"Doubting Thomas" - a person of faith or a person of beliefs?

This weekend we will read about Thomas.  Likely someone will refer to him as “doubting Thomas” though he was brave enough to be out and about after Jesus’ crucifixion while many of the disciples were fearfully cowering in a locked room.  Because he was brave enough to be out and about, likely continuing work in imitation of Jesus, he missed when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the “chicken” disciples locked in the room. 

Now, none of these female and male disciples believed Jesus had risen until they saw Jesus.  Yet somehow over the course of history, Thomas’ character has been maligned as though his faith is of inferior ilk because he too didn’t believe until he saw the resurrected Jesus.  One might argue that since Thomas was brave enough to continue Jesus’ work, his faith surpassed that of the chicken disciples.  He operated in faith without the certitude of belief, and the opportunity for certitude presented itself a week later for him than for those paralyzed in fear.

Faith is acting based upon trust.  Belief is certitude that something is so.  We act in faith without knowing based upon what we accept in certitude as beliefs.  So, in some ways faith is the opposite of belief while at the same time stands upon the shoulders of belief.

What did the disciples believe?  What was their certitude? 

Scripture writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31).”

Ah, they believed Jesus was the “Messiah” and “Son of God” and such belief would give them life. 

Once upon a time, Christians had no creed.  They just came to simple acceptance that Jesus was Son of God and Messiah and somehow following his example would render life.  The various Christian communities approached this in slightly different ways but were united in their simple foundational beliefs.  They acted in faith upon those simple beliefs and their actions galvanized a caring community.  One might say they were long on faith-based actions and short on certitude coming from beliefs.

But, as time marched forward and human nature’s impact took its toll, things changed.  Within a few hundred years of Jesus’ death people had vehement arguments as they tried to complete the sketch of Jesus, filling in details not recorded.  People sought certitude where there was none and so they ascribed certitude to their suppositions.  Yet scripture tells us that Jesus did many things not recorded.  Scripture seems to tell us at the end of the last written gospel, that the details about Jesus aren’t as important as just remembering a few key things: Jesus is the Messiah and is Son of God.

But since humans are curious to know intimate details about celebrities, the interpolations and interpretations continued.  Also, the cerebral exercise of “believing” in certitude is a lot less work and involves a lot less risk than the physical effort of “acting” in faith.  It seems too that many humans fixate upon being right more so than on doing right. 

History tells us laypeople argued in the marketplace and on the streets about these unknown and unknowable details associated with Jesus.  Uncomfortable with the public debate and in an effort to force unity, the emperor Constantine, not Pope Sylvester, called the Council of Nicea. 

The debate tearing apart Constantine’s kingdom was one around the question, “What does it mean to be the Son of God?”  One camp insisted one relationship between God and Jesus and the other camp insisted upon another.  Church leaders leading the different camps sanctioned violence against those holding different views.   As emperor, Constantine could not defend his kingdom with intra-country division.  So, he called all the bishops together in hopes that they would end the internal argument.

The Council of Nicea produced the Nicene Creed, which expanded upon what one must believe to be called a Christian.  It primarily was trying to give a definitive answer about the somewhat unknown and unknowable relationship between Jesus and God.  But the debate did not subside with the imposition of the Creed.  The creed just divided people.  Some of that division went underground while some of it remained public.  The creed said nothing of love.  It said nothing about actions.  It said nothing about faith. 

We fast forward to today and see the continued shift from people who acted caring for each other due to a trusting faith based upon limited certitude of beliefs to being people who build an elaborate, complex and intricate set of certitudes (beliefs) and whose actions focus mainly on imposing or propagating their certitudes upon others. 

According to scripture, God is the full embodiment of love and truth.  One might assume from Jesus' actions, words and role as son of God that he's big on love and truth too.

However, somehow “love” has transformed from being patient, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, not seeking its own interests, not quick-tempered, not brooding over injury, not rejoicing over wrongdoing but rejoicing with the truth, bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things (1 Cor 13:4-7).

Though scripture admits it does not provide a complete record, certitude is ascribed to interpolations of things not said.  Scripture says nothing of Jesus mandating clergy gender for all perpetuity.  But “love” has been perverted to ascribing certitude to Jesus’ intentions and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people unless they affirm certitude drawn from conjecture. 

Oddly enough certitude is ascribed to things contrary to what is recorded in scripture too.  For example, scripture indicates Peter was married yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ desire for celibate clergy and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people too.

Scripture says nothing about birth control yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ opinions on the topic and using that certitude to marginalize people, deny health benefits and sue civil governments that insist upon providing healthcare coverage.

Scripture indicates Jesus likely healed a homosexual centurion’s male sexual servant/lover.  (As background, Matthew 8 and Luke 7 contain the story in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal his pais who is his entimos doulos.  The Greek word pais can mean son, servant or a special servant who is a male lover.  Entimos doulos means “honored slave.”  Given the context, it is unlikely that the centurion speaks of his son and the added qualifier of entimos doulos seems to say this was no ordinary servant.  This leans towards the likeliest meaning is that the centurion told Jesus he was not worthy to have him come under his roof to heal his male sexual servant, but if he only said the word, his honored servant would be healed.)  Yet “love” has been perverted to certitude about dehumanizing marginalization of homosexuals instead of following Jesus’ example of extending tender inclusive care.

Scripture indicates Jesus used compassionate, merciful common sense but somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that Jesus wants mothers to die unless the child she carries who is killing her can also be saved.  Somehow love has been perverted into certitude that Jesus would prefer two dead people than just one dead person.

Scripture doesn’t indicate Jesus excluded people from communion based upon their morality or political voting patterns.  Indeed “at that first Eucharist before he died”, Jesus gave communion to Judas, knowing that Judas had already betrayed him and had not confessed to it.  But, somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that communion should be withheld from people who don’t share certitude of beliefs 100% in line with those of the hierarchy.

Many in the church scratch their heads that the masses flee organized religion.  Yet, many who have fled organized religion do so because they passionately desire to imitate Jesus’ caring actions acting in faith rather than certitude.  The certitude they carry is that they must care for the world and all its creation without judging it. 

Are you a person of deep faith trusting and acting to unite, include and care though you do not know or are you a person filled with certitude of beliefs that justify your inaction, rejection or divisiveness?   Do you believe scripture when it says it doesn't contain Jesus' complete history or do you require so much certitude that you ascribe certitude to your interpretation that scripture is the complete revelation of God?  Do you require more certitude than scripture offers so you insert certitude into interpolations, traditions and dogmatic utterances?  Are you like Thomas able to act in faith despite uncertainty or are you like the majority of disciples, locking yourself in somewhere, cowering in fear waiting for certitude?  Do you malign those who act in faith while you enshroud yourself in what certitude you have and hide in fear?  Are you a person of faith or a person of beliefs?

A smaller, purer church...

I unintentionally went on an Easter “bender” this weekend.  Saturday night I hit the moderately attended Easter vigil at the local cathedral and then went to a moderately attended Easter morning Mass with one of my daughters.  Since that Mass included only two Easter hymns and one of them was played at a tempo my daughter thought might inspire Jesus to re-mount himself on the cross, she insisted we hit yet another Easter Mass in hopes of singing some standard favorite Easter hymns.  That Mass wasn’t full either with most every pew having room for a few more people. 

I seem to recall Easter Masses that were standing-room-only even as recent as a few years ago.  “Where have all the people gone, long time passing?”

The attendance shift did not go unnoticed.  One of the priests remarked about the decline in Mass attendance over even the last 5 – 10 years.  However, he said that we don’t know why people stay away.  And, once again, I found myself uttering something aloud in church when I said, “Yes we do.”  But, this time I was not alone because my daughter said the same thing simultaneously, and then began to enumerate causes: sexual abuses, bishops' lack of accountability, power abuses, money mismanagement, misplaced priorities, new Mass translation, marginalization of women and homosexuals, ignoring the poor and immigrants, political agendas of bishops, excommunications, leaders who seem to act opposite the gospels, etc…

I found the whole thing a bit ironic.  On Christmas day, 1969 Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) gave a radio address that predicted a smaller and more pure church.  That has been the mantra of neo-orthodox Catholics for decades with them speaking gleefully about how wonderful having a smaller, purer church would be, and working hard to achieve it. 

Well, it seems that with Easter unable to draw a full-house many places, the much vaunted "smaller church" has arrived!  The ortho-cratic temple police succeeded driving people away, to the point many won’t stomach even one sentimental holiday liturgy with them.  One would expect celebration for achieving a target rather than hearing “Wha’ happened?”    

Note to Ortho-crats: If you have a long-standing stated objective and undertake sustained concerted efforts to achieve that objective, don’t feign dismay and confusion that you achieved your target.

Some area churches were giving away copies of a book written by a prominent but theologically unqualified self-promoting Catholic author.  Having heard the guy speak, and read part of one of his books, I know he plays fast and loose with facts, inventing them if necessary to support his points.  He counts on people not checking his facts and with millions of sold books, he seems to have assumed correctly.  My theory is that since the guy also runs a secular motivational speaking business, his Jesus-business is a front to increase demand for his secular business – but using a non-profit organization and all its tax shelters to do his marketing.

He also plays fast and loose with Catholic theology but the hierarchy loves him anyway because he rabidly implores people to follow hierarchical leaders blindly.  Jesus says the only unpardonable sin is denial of the Spirit but the Catholic hierarchy these days seems very comfortable denying the Spirit in others and deems questioning them or holding them accountable as unpardonable sins instead. 

I’m not going to promote the guy by mentioning his name.  But, I will say that his charitable foundation with an abysmal score of 23.84 out of 70, and zero out of a possible four stars has the lowest ratings I’ve ever seen given by Charity Navigator, an organization that tracks legitimacy and fiduciary responsibility of charities. 

As I mentioned, many of the neo-orthodox love the guy and so does the hierarchy even though the guy spouts numerous theologically incorrect concepts…but then so do the neo-orthos and the hierarchy.

Anyway, I looked at one of his websites and found this sales pitch for his books:

You decide… Forget the spiritual benefits for a moment and focus just on the financial benefits. If one person comes back to the Church because you give them a book on the way out of Church this Easter or Christmas and that book re-engages them, here are the statistics: If that person is 40 years old and lives to be 80, and puts just $10 in the basket each week, that returning Catholic will contribute $520 over the next year… and $20,800 over the rest of his/her lifetime.

Ah, suddenly it becomes clear… a “smaller, purer” church is “good” but a “smaller, poorer” one isn’t.  Oh the difference a vowel can make.  Those retro, disco-ball vestments call for real coin, my friends.  And let us not forget the bill to pay for the new Mass translation materials.  Lobbying politicians also is an expensive hobby as are direct marketing campaigns to marginalize and dehumanize fellow humans.  But, all those pale in comparison to the expenses of court costs fighting to not pay restitution to abuse survivors and then eventually paying restitution to abuse survivors when every "loving" last effort to discredit them and avoid responsibility fails.  Let’s face it, dividing the flock costs money so they need to re-attract some of the people they drove away to help pay to drive them away again. 

One pastor questioned in his Easter bulletin column if the early Christians truly sold everything and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles, who then ensured that "There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:34 - 35)."  This same pastor (an apostle), as is the case with most pastors (apostles), allocates precisely 0% of the parish budget to care for the poor. He instead encouraged others to share with the poor.  "Where has all the money gone, long time passing?"  The money currently laid at apostles' feet primarily goes to fund the apostles' staff and property upkeep.  And we wonder, "where have all the people gone?"   

It is a smaller church but is it a “purer” one?  I dunno.  For whatever reason when I turned to shake hands with one woman near me at the sign of peace, she looked me squarely in the eye and then turned her back on me...without shaking my hand.  Was that indicative of a purer church?  Who would Jesus snub?

Interestingly enough, the gospel reading for the Easter Vigil tells of the three women learning of Jesus’ resurrection and running to tell the Apostles…who didn’t believe them...  Let’s think about this.  The male apostles did not believe the truth of the gospel good news the women apostles told them and this dehumanizing dismissal of the women's experience is just skimmed over usually.  

How did the male apostles' "epic fail" initially rejecting the gospel good news proclaimed to them by women turn into their supremacy in interpreting the gospels, their exclusive control on the ministry to proclaim it, and their exclusion of women from proclaiming it anymore? Perhaps the same way today's apostles doubt that their early Christian predecessors actually took money given them and used it for the poor instead of building edifices and staffs?

There seems to be a fair amount of re-writing history to preserve what the apostles hope is truth rather than seeking truth.  And this is accompanied by persecution of those who commit the unpardonable sin of questioning the invented history as they seek truth.  The ortho-crats prefer that those who commit the unpardonable sin of questioning invented histories leave the community.  This has happened with many believers leaving the community.  How sustainable is the current model?   

If the church will not die unto invented history, can it be resurrected in truth?  Do you and should you fund your own or others’ delusions?  Do you overflow in sharing with the poor or is it a token gesture to make you feel good?  Should we be concerned that the church is smaller or rejoice that many of the faithful left the institution rather than lose their faith? 

Reflections for the Easter Triduum

This Holy Thursday marked a first for me.  I actually uttered the words, “Well…nooo SHIT” aloud in a cathedral during Mass.  I did not mean to offend or to say it but it slipped out as a spontaneous reaction to the bishop’s homily.  Let me summarize what he said that prompted it: 

1.  He encouraged priests to visit people, telling them they shouldn’t remain holed-up in their rectories. 

2.  He observed that most priests in his diocese were like him and preferred staying home in solitude, as though this was a natural personality disposition for a parish priest – to eschew the people of God (which by the way “People of God” is the definition of “the church” according to the catechism).

3.  He said he had visited parishioners when he was assigned as a transitional deacon decades ago and sympathized that visiting laypeople is “tedious and tiresome.”

4.  He said that when he undertook this “tedious and tiresome” task of visiting people, he also extended an offer to every single couple experiencing marital difficulties to help them repair their marriages but no one accepted his generous offer.

And at that point, imagining a married person being approached by a young seminarian with no marital experience, no training in marital counseling (because seminaries don’t have courses in marital counseling), no training in marriage and family living (because seminaries don’t teach that either), possibly struggling with his own sexuality, and sporting an attitude that talking to them was “tedious and tiresome” but offering to fix their broken marriage,  I let loose with, “Well…nooo SHIT!” at the thought of his generous offer being wholesale rejected.

The event at which this took place was another first for me.  I’d never attended a Holy Thursday Chrism Mass.  This is the annual Mass in which the holy oils for the year are blessed and later distributed to representatives from every diocesan parish – a profound symbolic connection point for the “catholic” (def. “universal”) church. 

At this liturgy priests also renew their vows and re-pledge their obedience to their bishop.  So, it’s a bit of a bro-mance moment amongst the ordained to the point that the bishop began his homily telling the laity that his homily really wasn’t for them.  We were kind of interlopers in their same-gender love-fest liturgy, I guess.  Or maybe we were supposed to serve as adoring fans or props; I don’t know.  But since the message wasn’t intended for me, it gave me the opportunity to listen and reflect as a third party.

Having operated as a business leader for over a decade, I began thinking about organizational development topics which flowed into assembling a hypothetical priest job posting in my head.  When I post a job, I first think about the skills and personality characteristics that are important for the role.  For a parish priest, one might assume “likes people” is at the top of the list along with “likes to interact with people.”  In the business world, we call those “meets minimum” criteria. 

Unlike a priest ordained as a contemplative monk who devotes many hours to praying for people from afar, a parish priest is supposed to work with the people.  Canon law even tells them they have to get to know the people.  I guess I assumed, incorrectly, that a church leader would want to do that versus think it a “tedious and tiresome” part of the job.  And though one can sometimes manage to keep a job in which a major facet of that job is considered a drudgery, it’s hard to see it as a “vocation” (a calling) rather than an “occupation” (something that occupies your time and provides income). 

Also, typically embracing such a major dimension of the job becomes a “critical success factor” for the role.  So, this launched me into wondering what church leadership think are critical success factors versus what the laity think are critical success factors.

There’s the pious theatre dimension of the clergy leading worship - though scripture never indicates Jesus led religious worship services.  The pious theatre dimension arises from an imitation of Jesus’ Last Supper celebrated with friends – the one where he got down on his knees, washed their dirty, sweaty, stinky feet and served them rather than expecting to be served.  Currently seminaries place a lot of emphasis on training pious thespians but the part where Jesus humbly washes feet is often rather lost other than the annual required symbolic re-enactment during the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper. 

There’s also the teaching dimension of the clergy in an effort to imitate Jesus who did a lot of teaching.  But usually when Jesus taught it was to the chagrin of religious leaders of his day.  Therefore, imitating Jesus as a teacher requires imitating his teaching style of showing up at places where he wasn’t the leader and often wasn’t welcomed, and then usurping control from religious leaders who are spouting self-serving messages that they attribute to God. Today as in Jesus’ time, religious authorities try to stop people who do this by censuring, excommunicating or mocking them.    

Somehow church leaders shifted Jesus from the role of a non-conformist who challenged and flaunted religious authority to one of a dutiful, obedient, non-boat-rocking middle manager singing religious leaders’ party line and praises.  They say they work for Jesus but I really think they have made Jesus their subordinate. 

By ascribing their teachings an “infallibility” designation, they declare they already fully know the mind of Jesus and have known it for centuries and anything they don’t know ain’t worth knowin’.  They try to convince the laity that there is no need to explore or discover more about Jesus than what they have bottled and been selling for years.  And like Coca-Cola, they say anything bottled outside their franchise isn't the real thing.  Such explorations and deviations are labeled “erroneous” or “dangerous” by church leaders.

No wonder they try to lock Jesus in the tabernacle and limit access, meting out Jesus through the sacraments that they say they control.  How dangerous it is to let true Jesus imitators operate and how dangerous to let people think they can access Jesus without the clergy dispensing him.  It might make religious leaders truly subordinate to Jesus again and ruin their “Jesus vending machine” business.  

Imitating Jesus’ teaching style also involves teaching from experiential knowledge of people’s day-to-day struggles.  It’s a “heart” and “hand” thing more than a “head” thing mouthing proper thoughts. Thus, it involves teaching a lot outside of the four walls of religious buildings and teaching via actions.  It involves humility.  It involves loving people with an agape love blossoming from inextricably intertwined personal intimacy.

I have difficulty seeing how this leads to thinking an entire diocese of priests who prefer solitude and find interacting with people “tedious and tiresome” is anything other than a huge problem.  I think my kids might use the term "face-palm" at this point. 

O.K. so we’ve identified a problem.  Hopefully it’s just isolated to this one diocese but I kind of doubt it.  The bishop who spoke yesterday has served as seminary rector where seminarians from many dioceses study.  He’s pretty much spent his entire late adolescent through adult life hanging out with priests, and from that context he found his sentiments perfectly natural observations.  So, the question is “What can and should laypeople do?” 

Prayer is always good.  We can and should pray that these guys who carry delusions of being the most superior imitators of Christ have an awakening.  But I think action in the form of interaction is good too.  Regardless of what religious leaders think, they should learn as much or more from the laity than we do from them.  What are we doing to help educate these guys?

We are all called to imitate Christ and that means sometimes telling religious leaders you disagree.  Sometimes a little creativity and humor helps convey the lesson in a non-threatening way.  For example earlier this week I sent the bishop an email inquiring about incense usage due to my asthma, received his reply that incense would be in abundance so I might want to avoid the liturgy, and responded back that I would attend, sit as near the front as possible and let him witness any breathing issues that resulted from his incense overuse.  I explained that I was sure that since incense is just a symbol of our prayers, I knew he’d rather have the real deal in abundance by having me and my prayers there than having an abundance of the symbol.  I attended and incense seemed judiciously applied and the cathedral doors remained open providing good ventilation…no respiratory distress. 

Other times, yes, you will be treated like Jesus was – you’ll be seen as a threat by those in power - you’ll be labeled and ostracized by some.  If you’re not being labeled as a troublemaker by religious authorities every once in a while, are you imitating Jesus as well as you should?

I’ve said before that the power of the papal office is changing and the extent to which it changes depends more upon the 1.2 billion Catholics than the one guy wearing the pointy hat.  If 1.2 billion people said, “no” to clergy abuses, to corruption, to misuse of funds, to uncharitable treatment of people, to the marginalization of women, to the neglect of the sick and impoverished, etc… things would change in a hurry.  If we can die to our own apathy, and desire for either approval or absence of disapproval, the church could be resurrected this very Easter.  Or is that too “tedious and tiresome” for us?