Anti-Anti Pascal's Wager

It's been a while.  We'll save the explanations and excuses for another time, however.

I was involved recently in a discussion on Facebook with a friend who is, for personal reasons, "taking a break from organized religion."  As part of that discussion, one individual felt the need to post this:
After the original status poster indicated that he did not ask for a debate on his status, I pulled out of the conversation, but noted that I saw problems with this approach and that it might make a "fun blog post."  So here is that blog post.

pwndleet Incorporated in Atheism: The Case Against God was "Smith's Wager," with which the author had closed a taped lecture and a later speech delivered in 1976 to the Society of Separationists. From the transcript of that speech:
As ...one final argument or satire on an argument, you may have heard of Pascal's wager at some point. Blaise Pascal was the famous French mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. He came up with this argument which consequently became quite famous, which went something as follows. Reason can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Weigh the odds. If the atheist is correct, we're going to die, nothing will happen, and nothing is lost. But if the Christian is correct, the nonbelievers are going to believe in Hell for eternity. So it seems like the practical odds would lie with Christianity. We would wager on Christianity because the practical odds are so important. If you wager on Christianity and there is no god, you don't lose anything.
The first obvious problem with this is it completely shoves aside the whole issue of intellectual integrity, as if you can just do a complete turn-about in your beliefs willy-nilly without suffering any psychological damage, which simply isn't possible. It would require such a gross miscarriage of intellectual integrity to do this kind of thing that it's inconceivable that someone with Pascal's kind of mind would even offer it.
But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager:
1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.
2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.
Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.
Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason on the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.
Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.
Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.
We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again.
[edit]See More

Firstly, let me say that I am not a huge fan of Pascal's wager as an apologetics tool.  I find it to be an interesting thought experiment, but really as far as arguments for God's existence go, it is rather weak.  It suggests that reason can not be used to defend God's existence or lack thereof.   I might suppose that Pascal was using this approach for folks who believe that to be true, but most other arguments for God's existence rely heavily on reason...if they didn't they wouldn't be very good arguments.  So perhaps this is a useful tool for someone who doubts that belief or disbelief in God is reasonable...but overall it would seem that, at least with regard to Catholic theology and Atheism, arguing God's existence is all about reason.

We should bear in mind that we are talking about God's very existence now, not necessarily his nature.  Some aspects of God's nature can be determined from reason (omnipotence, for instance) while others certainly can not (existence as a Trinity, for instance) and require revelation.

So I'd like to step through Smith's wager and poke a few holes in it then see if it still floats.

But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager:

1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.

2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.

I hold that the premises are flawed. 

Regarding the first, that the existence of "a god" can only be established through reason.  Most Catholic and many protestant theologians would say that God's existence can be established through reason.  Indeed, even St. Paul points out in his letter to the Romans (Chapter 1, verse 19-20) "Whatever can be known about God is clear to them: he himself made it so. Since the creation of the world, invisible realities, God's eternal power and divinity, have become visible, recognized through the things he has made."  The only problem with this premise is the word "only."  There are other ways in which the existence of God can be established...namely revelation.  But for the purposes of this argument I'm willing to concede the first premise.

The second is very problematic.  Now, I haven't read Smith's book, and so perhaps he actually makes this argument and makes it using some form of logic therein.  But to suggest that it be taken at face value that "we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people" is a bit presumptuous.  As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me just how many atheistic philosophers are so quick to dismiss believers as irrational people.  Some folks are just so impressed with themselves that anyone who holds a contrary viewpoint must be either stupid or irrational.  <sigh>  With this in mind, let us approach the wager Smith lays out.

Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him.

Here Smith shows his lack of understanding of the Christian God, or at least a very immature understanding.  He presents a view of the God of Christianity as the "angry old man in the clouds."  I remember being about six years old and finding this concept of God equally contemptible and highly unlikely.  That's part of why I remained an atheist for much of my youth - God was explained to me in these terms by my contemporaries, who were also six years old.  It made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now.

But this is a very narrow and terribly inaccurate view of God as understood by Christians (or at least Catholics).  See, we don't believe in a God who just up and punishes us simply for disbelieving in Him.  We believe in a God who loves us so much that He allows us to reject Him using the gift of free will.  We believe in a God who allows us to make choices and does not force his will on us.  As such, if in our choices on Earth we willfully reject him, He allows those choices to stand once we've left this Earth.  That is, we believe that it is not God who sends us to Hell, but we who send ourselves there.  Hell is eternal separation from God.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

And God does not hold us accountable for that which we have no control over.  If our upbringing makes us resistant to His grace, God takes that into account.  Because He knows our hearts better than we do...he made us and knows how we work and what our motivations are...more on this in a moment...

Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.

There are arguments against both of these possibilities, but since they aren't critical to dealing with this particular case we'll leave those for another time.

Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason on the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.

Here is where we get into the real meat.  This is actually the closest Smith comes to truly describing the God I believe in.  A personal God, who is just.  One who does not punish an honest error of belief.  Indeed, what does Jesus say in John Chapter 22?  "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin."  God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know through no fault of our own!  Indeed He is just. 

But this is not a free pass, as Smith seems to assert.  To carry his analogy further, while a father praises the accomplishments of his son, despite the errors committed, a good father does not praise the errors themselves.  Errors are to be corrected and learned from.  A good father might encourage his son when an error has been made ("good try, try again!") but would never tell his son to repeat that error (unless that father held the belief that the error was not an error).  And certainly, if a child made the same error over and over again, the good father would work to correct that error, using just punishments when necessary.  Indeed, a child may fear his father, especially when he knows he has done wrong and has done so willfully.

All analogies limp.  We can call God Father because that is an image that gives us the best concept of Him this side of heaven.  It is human language that serves a purpose.  When we view God as a Father figure, we must understand that he has none of the faults of our earthly fathers and that the virtues are infinitely greater.  He deals with us with wisdom beyond our understanding. 

So, does God praise the atheist's "conscientious and scrupulous use of reason" when it is used to deny His very existence?  Possibly.  If indeed that individual's understanding is the closest to the truth that he could get with the tools given to him, it is possible that God would find no fault with him and admit him to paradise.  Certainly He could reveal himself to that person at the moment of his death and allow him to make a choice for or against him. 

But we must be careful.  If we agree with Smith's proposition that God "gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world," then it is fair to say that God expects us to make use of that gift and actively seek truth.  Looking back, I can honestly say that when I was an atheist, much of my resistance to arguments for God's existence had to do with the fact that belief in God would be inconvenient for me.  That is, for a time I refused to intellectually engage the arguments for God because I was afraid that doing so would convince me, and I would have to change the way I lived.  And, for a time, even after I had engaged some of the arguments, I obstinately refused to acknowledge their efficacy, again because I did not want to admit that there was something more important than myself in the universe.  In other words, I was not being intellectually honest.  I understand this very well, and that is why it doesn't surprise me that atheistic thinkers like Dawkins and Hitchens tend to be so caustic and condescending in their writing.  Let's face it - sometimes truth is terribly inconvenient.  But God, like any good father, desires that we will fully use the faculties He has given us.

So on the one hand, I will concede that God will not punish us for an honest error of belief.  However, if our error of belief is borne from dishonesty with ourselves or a simple failure to pursue the truth out of fear or laziness, I don't think we can count ourselves as particularly secure.

Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.

What Smith describes here is certainly not the God of Christianity.  I can only imagine a handful of Christian sects who would even partially embrace this definition.  Here Smith completely departs from a semi-logical argument and sets up a straw-man which he handily knocks down.  It detracts from his entire train of reason and betrays his own concept of what he seems to think the Christian God is, fully exposing his lack of understanding. 

Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.

With all of these problems in the argument, the conclusion is not very convincing.  None of his possible outcomes accurately characterize the God most Christians believe in.  Certainly he does not address the Catholic point of view.  His assertion that the only reasonable stance is atheism is broken. 

We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again.

[edit]

I would argue that Christianity, particularly Catholicism, must also be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth.  If truth exists, and can be sought, I think we would all, atheist and theist alike agree that we should use our reason to do so.  But no matter where we are in our search for that truth, we must be careful not to deceive ourselves for the sake of convenience.  We must be fully honest when applying our intellect, and that is easier said than done.  One doesn't need to go far in scientific research history to see that numbers are often fudged and false positives created in hopes of gaining financial success or notoriety.  Humans are a deceptive lot, and we are better at deceiving no one than we are at deceiving ourselves.

As always I welcome thoughts and discussion from all sides, as long as it is kept civil :)

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 39

Exodus 12

God outlines how the Passover is to be observed in order to preserve the firstborn of the Israelites from death.  I find it interesting that this final plaque comes with very detailed instructions, while the others came with few, if any, instructions, for preventing loss among the Jews.  But it is certainly fitting...this is the plague to end all plagues, to be sure, and serves not only to finally convince Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, but also to set the stage for the messiah God promised back in Genesis.  This sweeping death calls to mind the effects of sin on the lives of all, but those who eat the passover meal (which prefigures the Eucharist) have a means to escape the wages of that sin...to have death pass over them and share in a new freedom from bondage.  Christ's sacrifice is so beautiful a fulfillment of the passover...truly this is the work of a divine author...

I am also struck by the Israelites' willingness to follow Moses' instructions...especially when we know that in a few short chapters they will become disobedient and unruly.  Again, this speaks to us...we are so willing to listen and obey one day, and then we fall and break God's command the next.  Fortunately His mercy and salvation are never far off.

Psalm 38

This psalm underscores how even the "righteous" who follow God are fallen and in need of His salvation.  We all fall short, but those who are humble enough to acknowledge it before God can overcome sin with the help of His Grace.  Hence "I confess my iniquity, I am sorry for my sin."  With Advent approaching, it is a good time to start thinking about reconciling with God as we prepare the way for the Lord in our hearts.

Matthew 21: 23-46

No sooner does Jesus enter Jerusalem triumphantly than the trouble starts.  Those in power are threatened by Him, and fear the loss of their position of power and stature.  Of course, when they try and question Him, he expertly turns it back on them, and then explains in two parables that make it painfully clear to them that He opposes them in what they are doing.  He also begins to unspool God's plan to bring all of humanity into the fold, no longer limiting His salvation to Israel.

Catechism 309-314

We get a brief treatment to the problem of evil here, summing up in a few brief paragraphs years of development in theology.  Anyone who has ever asked "Where was God when..." or "How can a good God let ...happen?" should start with this series of paragraphs.  One of the things that makes God...God...is that He can bring good out of evil.  He is not the cause of the evil, but he permits it, sometimes mysteriously, and sometimes not so mysteriously, so that greater good may be brought from this by-product of the free will He has bestowed upon his children. 

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 13-14
Psalm 39
Matthew 22:1-22
Catechism 315-324

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 38

Exodus 10-11

Locusts and darkness fall upon Egypt, and Pharaoh tries to do some hard bargaining, but ultimately has his proposals shot down by Moses and Aaron...oh, and God.  Pharaoh predictably goes back on his word even when he promises to release the Israelites from bondage.

Then the Lord reveals the final plaque to Moses...the death of all the first born of Egypt, both man and beast. 

We've heard this story before, and in the next chapter we'll see it play out.  But we keep in mind how all of this relates to Christ, and how it prepares God's chosen people to one day receive the Lamb of God.

Psalm 37

This is a great psalm to come back to.  Again we are comparing the wicked to the righteous, and what the Lord has in store for both.  Though the Psalmist makes a very clear demarcation between the two, we know that in our lives we often play both parts...we are sinful and sometimes wicked, and in need of repentance. 

I am drawn to verses 27 and 28:  Depart from evil, and do good;  so shall you abide for ever.  For the Lord loves justice; he will not forsake his saints.

So even the psalmist recognizes that we need to "depart from evil, and do good."  We would do well to heed his instruction.

Matthew 21:1-22

Jesus enters Jerusalem triumphant, as was fortold (as Matthew astutely points out).  He is recognized as the messiah, the Son of David, by the people.  The same people who will soon deny him.

Jesus then cleanses the temple of the money changers and sellers of pigeons, accusing them of making the temple a "den of robbers."  I wonder how often we do the same with our petty squabbles and politics which sometimes make life in any church ministry unpalateable. 

Jesus heals the blind and the lame, and then children begin to cry out "Hosanna to the son of David!"  So "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise.  Considering that my youngest is presently very challenging in church, this is somewhat comforting.

We then find Jesus having an altercation with...a fig tree?  The fig tree loses, and Jesus uses it to teach a lesson on faith.  Certainly it is a warning to us as to what can happen to us if we do not bear fruit for Him.  We, too, can wither in our spiritual life and find ourselves unable to do anything good.

And, if we have faith in Christ, then certainly we CAN do all things.

Catechism 302-308

God has a plan, and this plan is both a grand scheme which works for the good of all creation, as well as an individual scheme, which applies to each of us.  I had a discussion with an aquaintance on a recent business trip where we discussed our tendancy not to worry about our day to day needs.  I identified myself as a man of faith, and she identified herself as a woman of no faith.  But even so, she had come to realize that her base needs are always met, even when she is unsure of how that will come to be.  It goes to show that some of God's truths transcend faith and can be grasped by anyone who has lived in this world long enough to see "how things work."

God uses our cooperation, given in free will, to unfold his plan in history.  This is awesome when we think about it.  We can cooperate with God in our intelligence and will to do his work in his vineyard.  We are most free when we are able to choose the good.  Ironically, we are most captive when we find ourselves choosing things contrary to the good.  We think we are free in that case, but we really aren't.  After all, if we cut ourselves off from God, there is very little we can do.

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 12
Psalm 38
Matthew 21: 23-46
Catechism 309-314

Another Catholic Dude experiences single fatherhood...

You may be wondering where I went.  Perhaps you assumed I ran out of steam with my Bible and Catechism in a year quest.  Maybe you thought I was another one of those bloggers who goes strong for a month and then falls off the face of the earth.  Or maybe you didn't even notice I'd gone.  It's ok, whatever it was, I forgive you.

For the record, I was off blog for three reasons.

Firstly, during the time I usually use to blog, I was trying to get ahead of my work a little bit in anticipation of taking some time off from work, and by evening I was assisting my beautiful wife with the creation of some Halloween costumes for our children.

Secondly, that beautiful wife of mine was on a business trip out of the country for 8 days.

Thirdly, after she returned (and I returned to work), the time I usually use to blog was used to catch up on work.  Hence, one full month away from the blogosphere...

"Wait a minute!" you ask.  "Isn't your wife a stay at home mom?" 

Yes.  Yes she is.  And for those of you who know what stay-at-home moms do, you know she has a very demanding job.  I've always known that her job was just as demanding, if not more, than mine.  And so, when she expressed some frustration one day over the frequency of business trips I had to take, and how doing so enabled me to get a break from the kids for a period of time, I suggested that she use some of my frequent flyer miles to take a business trip of her own. 

So, after a good deal of planning, preperation, and some anxiety on all fronts, a car arrived in front of our house at 4:45 AM on a Monday morning to take her to the airport.  The well rehearsed roles were reversed...I was watching her drive away into the darkness and facing a week at home with the kids without my helpmeet while she was heading into the unknown and starting to miss her family by the time she got to the airport.

I had no delusions as to the difficulty of the task I had undertaken.  I had reviewed the kids' schedules multiple times, put together a "to do" list (which included construction of my eldest child's Halloween costume), and even planned a tentative menu for the week.  I was really looking forward to having extra time with the kids, but I knew that this was going to be a busy and tiring week.  I was pretty sure I was prepared for it.

Or was I?

Well, despite the fact that I knew what I was getting into, I still learned a few things.  But this isn't a parenting blog, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail there.  Overall it was a very positive experience and it gave me an even deeper appreciation for what my wife does on a daily basis, especially when I have to travel for work (which I have to do twice this month...)

I look back on the entire experience now and see moments of triumph (finishing the epic costume on time, not missing any of the kids' activities, successfully navigating Halloween, getting my daughter's room completely cleaned, cooking meals most nights, etc.) as well as failures (Losing my temper and acting more like a child than my children on two occasions, not getting everything on my to do list done, not catching up on my blog, not getting adequete sleep, etc.).  But one thing that really sticks out in my post mordem is not finding the time to pray outside of mealtime and just before bed. 

Going into the week, I had planned to gather the kids and pray together every night.  It never happened, though, because I was so focused on the tasks I wanted to complete while I was home from work.  The kids got their homework done, and I got them to their activities to be sure, but once everything was done and we turned to the ritual of getting them to bed, I completely forgot about my resolution and simply looked forward to getting them into bed and out of the way so I could work on MY projects. 

How often do we do this as Christians?  How often do we let our own ambitions come between us and time with our Savior?  I imagine it happens a lot.  It was happening in my life before my wife's trip, and continued to happen after she returned.  But looking back on it now shines a spotlight on it and makes me think more deeply about it. We NEED to set aside time with Jesus outside of Sunday Mass and prayer before meals.  To paraphrase Archbishop Fulton Sheen:  "If you don't have time to spend half an hour in adoration each day, you need to spend an hour..."

Still, it's much easier said than done.  How do I bring family prayer into my house and make it meaningful for everyone?  With a nearly 23 month old hellion running about?  All things are possible in Christ...I'll be looking to Him to guide me...

Now it's time to get back to the scriptures.

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 37

A few days behind...but I'm going to catch up.  I've decided not to do the two-fers anymore, though, but to post each day separately.

Exodus 9:

More plagues...plague, boils, and fiery hail rain down. 

Still, Pharaoh's heart is hardened.  As I read this passage, it reaffirms what I wrote on day 36, because it says that Pharaoh "sinned yet again," which implies a choice.  Pharaoh's free will is intact.  He could, in fact, have chosen to let Moses and the Israelites go at any time, but did not.  Now God could have given Pharaoh graces to make him more likely to choose the good of releasing the slaves, but ultimately Pharaoh has already rejected the grace of God, and so his heart is hardened and he chooses to do as he wishes.

I find not a little humor in the fact that the "magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils."  Scripture makes a point of putting the magicians out here, as if to say "look what happens when you try to be like God..."

Also I think that the Lord's short discourse on why He doesn't just wipe out the Egyptians entirely is revealing.

Psalm 36:

A study of contrast here, the first part dealing with the wicked and the second part dealing with God's treatment of those who follow Him.  What I really like here is the second to last verse, though, where the psalmist asks God to "Let not the foot of arrogance come upon me, nor the hand of the wicked drive me away."  In his humility, he recognizes that He needs God to keep from being like the folks in the first part of the psalm.

Matthew 20:17-34

Here, Jesus tells the twelve what is going to happen to him.  They don't appear to protest this time around, so perhaps they have become used to hearing it, even though they clearly don't understand it.

They we get the mother of the sons of Zebedee asking that her son's be at Jesus' right and left hand in His kingdom.  It is pretty clear that dear old mom is still thinking along the lines of an earthly kingdom, so it is a shock when Jesus indicates that it is not His place to grant this request.  Jesus then goes on to speak about servitude, and of the importance of being humble.  Very similar to the "first shall be last," this proclaims that the Son of man came to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

This chapter ends with the healing of two blind men.  They are persistent and continue to call after Jesus even when they are told to quiet down by "the crowd."  How often are we told to quiet down by "the crowd?"  Sometimes following Jesus means being unpopular.

Catechism 295-301

More on creation - God creates by wisdom and love, out of nothing, an ordered and good world.  As Catholics, we believe that the material world is a good thing, and often the Church has had to defend and put down as heresy teachings which said that matter is evil.  It is through matter that we experience the world, and our God himself took on matter to come to us in the incarnation.  Some time ago, I subscribed to the belief that matter was, at best neutral, following the Yoda-ism "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."  But I've come to see that we indeed are matter just as much as we are spirit, and that matter is anything but crude. 

So God upholds and sustains His creation.  Has our world fallen?  Certainly.  But, to grab another star-wars-ism:  There is still good in it.  God does not abandon his creation...quite the opposite...He loves it.

"Tomorrow's" readings:

Exodus 10-11
Psalm 37
Matthew 21:1-22
Catechism 302-308

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 36

Exodus 7-8

Here come the plagues...blood, frogs, gnats, and flies in these two chapters...

Two things jump out at me.  (No, not the frogs...)

The first is the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.  Often folks ask how an all good God could harden Pharaoh's heart, apparently just so he could make him suffer?  Is God robbing Pharaoh of his free will?

Remember that we need to look at the whole of scripture, especially when we try and figure the mind of God.  We know that God is all good and does not do evil, and we know that free will is a gift we have.  To take one's free will is indeed an evil, so God would not do this.  But we do know that God allows evil, since it is a byproduct of our free will, though he often (and some might argue always) uses that evil to bring about a greater good. 

It follows, therefore, that God does not take Pharaoh's free will.  But if that is the case, how do we make sense of this?

We need to remember that to do the will of God, in our concupiscence, requires God's grace, which he freely gives us.  God's grace is a gift...and gifts can be refused.

Have you ever refused a gift?  I was in a situation once at work where I was offered a gift of substantial value by a client.  Accepting the gift would have been a breech of our code of ethics, so I was forced to graciously decline it.  Even after I declined it, though, the would-be giver offered it to me again.  I had to decline it again, and ultimately a third time.  But after the third time my client relented, and ceased offering me this gift.

God, likewise, in respect of the free will he gave us, will stop offering us His gifts if we refuse him constantly and make it clear that we don't want them.  This would seem to be the case with the Pharaoh, who declares at one point "I do not know the Lord..." and in so doing so intimates that he does not wish to know the Lord.  So perhaps it is that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God is a withdrawal of God's offer of grace.  Certainly, Pharaoh acts in a very deceptive way moving forward. 

The second item which I find curious is the "secret arts" of the Pharaoh's wise men or magicians.  Are their replications of the miracles and plagues mere prestidigitation, or are they more sinister in nature?  It is hard to say from the scripture...but I guess in the end it isn't important.  We know what is from God and what is not.  We also know that after the gnats, the Pharaoh's wise men couldn't keep up with God's works.

Psalm 35

This psalm is a plea to God to bring down one's foes.  It's a pity party of sorts, but it is punctuated with heartfelt moments of praise between the call to God to smite those who grieve the psalmist.

Matthew 20:1-16

We ended chapter 19 on a "first will be last, and the last first," and now Jesus goes on to explain himself with (wait for it...) a parable.

So often we are jealous of others for what they receive as a benefit of generosity.  We feel vindicated in doing so, because "They didn't earn that" or "They didn't deserve that, but got it anyway."  Rather than be happy for those who benefit, we try and tear them down.  The laborers hired early in the day here do just this, but the master explains that he is free to do with his money what he will, and if he wishes to pay those who came late the same as he agreed to pay those who came early as a sign of his generosity, he is free to do so.  It all comes down to the agreement...if the terms of the agreement are met or exceeded, then what complaint is there to levy?

It seems to tie back to the reading from Exodus.  God is free to do with his grace as he wills.  He gives us each at least enough to hear him...but he can choose to give abundance or not as he wills and as he sees fit.  I, for one, think he's probably got a better idea of where it is needed at any given moment in history than I do.

This time we end with a "last will be first, and the first last."

Catechism 290-294

The world exists for God's glory.  That's pretty simple, and yet terribly profound.  The work of the Trinity is to create, and yet He doesn't create out of necessity, but out of desire.  It is in His nature to create, to be "creative," since he is pure being, his "words" manifest in an existence all their own, yet completely dependent upon Him.  Existence of the universe does not increase God's glory, but proclaims it with every covalent bond that forms or electron that flows.  From the tiny quark to the vast milky way, the glory of God rings out just as strong, for it was an infinite God that created all of this ex-nihlo.

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 9
Psalm 36
Matthew 20:17-34
Catechism 295-301

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 35

Exodus 5-6

The well known story of Moses continues as Moses goes to Pharaoh, but Pharaoh simply makes things worse for the Israelites by forcing them to gather their own straw for the bricks they were responsible for making.  I wonder if there is a special symbolism to the straw...

In any case, Moses goes back to God to ask him "What's up with that?", and God reiterates that he will deliver His people, and give them the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

"I will take you for my people, and I will be your God..."

Today, this applies to us all.

Psalm 34

I became aware as I read this psalm that I actually am familiar with more psalms than I thought I would be just from their use in the Catholic liturgy.  Yes, they are often only parts and sometimes in the past they have been greatly paraphrased, but much of the content is there.  In this Psalm there is a lot of wonderful language about the Lord hearing the cry of the poor and answering the seeking of David.  He is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.  There is also instruction for us:  Keep your thougt from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.

There is also a beautiful ambiguity, though I am unsure if it is due to translational issues:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Lord delivers him out of them all.  He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.

It is unclear if it is the Lord who keeps all his bones with not a one being broken, or the righteous.  But if it is speaking of the Lord, that is, God, this is a lovely foretelling of the crucifixion (wherein none of Christ's bones were broken) as well as the resurrection and ascension (for he keeps all of his bones, as he keeps his body for eternity).  Even if it refers only to the righteous, it still applies, for we, too, shall share in the resurrection.  It is a beautiful bit hidden in the old and revealed in the new...

Matthew 19:16-30

I've never realized before just how jam-packed Matthew is...but I'm starting to see it now.

Here we have a well-to-do individual asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life.  Jesus shocks him by suggesting that there is more to it than just keeping the commandments, and gives him a radical command to sell all he has, give to the poor, and follow Him.  When this individual goes away sad, Jesus turns it into a teaching moment, but clarifies when his analogy breaks down.  He also praises the disciples sacrifices (and, by extension, ours), saying that what we leave will be repaid a hundredfold in our eternal life with God.  It is important to note, with all due charity to my protestant brethren, that when asked what one must do to have eternal life, Jesus does not say "Accept me as your personal Lord and savior, and believe."  Rather, he requires action.  Of course, we understand that our actions are faith, in a way, in that they are a response to God's action.  The action itself, independent of the impetus (grace) given by God does not save.  But we can resist the grace God gives us.  This is why we ascribe our salvation to Faith working through Love. 

Catechism 282-289

There is some profound stuff on creation here, and man's fundamental questions which lead us to search for God, and how many different peoples have attempted to answer those questions.  It is reiterated that our intellect is capable of knowing of God's existence through his works.  But a response to Him requires more than just the intellect, but the engagement of the will as well.

We are taken back to Genesis and the first three chapters.  We don't have to view these chapters as being literal in a historical sense, but we need to look at what the author is trying to tell us...it isn't supposed to be a science lesson, after all, but a lesson regarding "the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation."

Atheistic materialists like to attack Genesis by pointing to scientific evidence that appears to contradict, say, the age of the earth, or the existence of animals which went extinct prior to man's appearance, or the lack of an earthly 'Garden of Eden.'  But when we understand these texts in their literary context as well as their purpose, we see that there is no contradiction or conflict between them and what science tells us about creation. 

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 7-8
Psalm 35
Matthew 20:1-16
Catechism 290-294

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 34

Exodus 3-4

Moses has his famous encounter with the burning bush.  I am rather amazed at the number of excuses Moses comes up with.  He really doesn't want to do this, but God is patient with him and gives him a number of signs before losing patience with Moses.  "Who has made man's mouth?  Who makes him dumb, or deaf or seeing, or blind?  Is it not I, the Lord?" 

God shares his "name" with Moses, which speaks of his nature as pure being.

So begins Moses' journey.  The end of chapter 4 is a bit perplexing, but after thinking about it (and reading some commentaries) it is starting to make more sense.  Moses apparently did not have his son circumcised, and this apparently was displeasing to God.  When his son is circumcised (and apparently Zipporah knew what was going on), Moses (apparently...there are a lot of pronouns floating around here which make the passage ambiguous) is released by God. 

The bottom line here seems to be that we need to walk the walk if we're going to talk the talk.

Psalm 33

We are urged to rejoice in the Lord, to sing to him a new song, to make melody to him with the harp of ten strings, and to play skilfully on the strings, with loud shouts. 

Then we have some wonderful words of praise for God.  His power, his wisdom, his steadfast love.

"He is our help and shield."  "Let thy steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us, even as we hope in thee."

What more is there to say?

Matthew 19:1-15

Here Jesus reiterates the meaning of husband and wife becoming one, and Jesus explaining that divorce is not God's will...for "from the beginning it was not so."  Here he reinstates what God began with Adam and Eve - the one man, one woman, permanent union of marriage.  John Paul II expounds on this passage at length in the Theology of the Body in an eloquent and beautiful way. 

I think it is no mistake that following this discussion on marriage, children are brought to the Lord, and he tells his disciples "do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."  Children are the blessed fruit of marriage, after all, and the two topics go hand in hand.  Though Christ is saying different things about each, that they are spoken of together says a lot.

Catechism

Summing up on God as almighty, the Catechism asks this question:  "If we do not believe that God's love is almighty, how can we believe that the Father could create us, the Son redeem us, and the Holy Spirit sanctify us?

God is the creator of all, heaven and earth, seen and unseen, visible and invisible.  And for creation, God is able to create a history, and in that history, a plan of salvation.

Tomorrow's Readings:

Exodus 5-6
Psalm 34
Matthew 19:16-30
Catechism 282-289

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 33

Exodus 1-2

We begin the story of Moses...everyone knows this one pretty much.  What jumps out at me is the end of Chapter 2, and how human language is often used to describe God's action.  Here it speaks of God remembering his covenant, as though He could have forgotten it.  Looking back as Christians, we understand that what we are reading about is the preparation of a people as a suitable base into which He could come to redeem the world.  This suffering by the ancient Israelites is one such way in which God is preparing them for what will come.  So it isn't so much that God "remembers" in the human sense (since he is outside of time anyhow and sees all of history in his eternity), but that in God's plan it was time to deliver the Israelites from Egypt.

I also find it to be a wonderful rehash of Genesis that it recalls the covenants with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Psalm 32

This is a nice change of pace...a psalm about the importance of confession and forgiveness.  I especially like verses 3 and 4, talking of the effects unconfessed sins have on the body and strength of the sinner.  Confession to our Lord (very powerful in the sacrament of reconciliation) can be healing in both body and spirit.  When we confess and receive forgiveness, we can feel a change.  Yes, it is a psychological phenomenon, but also a spiritual and physical one, for we are creatures of mind, body, and spirit.  This would be a great Psalm to pray before and after confession.

Matthew 18:21-35

Speaking of forgiveness...how many times should we forgive our brother if he sins against us?  Jesus says seven times seventy...so four hundred and ninety times.  Does this mean 490 times and not the 491st time?  No...(though that would be one determined brother) Jesus is saying that we forgive as many times as necessary. 

Then we get the parable of the king who forgives his servant a great debt, but then finds out that the same servant refused to forgive his servant a lesser debt.  Thus the first servant loses the forgiveness that has been given to him.

This is important because it shows us the importance and necessity of forgiving (though not necessarily forgetting) those who wrong us in this world. 

It also shows us that just because we are forgiven does not mean that such forgiveness can not be taken from us if we fail to follow God's commands, that is, be righteous.  This seems like a pretty powerful argument against the "Once Saved, Always Saved" philosophy.

Catechism 268-274

We turn now from God's trinitarian nature and begin to look at His descriptors.  In particular, what it means that He is "Almighty."  Nothing is impossible with God, and yet we do not understand his ways.  He is Father to us all, and how many of us do not remember how we each felt our own earthly father (if we were fortunate enough to know him) was an invincible force, though we didn't understand him fully?  Certainly, God as Father is the fulfillment of this childhood fantasy on both accounts: almighty and mysterious.

To bring us full circle, the Catechism acknowledges that the problem of evil and suffering can test our faith.  Just as the suffering of the Israelites in Egypt might have tested their faith and made them think that God had forgotten them, we can fall into the same error.  But God is steadfast in his love, and ever-faithful, whether He appears to human sensibilities to be or not.  We, then, must grant consent to our will for a faith that "embraces the mysterious ways of God's almighty power."

Tomorrow's Readings:

Exodus 3-4
Psalm 33
Matthew 19:1-15
Catechism 275-281

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Days 31 and 32

I opted to volunteer at our parish's Jr. High Youth Ministry program last night, and so didn't have time to blog about my readings for yesterday.  So, courtesy of St. Michael's Edge, here is another Double Whammy Wednesday for you!

Genesis 48-50

As the first book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, we read of the end of Jacob's life and the "blessings" he bestows upon his twelve sons, who become the twelve tribes of Israel.  Some of these are not blessings, but curses for past evils.  Some of them are almost comical, such as Benjamin's, which gives some insight as to why Joseph gave him a fivefold portion when he first came to Egypt. 

Joseph keeps his word to his father to bury him in the land of Canaan with his ancestors.  I find it interesting that he is embalmed - I suppose this makes transporting the dead body such distance much more pleasant than it would have been, however. 

I find that Joseph's brothers are a bit thick at times, now being concerned that Joseph only dealt with them kindly for his father's sake.  Joseph has to reiterate that God permitted the evil to be done to him so that good might come from it.  We would do well to remember this in times of trouble.  God is not the cause of evil...and yet he can "mean it for good," in this case "to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."  If we imagine the ramifications of Joseph not appearing in Egypt, not just for his family, but for the land of Egypt as well, we can figure that many would have starved to death.

The book draws to a close with Joseph's own death, before which he tells his brother's of God's promise that they should  be brought up out of this land and to the land which was promised to Abraham.  Thus, the stage is set for Exodus...

Psalms 30 and 31:

Both of these Psalms make reference to the Lord's saints.  That makes me curious to see what the Jewish definition of a saint is.  I assume it means one who has been gathered to the bosom of Abraham, but I'll have to research that.

In Psalm 30, I am grabbed by the line "Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning."  This is probably because I often sing "Trading my Sorrows", which has a similar line in it.  I didn't know that it had come from a Psalm, though.

More rock, refuge, and fortress in Psalm 31, as well as steadfast love.  "Into thy hand I commit my spirit; thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, Faithful God."  I love this line, not just because Jesus invokes it on the cross, but because of the redemption that is mentioned.  In light of the new testament, we know that redemption comes from Jesus committing his spirit to his Father at the end of His suffering.  There is a reflective quality in this writing that I could contemplate for hours.  Sadly, I don't have hours right now to do so...

Matthew 17-18:20

There is an awful lot of content here. 

First we have the transfiguration, where Peter makes another gaffe, since he still has a Jewish concept of Jesus as the Messiah.  He thinks that Jesus is ready to rule the earth in a material sense, and wants to erect tents to house Moses, Elijah, and Jesus.  But after the voice of God speaks and they fall on their faces, when they look up, they see only Jesus.  This is a very powerful moment...so often we get distracted or misunderstand what God wants.  If we can just look up and see "no one but Jesus only" then we won't go wrong.

Jesus seems almost frustrated when he comes down to find the other apostles distressed at not being able to cast out a demon.  He talks a bit about the power of faith, and how little they have. 

Then he tells them that he will be killed and raised on the third day...and they are greatly distressed.

And Peter then winds up fishing for money to pay a tax.  How is that for an act of faith?  I suppose it is easy to believe that casting one's hook will bring in a fish with money in its mouth, but hard to believe that the Son of God can be raised from the dead.

In chapter 18, we begin with Jesus' famous discourse on the place of children (and child like faith) in the Kingdom of Heaven, as well as the punishments for those who lead them astray. 

Then some judicious use of rabbinic hyperbole (if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it from you) to illustrate how we should avoid those things which tempt us to do evil.

Lastly, we have another important passage for Catholics about what do to when our brother sins against us.  First take it to him, then bring a few witnesses, then take it to the church.  That's church, singular, which he just got done telling us he is going to build on Peter.  The church must be able to speak with one voice, if it is going to make a judgement. 

If we imagine someone having a dispute with his brother today, and taking it to the church, and not getting an answer that he had hoped for, he might go to another church and get a second opinion...and a third....and perhaps a fourth, until his view was affirmed.  Let's face it, there are churches which say they are Christian which teach almost anything!  As such, veiled within this is the idea that if we are "church-hopping," trying to find a church that affirms and validates our views or makes us feel good, we might be missing the point.  The church which Jesus is pointing to is authoritative and must have some level of certainty to it in order to teach.

Thus Jesus then affirms that the apostles have the authority to bind and loose, giving them a share in what he has given Peter.  He is speaking in the context of the church here, not just as a community of believers (which it certainly is), but also as an organization which can make definitive judgements.

Catechism 249-267

Today we finish up a section on the most Holy Trinity.  This mystery is given to us purely through revelation and careful study of that revelation allows us to make some imperfect definitions.  We will never fully be able to explain the Trinity using human language or even human thought, for the very nature of the Trinity is infinite in power, love, majesty, and truth, while our minds and language lack a true capacity for the infinite.  Still, what we can know and understand is enough to ponder for a lifetime, so it isn't as if we've been shortchanged here.

God is one, but through hypostasis His divine nature (or substance) is held by three distinct persons.  We say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial.  The divine nature is not shared, but wholly present in each, and yet, each is fully distinct from the other.  God is not modal...He doesn't put on His "Father hat" to do fatherly things (like create), and then his "Son hat" to do sonly things (like redeem), and then his "Spirit hat" to do spiritual things (like sanctify).  Rather all of these aspects of Himself are eternal and wholly God, yet the whole God is present in these three persons.  And, still, these persons are relative to one another.  The Father and the Son relate to each other, and each relates to the Holy Spirit as well.  Yeah...it's a tough concept.

Still, though, it is central to our faith, and the early church went through a lot of trouble to define to the limits of human language the nature of the Holy Trinity, mainly because so many errors regarding it were being preached. 

We have a sort of model of the Trinity in the domestic church (the family).  The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and that love is so powerful and real (because God is Love) that it "spirates" from them in a third person having their same nature, that is, the Holy Spirit.  Likewise, in a family, A father and mother love each other and in their unity their love is made tangible in the creation of another member of the family.  Yes, the analogy breaks down since father, mother, and child are three distinct persons (but members of one family)...and, yet, as Steve Ray described it on a recent broadcast of Catholic Answers Live, Man has a duality in that man is created male and female in God's image.  As we read in Genesis, they become one flesh...similar to the one substance of the Trinity belonging to all three members.  Likewise, we have a duality in our existence as a body/soul composite.  So a being having more than one aspect is not entirely foreign to us, though introducing infinity can boggle the mind...

We don't confuse the persons of the Trinity, nor make the mistake of dividing the substance. 

The best hope we have of a better understanding is contemplation.  Even so, when we reach the limit of our own ability to comprehend, we must leave the rest to God:

I'll close with this beautiful prayer from Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity:

O my God, Trinity whom I adore, help me forget myself entirely so to establish myself in you, unmovable and peaceful as if my soul were already in eternity.  May nothing be able to trouble my peace or make me leave you, O my unchanging God, but may each minute bring me more deeply into your mystery!  Grant my soul peace.  Make it your heaven, your beloved dwelling and the place of your rest.  May I never abandon you there, but may I be there, whole and entire, completely vigilant in my faith, entirely adoring, and wholly given over to your creative action.

Tomorrow's readings

Exodus 1-2
Psalm 32
Matthew 18:21-35
Catechism 268-274

Bible and Catechism in a year: Days 29 and 30

Monday Madness gives us a double shot of scriptural goodness, courtesy of a very busy Sunday!

Genesis 44-47

The story of Joseph continues as he tests his brothers one last time before finally breaking down and explaining the whole thing to them.  They go back and get Jacob and the whole family and bring them to Egypt, where Pharaoh tells Joseph to give them the choicest lands and puts them in charge of his own flocks.

There are a couple of things that leaped out at me here.  One was the declaration of Jacob that he could now die since he has seen Joseph's face - this struck me as very similar to Simeon the Righteous' revelation that he should not see death until he had beheld the Christ. 

The other was the way that through Joseph, all of Egypt was gathered under the Pharaoh.  Just as Joseph gathered all the lands and peoples for his "king", the Pharaoh, Jesus will gather all nations for the heavenly Father.

As always, the analogies break down, but they are beautiful nonetheless.

Psalms 28 and 29:

Psalm 28 seems a lot like the other psalms, building up those who follow God's way and asking for deliverance from the wicked.  Lovely, but I've heard it...not that I mind hearing it again...

Psalm 29 is really neat, though.  This is great imagery describing the voice of the Lord.  What is spoken by the voice of the Lord?  The Word.  What is the Word?  Jesus.  And Jesus shakes us to our very core.

Matthew 15:21-39, 16

We are presented a second miracle of multiplication.  I'm not sure how the heck I missed in the past that Jesus performed this miracle twice, for different multitudes, but just in case you missed it the first time...Jesus does it again.

And then the elders come and ask for a sign.  He's done this TWICE now and they are asking for more...Jesus tells them off in grand fashion, and then explains to his disciples to beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.  Of course, the disciples  don't get it immediately, and think he is speaking of bread.  We can almost see Jesus get frustrated here as he explains that he is talking about their teachings.

We need to be so very careful with the "leaven" that our culture puts out.  If you think about it, the teachings of our culture are so very against what we believe as Christians. 

The rest of Matthew 16 is very important for all Christians, and especially for we Catholics.  Important points:

• Simon makes his profession of faith, and Jesus seems to say "aha!  You get it!" and tells him that he is "blessed", for "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."  Translation:  "God has chosen you for a very special job...get ready..."  God often reveals things to the men he has plans for...
• Then Jesus gives Simon a new name:  "Peter."  In our old testament readings, we've already seen some renaming, and they've all been very significant.  We're talking Abram to Abraham (and Sarai to Sarah), Jacob to Israel...these are not insignificant.  It is important also to note that so far we have not seen God change anyone's name to degrade him.  Some protestants say that the "rock" in this passage is the profession of faith, and that Jesus is changing Simon's name to (greek) "Petros", meaning "little rock"  underscoring his lack of significance.  But we have to consider that 1.  (greek) Petra is a feminine noun, and so not suited for a man's name.  2.  Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and likely gave the name (aramaic) "Cephas" to Simon, which does NOT translate to small pebble, but a more foundational rock.
• Jesus  then says that He's going to build his church (singular) on that rock, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  In other words, it's not going anywhere; once it is established, it will endure until the end of time. 
• Then he says "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Here he is talking about authority...setting up a prime minister of sorts for His kingdom.  Oddly enough, kind of like how Pharaoh set up Joseph as the steward of his kingdom..
• Of course, two verses later, Peter is called "Satan."  He is taken down a peg for not thinking in God's terms, but in man's.  Certainly he is still a man, and still capable of errors in judgement.  This stands as a stern reminder to us all that God does not think as man thinks...
• Then we get a description of how to be on God's side:  Take up our cross daily (men don't like doing this) and follow Jesus.  God's way often seems foreign to us:  "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."  We have to be willing to look at things from God's perspective, and realize that eternity is a whole heckuva lot longer than the short time we have on earth, and therefore much more important...

Catechism 232-248

"I'll take words that don't appear in the bible but are central to our faith for $500, Alex."

"Father, Son and Holy Spirt, one God in three Persons"

"What is the Trinity?"

"Correct!"

Let's face it.  The Trinity is basic to Christianity, but impossible to fully understand with the human intellect.  I like how the Catechism here points out that we do things "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", not "in the names of."  God is one.  But God's oneness is so epic (if you'll pardon the term) that it expresses itself as three distinct persons sharing in one divine nature.  The Father and Son are "consubstantial" (of the same substance) and the Holy Spirit proceeds from them both.  So many analogies have been used to try and teach of the Trinity, but they all fall short.  Still, it is an awesome mystery to contemplate.

Tomorrow's readings:

Genesis 48-49:27
Psalm 30
Matthew 17
Catechism 249-256

Bible and Catechism in a year: Day 28

Genesis 42-43:

We continue the narrative of Joseph, and see things beginning to come around full circle as his brothers are forced to head to Egypt to obtain food during the famine.  Joseph recognizes them, but they do not recognize him.

There seems to be an interesting parallel here to the breaking of bread and the road to Emaus, as an aside.  The analogy breaks down quickly, but for that moment, the commonalities of bread (grain) and not recognizing one whom was rejected and is saving them jumped out at me.

Anyhow, Joseph tells them that they must return with their youngest brother, and keeps Simeon prisoner.  I also really like Reuben's "I told you so" moment where he tells off his brothers.

Anyhow, Joseph has clearly forgiven his brothers in a way, since he doesn't charge them for their grain (in a sneaky way that freaks them out...priceless).  At the same time, his plan is a little cruel, especially to his father...but in the end it will all work out.

Joseph has a special place in his heart for Benjamin because he is his full brother, but probably also because he played no part in his enslavement.  Hopefully Benjamin had a hearty appetite...

Psalm 27

I mentioned before that I do love the places where God is described as a protective force...here he is a stronghold and a shelter against evildoers.  We also have a great hope laid before us...to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of our lives...to offer sacrifices with shouts of joy, to sing and make melody to the Lord...to behold the beauty of the Lord.

This psalm's call to God to embrace us and not send us away calls to my mind also how God calls to us...He does not want us to send him away, or for our love of Him to fail.  It is a covenant, after all...which means both parties hold up their end of the bargain.  How beautiful is the covenant our God has with us...

Matthew 15:1-20

Again, we have the Pharisees trying to trip up Jesus, and Jesus deftly turns it around into a teaching moment, calling out the Pharisees as hypocrites.  It would seem that they were so legalistic that they would find loopholes, meeting the letter of the law while not meeting the spirit of the law.

We get a good reference back to Isaiah (This is Matthew, after all), and then a very important bit of teaching about what defiles a man.  This is a great prefigurement of God lifting the prohibition against eating certain "unclean animals."

"Hear and understand:  not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man”…”Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on?  But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man.”

Today, as Christians, we don’t wash our hands as part of a ritual prior to eating (rather as a matter of health), nor do we pay heed to the dietary restrictions of old.  But we could all do with watching what comes out of our mouths from our hearts, I think.  We are so quick to throw out insults to people when they can’t hear us…but God hears us.  We are so quick to spread gossip and say bad things about our neighbors…even things that are true, but hurtful…and God hears us.  We are so quick to say things, even to loved ones, in heated moments that truly defile us if we are supposed to be godly people.  I witness this from my children as the speak to one another in rude tones and disrespectful words…and even find myself saying things in a manner that is not befitting the dignity of a beloved child of God. 

Truly, once something is said, it can not be unsaid.  We can regret them, apologize for them, and be forgiven…but better would it be if we treated others with gentleness and reverence at all times!

Catechism 222-231

I love the fact that our Catechism utilizes poetic works to help convey truth.  There is some lovely poetry here summing up the implications of faith in One God:

Let nothing trouble you

Let nothing frighten you

Everything passes

God never changes

Patience

Obtains all

Whoever has God

Wants for nothing

God alone is enough

-          St. Teresa of Jesus

If we are truly faithful, we have an absolute trust in God in every circumstance.  That’s hard to do sometimes, but oddly enough, whenever we put things in His hands completely, they seem to work out, don’t they?

I am also struck by paragraph 225, which states “It means knowing the unity and true dignity of all men:  Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God.”

If we are to truly live our faith, we must stop seeing other people as “in our way” or “bothersome”, even the ones who truly may be…we must begin to see with the eyes of Christ, that they, too, are made in God’s image and likeness.  When we do, we are at our most human, and therefore closest to God.

Readings for tomorrow:

Genesis 44-45
Psalm 28
Matthew 15:21-39
Catechism 232-237

Bible and Catechism in a year: Day 27

Genesis 40-41

We continue the narrative of Joseph, his interpretation of dreams, his release from incarceration and becoming the Pharaoh's right hand man.

Here we see the providence of God, and that his plan is perfect, even when we don't see it ourselves.  He is able to bring good out of evil in ways that we can't possibly predict.

I also find Joseph's words to be very revealing:  "Do not interpretations belong to God?"  If God sent these dreams, God alone can interpret them and reveal them to us.  The scriptures are much the same...He inspired them, and it is He who interprets them in the person of the Holy Spirit.

Psalm 26

This Psalm goes back to a familiar formula, contrasting the righteous and wicked, and asking God to see the good of the righteous.

Matthew 14:22-36

After his miracle of the loaves and fish, now Jesus dismisses the crowds and goes up to pray on his own while the disciples get in the boat and begin to head out to the other side.  And after he prays, he comes walking across the lake to get to them and freaks them out, big time. 

Peter...on the edge of brilliance sometimes, makes a show of faith that foreshadows his profession to come later.  He walks on the water with Jesus, but becomes afraid of the wind and waves, and begins to sink.  Jesus, of course, saves him.  It is powerful imagery - being saved from harsh waters by our stable and powerful God.  We often feel we are sinking beneath the waves, and often such a feeling comes soon after we were so certain about something.  We think we need to "sink or swim", but there is another option...trust in our God and ask Him to save us...and He certainly will. 

"Those in the boat worshipped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God'"

There is still work to be done, though, and when they arrive at Gennesaret the sick come to him to be healed and to touch the fringe of his garment. 

If only people flocked to Jesus this way with such faith.  How fickle we are, like these, many of whom we can only assume later forgot all about the healing Jesus brought them.

Catechism 214-221

We have asserted part of God's nature, that He is pure being.  But He is also Truth and Love.

He is Truth in that he cannot deceive, and is the author of life, the universe and everything (not to be confused with the book by Douglas Adams)  Every truth we can possibly know can only be known because God created it.

He is Love in that "God Himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange."  This is why His love is steadfast...it doesn't change...it can't, because God's innermost nature consists of Love.  This is a pure love of which all other loves we know are mere shadows.  Divine love will make our romantic love, brotherly love, familial love, and any other flavor of love pale in comparison.

Tomorrow's readings:

Genesis 42-43
Psalm 27
Matthew 15:1-20
Catechism 222-231

Bible and Catechism in a year: Day 26

Genesis 38-39

We take a break from the narrative of Joseph to follow the story of Judah and his sons, Er and Onan. 

I'm going to go ahead and borrow from a discussion I had with my cousin on Facebook for this part:

To summarize, Judah has two sons, Er and Onan. Er marries Tamar, but Er is slain by God for his wickedness. Judah tells Onan to "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also." (Gen 38:8-10)

There has been a lot of discussion on this passage, and what it really means. Some folks have said that the "crime" for which Onan is slain is that of not giving his brother an heir...but the penalty for such is documented in Deuteronomy as public humiliation. Therefore, it would seem that, had Onan simply refused to lie with Tamar, he would have been subject to humiliation, but certainly not death. Instead, Onan decided to enjoy the pleasure of relations with Tamar, but to render the act sterile (via coitus interruptus), and this appears to have been the impetus for God slaying him.

Obviously, there are very few Christian denominations remaining who agree with the Catholic interpretation.  Though, it is important to note that less than one hundred years ago, nearly ALL Christians agreed on this.
(Here ends my borrowing)

Because his younger son is not yet ready to wed, Judah sends Tamar to dwell in her father's house until such time that Shelah is old enough to wed...but he does not go about setting up the union out of fear that Shelah will die as well.  Tamar "plays the harlot" and ultimately gets Judah to sleep with her, and obtains proof of the parentage of the children conceived by that union.

It is interesting that Judah is ready to have her put to death for begetting children through "harlotry," until he realizes that she is carrying his own children.  At that point, he confesses that she is "more righteous" than he is, because he went back on his promise to marry her to Shelah.  Thus, he does not put her to death, and does not lie with her again.

We then return to Joseph's trials, where despite being sold as a slave, he flourishes under his new master.  That is, until his master's wife takes a liking to him and accuses him falsely after he refuses to lie with her.    For that he is thrown in jail, but even there it is recognized that the Lord is with him. 

I recall the animated film "Joseph:  King of Dreams" which has a beautiful montage displaying Joseph's time in prison to the song "You Know Better Than I":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzxpVGnWEWA

While this is a dramatization, and we don't have any biblical evidence of Joseph ever doubting or experiencing a spiritual growth in prison, I think it is good to reflect on the fact that even though so many terrible things have happened to Joseph to this point, he is still walking in the steadfast love of the Lord.  This is a lesson worth remembering, especially when things aren't going our way.

Psalm 25

I'm going to stop saying that I like this psalm or thing that psalm is great.  They are all great, and I like them all (yes, even the ones that are somewhat depressing).  This is one we often pray at mass, at least partially, and is full of beautiful imagery.  Again, the term steadfast love appears multiple times.  It would seem that this is a characteristic of God's love we are not to miss.

Matthew 14:1-21

First we have the manner in which John the Baptist is put to death.  As my wife puts it:  "Proof that even in ancient times men would do stupid things to gain the affection of a beautiful woman."  Certainly this serves as a warning to us not to make open ended promises.

But moreover, we see Jesus' reaction.  Jesus withdraws to a "lonely place apart," presumably to mourn.  Still, the crowds follow him.  Jesus would have been well within his rights to ask them to depart, but even in his own suffering, he has compassion on them, and heals them.  But it doesn't end there.  His disciples tell him to send the crowd away to get food for themselves, but Jesus refuses, saying instead that "you give them something to eat."  When he is informed (as though he needed to be informed) that there are only five loaves of bread and two fish, he works a miracle that feeds them all with twelve baskets left over.

Some folks try and pass this off as a natural occurrence in which the people all had some food with them and shared what they had, but this is a rather lame attempt to de-divinize what has occurred.  The people would not have been carrying food for an outing such as this.  This miracle which Jesus wrought also prefigures in a special way the way that the Eucharist will work in the future...how He is able to give His own body to us all over the world through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Five loaves.  Two Fish.  Five Thousand Men, plus women and children.  Not to mention the healings...and all while Jesus is clearly saddened over John's death.

Truly this is steadfast love.

Catechism 210-213

I sort of went into this yesterday.  God is pure being.  He never changes.  Even His name tells us this. 

We must resist the temptation to try and anthropomorphize God.  God lowered himself to take on the incarnation, but he didn't have to.  He does it to show the nature of his steadfast love.  That's all I have to say about that...

Tomorrow's Readings:

Genesis 40-41
Psalm 26
Matthew 14:22-36
Catechism 214-221

Bible and Catechism in a year: Day 25

Genesis 36-37

Genesis 36 gives us the genealogy of Esau's descendants. 

Then in chapter 37 we begin the story of Joseph.  Joseph is initially hated by his older brothers because he is favored by his father, but makes matters worse by sharing his dreams.  In fact, sharing one particular dream also draws criticism from his father. 

In any case, Jacob sends Joseph to check up on his brothers.  Although Jacob must know how his elder children feel about Joseph, he clearly doesn't think that they will engage in treachery to get rid of him.  Yet, one questions this assessment considering what happened at Shechem before at the hands of Simeon and Levi...

A bright spot here is Reuben, who was prepared to rescue his brother.

In any case, the story unfolds as Joseph is sold into slavery and his death is reported to Jacob.  The stage is set for the drama that is to come.

Psalm 24

This song of praise declares that the earth belongs to God, and so do we who dwell upon it.  The imagery of gates and doors opening before our Lord to let him in reminds me of how we receive Him in communion...hearkening back to the phrase from Matthew "I am not worthy to receive you under my roof"  One gets under the roof by going through the door.  Each of us must be ready to lift our gates and open our doors to receive him, be they the gates to our minds or the doors to our hearts. 

Surely, the Lord could break through these gates and doors, for He is mighty and strong.  But is it not better for us to let Him in?

"Such is the generation of those who seek him,"

Matthew 13:44-58

Jesus continues with a series of parables about the kingdom of heaven.  The first two suggest that it needs to be our first priority...that we be willing to trade all we have in order to gain it.  The last warns that not all who are caught in the net will gain salvation, much like the parable of the weeds sown among the good seed.

Are we willing to put God's kingdom before our own little kingdoms?  Are we prepared to sell all we have to gain that pearl of great price?  Some days more than others, perhaps. 

We finish this passage with Jesus heading home and declaring that "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house."  Often it is hardest to witness to those who know us best.

Catechism 203-209

God's name:  "I AM WHO AM"  God is, in essence, being.  Existence isn't something He does, like we do, but something He is.  Living isn't something He does, like we do, but something He is.  Our existence is a mere reflection of His.  Our capabilities for thought and action are a mere reflection of His. 

Basically, the reality of God is mind blowing.  We can't hope to fully understand it, yet we are able to embrace that which we can know about him through creation and revelation. What a beautiful mystery!

Tomorrow's readings:

Genesis 38-39
Psalm 25
Matthew 14:1-21
Catechism 210-213