flesh. If in the creation story the Lord God takes a sabbath distance--a distance from being Lord and Master and Powerful, the same logic is found in the New Testament. In the New Testament the Word became flesh or, as St. Paul would say, "Although he was God, he did not count equality with being God, HE EMPTIED HIMSELF AND BECAME HUMAN". The logic of the sabbath distance is now reiterated in the Incarnation of the Son. The command that the human take a distance from power and mastery, the command to be free with all desires but with recognition of limits is now, in the New Testament, made so evident. The solidarity of the Word of God with us is in our very own incarnation--starting with conception and with the birth in Bethlehem. This solidarity of God with the human is expressed in the confirmation of our creation. We were created "like God" and we were created to have a full, adventurous life. In and through the Incarnation of the Word God has confirmed and affirmed that our very own incarnation is of so much value and dignity.
14. Let me end with some thoughts taken from Blessed Charles de Foucauld. He was so enamored by the Eucharist. In the Eucharist he saw both Christmas and Holy Week. Let me just mention the Christmas side. Each time there is a mass the bread becomes Body of Jesus Christ. It is a Christmas. Jesus was born in the First Century Palestine, and during each mass he is again born in Pacita San Pedro Laguna, in Cotabato City, in New Delhi, in Lima Peru, in Yaounde Cameroon, in Fribourg, Switzerland etc. For Blessed Charles de Foucauld there is always this Christmas going on each day, somewhere, in which the Incarnation occurs. The solidarity of the Incarnation, this time in the Eucharist, assures us that really God is with us. 

On Touching Jesus and Jacob's Wrestling with God

On Touching Jesus
Look at the miracle narratives in the Gospels (and Acts). The narratives are theological constructs written by the authors. Sure, they are based on the historical experience with Jesus, a healer and someone who restored people to their human integrity. But the actual miracle reports were theological texts. Post-Easter Christians, as can be discerned in the letters of St. Paul, understood Christian life as characterized by the efforts to empower each other and to help each other restore each other from pains and struggles. Hence the effort to exert medical help to someone ill is, itself, a miracle.
God does not contradict the nature of God's created world. In and through nature miracles happen. This includes the actions we do to help each other live with dignity. Hence we do not have to look for extraordinary events to witness miracles. Miracles can happen in the most ordinary situations of daily life. I know of someone who made the courageous decision to address his deteriorating health due to vices by consulting, first thing in the morning, the doctor. I'd see that as a miracle. Think of a parent who is so emotionally distant from the children and who decides to re-bond with them. I'd see that as a miracle. Or think of someone so attached to his/her loneliness and decides to seek ways to be happy with the help of friends. Isn't that miraculous? Consider someone who puts work for justice above self-centered career. Isn't that miraculous?
I am not exactly sure of what goes on in people's minds when they wipe their handkerchiefs on statues and images and re-wipe the handkerchiefs on themselves. Do they expect a certain "power" coming from the statues and images? Let us, however, look at one power, it is the "power of the resurrection" as St. Paul stated it (see, for example, 1Cor15). This is seen, for example, in our efforts, small and silent as they may be, in supporting each other to rise constantly from the pull of the dark knowing that "at the end of the day" we will all rise with the Lord.

On Jacob's wrestling with God:
In Genesis we read about Jacob wrestling with God (see Gen 32).
One interpretation of this wresting goes this way. God, who is Almighty, pretends to be weaker. God gives Jacob a trial--a trial that Jacob can handle. So the interpretation extends to our life by saying that God gives us trials--God wrestles with us--but gives us trials that we can handle. 
Is God, however, also really "weak"? Biblical views show God has, from the very start in the creation story, shown a weak side. The Sabbath distance of the seventh day is God's option to take a distance from power and might to be in solidarity with the created world. In the Christian tradition this God will be nailed on the cross. Over the centuries the Church, with her councils, will deal with the "heretical" refusal to acknowledge the humanity of Jesus Christ. One heresy states that Jesus Christ was only pretending to have a hard time up the cross; his God side was using his human side as a front.
Going back to the Jacob story, then, we see that after the wrestling with God Jacob is given a new name, "Israel" signifying "wrestling with God". 
Put this in the whole Jacob cycle of Genesis. Jacob is fearful because of Esau. He is now confronted with his own fear. Jacob is frozen in fear (see his preparations before meeting Esau). 
Jacob is then to confront the fear by first wrestling with God. Face God tonight, face Esau tomorrow. Jacob will address fear by first wrestling with God and receiving God's blessing. What does the story conclude? 
Jacob can never flee from fear. Remember that after the wrestling Jacob will receive a handicap on his hip. Handicapped, he cannot flee, he cannot run. He cannot flee using his own strength--his resources. He will need others--and God. The most authentic way to face fear is by relying on others and God's solidarity with him. Here is where we can appreciate the "weakness" of God. 
Of course we tend to say that God is so strong, all mighty, all powerful and has no weak side. Theologians of the Middle Ages have emphasized this strong and powerful side of God. But "weakness" can be interpreted as the option of God to be on our side, to accompany us, to be one with our joys and pains. "Weakness" can be interpreted as God's willingness to respect us and our being creatures. 
We can appreciate this through what St. Paul called as the "self-emptying" of Jesus: "he emptied himself and became human " he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." (Phil 2/7-8a).
 Remember the Adam and Eve story where God puts them in a condition in which life will be an adventure between both of them. Each will be a partner of the other. It is the human condition described in the Adam and Eve cycle, a human condition that is refused, not acknowledged by Adam and Eve. Now Jacob is to live in adventure with God as partner. Israel is to live in partnership with God.  Jacob thus will have to learn to face, rather than avoid, his fear, thanks to the fact that he is not alone. 
This interpretation, if correct, helps me re-frame my view of God. I am more attuned to the view that God walks with us in life and accompanies us in the trials we face. God does not give trials, God undergoes our trials with us. Both God and us wrestle with our trails, pains, joys, adventures. Hopefully this interpretation helps me face my own neurosis developed in time since childhood by the view that God tests me and sends me trials.

Love and forgiveness in our Christian vocation

In social media sometimes we read posts that wish bad things happening to others. For example we read about differences in political views and affiliations. Those on one side show intense bitterness and hatred against those on the other side. But how would a Christian behave in such situations? We were taught love and forgiveness.

To forgive is in the teaching of Jesus. In the Our Father Jesus also teaches that "if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions (Mt 6/14-15). Jesus insists here on the importance of forgiveness. Now we can think of the story of the unforgiving servant in Mt 18. The parable is given in the context of Peter's question regarding forgiveness "seven times". In the parable the master forgives first. The forgiveness comes first. The servant's unforgiving of another comes next. 

The parable is saying that when one is forgiven the result is that the forgiveness is transmitted to others. God forgives so we know how to forgive. Our forgiveness is a result of our being forgiven. If we refuse to forgive we then do not accept the forgiveness done to us; we do not live up to the fruits of the forgiveness done to us. This thus explains what Jesus means when he says "if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions". The image of the Father not forgiving is, in reality, the refusal of the forgiven to accept the forgiveness of the Father. This refusal has its consequence in relationship with others. One remains stubborn and one treats others harshly. Why will the Father like that?

Jesus also teaches about love of enemies. This is a tough lesson to accept. How can we love enemies? How can we love those who have caused us so much suffering? Jesus in fact tells us to love our enemies and "do good to those who hate you (Lk6/27)". What? Do we do good to those who have done us so much injustice? Do we not have bitterness towards them? How can we love them and even do good to them? Is Jesus crazy in his teaching?

Love comes from a loving heart. One loves because the other person has the dignity of being loved, no matter who he or she is, no matter what he or she has done. Love desires the good of others, including enemies. This is because each and every single person has human dignity and is image of God. By the fact of being existent, each person is worthy of love, especially of God's love. So loving an enemy is not narrowly about feeling affection for that person; it is about recognizing the human dignity proper to that person. Hence we never wish bad things for an other person, no matter who he or she is, not matter what he or she has done. We do good to those we hate by keeping them away from their refusal to live up according to the dignity God has given them. This is part of our Christian vocation in the world. 

The Christian does not promote hatred and discrimination. The Christian does not promote wishing bad things to happen to anyone. The Social Doctrine of the Church has emphasized the central place of human dignity. The Christian is always guided by this dignity.

Love, in the teaching of Jesus, involves our being open to others. We never close the door to the dignity of others. Refusing to forgive is thus refusing to love. Why? This is because the refusal to forgive is a closing of the door. It is a way of saying that the other person ceases to share a future with us. Our dignity is no longer something we share. We are no longer on equal terms. This is a refusal of the dignity that God has given to each person. 

If we are guided by love then we always wish the good of others, even those we hate. This is why we can talk of "forgiveness". In forgiveness we never give up the hope in and the respect for the dignity of others.  

In practical terms we oppose the injustice that someone else will do, in love we protect that person from doing the injustice! We struggle to make sure that the person is disabled from doing injustice. Note that we wish the good of the other person--we wish that the other person step away from the evil of injustice. We wish that the person exercises justice. We wish that the person stays faithful to the dignity God has given him or her. This is why we forgive not just seven times but seventy times seventy times--that is, we forgive infinitely. We remain faithful to the dignity that God has given to each and every single human person.

Love hopes to protect others from doing bad things. This too is forgiveness. This is a way of recognizing and respecting the dignity proper to others. Because of their dignity and because they are image of God they must be re-located from injustice to justice, from violence to peace, from hatred to love itself. The bad things that others might be doing only harm them. The bad things destroy them. Our struggle for justice does not involve wishing bad things to happen to the unjust. It involves restoring the goodness that the dignified person is really capable of doing. 

God loved us first. God has forgiven us first. Hence the fruit of what God has done to us is for us to transmit love and forgiveness in our relationships. We would like to have love and forgiveness bloom in our actions even if we find it impossible to delete the pains others have done to us. 

Jesus taught that we be "perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt5/48)". The perfection of the heavenly Father is something we can always do. The Father loves, the Father forgives, we can do the same. Christian vocation is thus not about doing things we can never do. We have been given guidelines by Jesus and we can do them as best as we can. 

Bible and Word of God: A Catholic reading

We Catholics believe that the Scriptures help us listen to God's Word. Now, "Bible" and "God's Word" are not exactly the same. The different books in the Bible had been written to express, with human language and culture, divine reality. This divine reality is God's Word which goes beyond all of us. Hence in the Catholic Church we are careful not to put God's Word and written text together strictly.
The Bible, as recognized in the Catholic Church, allows us to have access to God's Word, but the Bible is not exactly the text directly said by God. God's Word has come to us through history and in many ways through creation, the sacraments, the Church. God, also, manifested to humanity in the Incarnation of Christ. This is the definite and conclusive expression of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Note then that we have Scriptures that were written by human authors to precisely say how the Word of God got involved in human life.
It is alright then to use all sorts of analyses to study and undertand the Bible. Even scientific analyses, including archaelogy, are used. These analyses help us to AVOID projecting our own ideas and presumptions on the Biblical texts. These help us AVOID just interpreting the Bible in any way we want. The analyses help us place ourselves in a more appropriate listening to God's Word. It is dangerous to let Scriptures say things that are based solely on our wishes. The Biblical texts were written by human authors; we grapple with the texts as we live in our own cultures. This is part of our own human incarnation.
Of course, in the Catholic faith, we still ask for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church says that the Biblical texts were written by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We are not the very first who have received the texts; we are not the very first who interpret them. In fact we are, today, guided by a long tradition of interpretations done by so many other persons and communities in the past. Think of the Church Fathers; think of St. Jerome; think of St. Augustine. There were individuals like St. Thomas Aquinas who did their own attempts to interpret the Biblical books. Look at the published Bibles we hold today--like the New American Bible or the Jerusalem Bible. They have headings and paragraph-titles. Those are interpretations also. (Let us not forget that translations are, themselves, interpretations too).
The Church herself has stood with her own dogmas and her own councils. These view Scriptures in specific ways--in ways that we can consider as "interpretations of the Church". Take the example of the notion that Christ is fully human and fully divine, as defined by councils like that of Chalcedon. The Church read sciprtures and came out with this definite view about Christ. The Church saw in Scriptures this very fact about Jesus Christ. The Church interpreted Scriptures and established her dogmas. Dogmas then can be understood as positions taken by the Church in her understanding of Scriptures.
For a Catholic then, the Church herself serves as guide for reading and interpreting Scriptures.
The Catholic faithful does not read the Bible as a purely private affair. Catholic reading of the Bible is community based. We read in common, in community. We just do not make our own private interpretations without consulting what the community--the Church--says. The Bible belongs to the community, not just to our private selves.
Remember the the human authors who wrote the Biblical books were writing for their readers. They were writing for their communities. Take the example of the gospel accounts. Each gospel author wrote for his own specific community. Mark, for example, was writing for his community in Rome. Furthermore, the authors were taking information from communities too. The bases of their written texts were derived from their lives and inter-actions within communities. Mark, again, took information from memories of people, including St. Peter himself, about Jesus. Matthew and Luke, for example, even took parts of Mark's text to write their own gospel accounts.
It is clear that, from the very start, the Biblical books were not meant for private interpretations. Of course we may read in the privacy of our own rooms. But as soon as we interpret, we need to consult the community, the Church and the Church's communication with the scientific community analyzing the Bible books. This is part of our human condition as incarnate. Our incarnation is not exclusive of others. Each individual human is at the same time social and communal.

Good Shepherds in Society

In ancient times in Palestine--around the time of Jesus--a man was supposed to be someone in control of emotions, someone who can influence others with words and deeds, and someone with force and courage in front of battles and violence. A man had to show qualities of leadership. 

In the gospel accounts we see the gospel authors picturing Jesus precisely as a leader with skills to pull out of adverse situations. Jesus was so persuasive he was followed by the excluded, the poor, the ill, etc. He was even considered a master--a "rabbi"--by some who chose to follow him closely. 

But then he was also crucified. He was publicly humiliated by those in power. In the account of Mark Jesus was abandoned by all and Jesus himself cried out a feeling of being abandoned by God. 
The 4th gospel gives a different picture. Jesus was viewed by his executioners as a bandit, a thief. For John the evangelist, Jesus was killed because he was a shepherd...a "good shepherd".
Shepherds, at the time of Jesus, were marginalized. They lived far from the social milieu. They were more in the company of beasts, animals. 

In the Old Testament, however, the picture of a king was that of a shepherd taking care of the people, his flock. Hence the kings who did not serve as shepherds were so negatively recorded by the historical authors in the Old Testament. Think of king Ahab, for example. 

The 4th gospel pictures Jesus as a shepherd--excluded from society but close to the ideal of kingly leadership. Unlike a king, however, Jesus did not rule over people. He was a leader in terms of witnessing to the path leading to God. 

Hence the crucified is leader, an ideal leader. The man on the cross had a command of his own emotions. He gave his life to others to a radical extreme, " I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own" (Jn1o/17-18). The good shepherd offers his own life while battling against the wolves that harm the flock. 

We know the story. Jesus said yes to his mission of the Father, and the Father said yes to what the Son did through the resurrection of the Son. With this Jesus was able to assure us of our own eternal life. Hence John tells us about the guarantee of Jesus himself, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand" (Jn10/28). 

We can pause a bit and ask how we can "lead" also not with the usual powers and wealth around us but with giving of self. In other words, maybe we can build a social life which is based less on the capacity to buy lots of things from the mall and the capacity to have powers over others....and based more on a more fraternal social life where we offer ourselves, daily, to others. 

Can we be good shepherds to each other? 

Mark, Constipation and Christianity

Remember that story when Jesus was criticized because his disciples were not following the same religious practice--fasting--like many others? Jesus replied with that expression: new wine and new wineskin. (See Mk2/18-22). Remember too the story about the day--the Sabbath day--when Jesus and his disciples were walking in the wheat-fields? The disciples started eating grain heads. They were heavily criticized for not doing what the religious practices required. (See Mk2/23-28). 
In the account of Mark we see that Jesus and his disciples were constantly spied on. They were doing things that were quite ordinary. But the Pharisees sought something wrong in the ordinary things that the disciples were doing. It was time to find reasons to accuse Jesus. In the gospel account of Mark Jesus was, at this point of the story, well-known among the people. Crowds followed him. His teaching was so simple and quite "relaxed" (compared to the traditional teachings.) Jesus announced God's forgiveness and he was close to the "little ones"--the publicans, the ill, the prostitutes. He was too “cool”, so to speak. But the Pharisees did not want the “cool” and “relaxed” type. The Pharisees were, to coin a term I once learned, “constipated”. 
The disciples of Jesus were equally cool. Hence the accusation: Jesus and his disciples were not religiously constipated enough. "“Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?” (Mk2/24). For the Pharisees, to live religiously meant following the practices and observing prohibitions. In other words they were so focused on what one should not do. For them religiosity meant strict observance of rules norms, precepts required by the Law and ancient tradition. 
It may be interesting to note that in the account of Mark, all this polemic against Jesus starts right at the very early chapters. If we try to understand this strategy of Mark, we might say that Mark was raising a question, namely: "What does God want from us, how does God want us to relate with God?" Does God want us to relate with a dictator or with a partner in the covenant? 
In the Old Testament we read, for example, texts about laws. But the authors always insisted that the institution of laws were meant for life and liberation from slavery and injustice. Hence the God offering the laws was a God of life and liberation. When the Laws were instituted as the people of Israel entered Canaan the aim was that they will live a social life of justice and fraternity. They were not to repeat what was being done in Egypt during their days of slavery. 
In the laws was the stipulation that God and the people of Israel agreed on a covenant--a partnership. God and people were partners. In fact, from the very start of Genesis we read  that for God the human was created as God's image and likeness, not as slaves.
Over time there emerged a rather strict observance of laws to the point of being fixated by the letters of the laws. The accusers of Jesus were precisely stuck in that mentality. Hence to bow before God was to be like a slave in front of a fearful master.
Jesus wanted to make it clear. The God he introduced was a different type, a God who was a partner of the covenant. God was a Father, Abba. Jesus did not deny the role of the Law. But he understood the Law as facilitating fraternity and justice. God was not a despot; God was a God of tenderness and pity. 
Was it not that the mission of Jesus was to "promote" the Kingdom wherein the love of God reigned? The desire of God was not exactly the strict literal observance of laws. The desire of God was to make the human stand up and pull out from things that prohibit the fullness of life. God did not seek to crush the human and have the human nailed to the cross and then have the Son serve as substitute. God's desire was to help the human make the effort to be fully and truly human. 
I love the word, "bloom". God wants us to bloom in life. To bloom, we place ourselves in front of God as Our Father and partner in the Covenant. To bloom, we stand in full confidence that God is Abba and we are God's children.
This, I think, is so central in the account of Mark. I am reminded constantly of what Claude Geffre wrote. Christianity is not exactly a religion. Oh, do not get me wrong. It is also a religion, but a "religion of the Gospel". Christianity is not a religion, period. it is not a religion obsessed with ceremonies and rituals and all sorts of practices and observances. Oh, these too are found in Christianity, as in other religions. But the central focus is not on these but on Jesus who points to the Father. Christianity is gospel based wherein we take the responsibility of being partners in the Covenant. The Gospel is not proclaimed to promote the constipation of people. It is about life and the fullness of life. Voila, my thoughts this morning. 

Some thoughts on "the power of the resurrection"

Jesus is risen. This is in the heart of Christian proclamation. St. Paul himself said it. If the resurrection never happened then proclamation and faith will be empty: "if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith"  (1Cor15/14). The proclamation comes from an experience.

Remember what the Gospel accounts tell us. The death of Jesus made his disciples go nuts. Their hope went to the tomb with Jesus. We can read about this in the "road to Emmaus" story. Jesus then had to show up--appear--to his disciples. He made himself recognized to his disciples--that the same Jesus they met and lived with was the very same Jesus risen. This made the disciples open up to a new understanding of their hope and faith. The Jesus they saw die on the cross and put in the tomb...well, he was risen from death. St. Peter proclaimed the faith. "God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses" (Act2/32).

The experience of encountering Jesus risen changed the life of the disciples. From doubt they moved to faith. From despair to hope. From sadness to joy. What they had in mind before, such as the renewal of the nation, had to give way to a new insight. God had his plan and now, in the resurrection, it was fully revealed.

Henceforth, the disciples were encouraged and ready to proclaim even at the risk of losing their lives. Remember that they were excluded from the synagogue. Peter and Paul were killed. Etc.
Belief in the resurrection was not an academic topic. It was not just a simple affirmation. The resurrection became a power for them, a "force". It was a power to transform life, the life of the disciples. This is why St. Paul called the resurrection of Jesus a "power": "to know him and the power of his resurrection" (Ph3/10).

For St. Paul and the disciples the resurrection became a force of transformation. It became a force not just for the hope of life after death; it also became a force working in concrete daily life. Christian life, thus, is a life that leaves itself seized by the power of the resurrection; becoming a life that bears fruit.

This may sound too "ole ole, bruhaha", abstract and meant only for "churchy" people. But come to think of it, indeed, there is power in the resurrection. Many words can describe it, but one word that comes to mind is "healing". The resurrection is healing even in the here and now.

Just pause and think about it. Think of what St. Paul said:  without the resurrection we are empty. I am sure that at certain moments in life we are stuck in situations that are so tough...there is no "solution". We're stuck. As what Fritz Perls said (and this is my mantra, so to speak), "the only way out is through". In other words, there is no way out of the gutter, the hole, the mud, the tomb. We just have to "go through" the situation and see what might happen next. You know what I mean.

I am reminded of Camus' discussion on Sisyphus and Sartre's nausea. We're just rolling that rock uphill then downhill and there's no exit from it. But then there is the resurrection! This rut or tomb we might be in does not hold the final destiny. Just the thought--nay, the belief--in the resurrection, can transform life inside the rut. It can be healing even as the wound stays gaping wide. If the only way out is through, then go through it with, but this time with the power of the resurrection. In the 4th gospel we read: "I have told you this so that you might have peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world (Jn16/33)”.

Even in the small dark corners of a dreary life, some gestures can be that of the resurrection. St. Therese of Lisiex was a master on this.

Maybe just around us, next door maybe, or even those in our households...there may be persons stuck in their own ruts unable to step out. They sense that there is "no solution". Anyway, I have no monopoly of all ruts. There is a whole solidarity of rutfullness among us. We might just be a bunch of smelly Lazaruses stuck in the tomb with bandages covering us. Others may need a word, a gesture, a sign of acceptance, a smile, whatever.... They too might need to have a sense of the power of the resurrection. The tomb is empty. It will be empty for them and for each of us. This is Easter’s message for me today, and it is healing.