Sunday, December 14, 2008
the intrinsic inevitability of love
Few themes, I suppose, are more pronounced in the teaching of Jesus than that of God's invitation. Whether to a banquet or a wedding, Jesus sees man as invited by God. I believe this divine invitation implies many considerations of anthropology, but I limit myself here to one: human dignity. God invites man for pretty much the same reason we send invitations to one another---friendship. Orthodox Christian theology has always insisted that His motive is friendship.
It is difficult, it is bewildering, and it is more than slightly frightening to assimilate the notion that God finds us loveable. It is among the most astounding truths in Holy Scripture. What could God possibly find loveable in us?
Indeed, even some Christians are so bewildered by this idea that they resort to subtleties to parse away the paradox of it. They may explain, for example, that God, being love, cannot help loving us, even though He finds nothing intrinsically loveable in us. It is taken for granted, in certain Christian circles, that God could not possibly find human beings desirable. It is assumed as obvious that there is nothing in us that would attract Him. It is impossible for God to love us for our own sake, we are told, but only because of His loving nature. He is forced to love us, as it were, because love is His definition.
Let me suggest that theories like this are difficult to reconcile with what God has told us about Himself---and us. In Holy Scripture He describes Himself as a bridegroom rejoicing over a bride, who is the apple of His eye. He speaks of Himself as a father who celebrates the return of a faithless son, in whom He recognizes His own image. Surely, these are the teachings that justify that beautiful adjective by which Holy Church addresses God: philanthropos.
When the Church calls God the "lover of mankind," She affirms an important truth about the human race: God finds man attractive. Indeed, when God made man, He put into his composition a radical point of attraction that man is incapable of destroying.
This favorable and loving attitude of God toward human beings perhaps justifies our speaking of a divine anthropotropism. God shows every sign of being drawn to man. It is hard for us to fathom this. It is as though the sun felt for the sunflower the same powerful attraction the sunflower feels for the sun. We would have to imagine a solar antheotropism prompting the sun to rush its rising each morning for another glimpse of the jonquil, the iris and the buttercup.
Holy Scripture, however, says no less of God's feelings for man. Numerous times Jeremiah, that most tenderhearted of poets, speaks of God "rising up early" to speak to the human soul (7:13,25; 11:7; 25:3,4; 26:5; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14,15; 44:4).
It is arguable, indeed, that Jeremiah was the prophet who best understood this aspect of God—and of man. It was in Israel's supremely dark hour, the dreadful day of Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of the First Temple, that this philanthropic God declared through the lips of Jeremiah, " I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore have I drawn thee with mercy" (31:3). It is this everlasting love of God that summons humanity; it is His undying mercy that prompts the invitation He dispatches to human beings throughout the ages.
God loves us and desires us because He formed us in His own image, which is essential to---and inalienable from---the very definition of human nature. God's love for us is His response to the attraction He has made intrinsic to our being. There is absolutely nothing we can do to make God stop desiring us. Even the souls in hell are the object of His relentless affection, because they are formed in His image, the same image He saw on the day His hands gave them shape.
The truth is that God is drawn to us by love---that He has forcefully thrown in His lot with us, to the point of become one of us. This act of God---His deliberate assumption of our historical experience in order to make it His own---is what theology calls Divine Revelation, and its defining manifestation is the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the person of His Son, God has united humanity to Himself by an indissoluble bond that theology calls the Hypostatic Union. Human theotropism and divine anthropotropism are both fulfilled. Perhaps we may think of it as the mutual joy of the sunflower and the sun.
- Father Patrick Henry Reardon
Saturday, November 8, 2008
When Christ and Secularist Consumerism Colide
After a trip to the playland and the carousel, we stopped by to see Santa Claus. Because I am going to tell you right now, they are not going to see him again this season. Not because I have any spiritual concerns about it, but because I refuse to stand in a long slow line with an over-hyped 5 year old and a 2 year old who will be, no doubt, still buzzing on his sugar high from October 31st. Maybe Santa comes early for mothers like me.
This, however, was a Santa like no other.
Here is a transcription of Santa's conversation with my two children:
Santa (to Anna): So what are you learning about in school?
Anna (quite shyly): The letter "G".
Santa: That's a very good letter. Do you know what very important thing starts with the letter G?
Anna: What?
Santa: God. (pauses) Do you know why we celebrate Christmas?
(Mom starts getting tears in her eyes.)
Anna: Why?
Santa: Because that's the day that Jesus was born. Did you know that Jesus is God's Son?
Anna: Yes! We read about Him in the Jesus Storybook Bible.
Santa: Yes, that is a very good book. Do you know where Jesus was born?
Anna: In a little house?
Santa: It was more like a stable, with lots of animals. (pauses) So what do you want for Christmas this year?
Anna: I want the DisneyPrincessSleepingBeautyTalkingVanity and Noah wants the ImaginextAdventuresCaptainHook'sIsland!
Santa: Wow, that's ... quite a mouthful.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Now I lay me down to sleep
Anna, age 5: "Christ our God, please make Luke Skywalker real! I need him; I want him! And Han Solo, and Princess Leia, and everyone from Star Wars. I just hope that, tomorrow when I wake up, Luke will be here with me. Amen."
Noah, age 2: "Jesus, help people. Help people, help people, help people. Amen."
This evening's prayers:
Anna: "Christ our God, thank you for my mom, and thank you for my brother Noah. Thank you for everything that my mom has done. And thank you for everybody who makes movies, especially Star Wars. Amen."
Noah: "Jesus ... is ... kind. Amen."
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
You have no idea how long I tried to come up with a snappy title to this post
2)Tom J, I take back what I said 'bout you being welcome here. You have RIPPED my rose colored glasses off my face! Women voting for women simply because they are women! So, there are people out there who really don't care what a candidate stands for or if they are qualified for the job they are being elected for? Are we, the 12 of us here, the ONLY informed voters left in America?! I ask you! I just went around with Colonel K about this last week, insisting that no Hilary vote would go to the other side of the aisle just because Palin is a woman. "Yes they would!" he was yelling over and over. And now, Tom J, our resident delegate at the Iowa Caucas, reports the same. *Hmph* Well, this makes me cranky.
Don't you think this is more likely a liberal agenda that would manifest on the Democrats' side of things? I find it less likely to happen with the Republican party, what with the majority of feminist issues being represented by Democrats. That is to say, if another woman in the Democrat Party ran, she would take the "oooh it's a girl" weirdo votes, but I just think it's more unlikely with a Republican candidate.
D) Oh, sexual politics. Oh, sanctity of life issues. Pro-choice, pro-life, pro-woman, pro-child. What is life? When does it begin? The arguments are excellent and so respectful. I love you guys. These things are so important to our lives that we must discuss them, we must wrestle with them, and we must do everything we can to get to the truth of them. There is a truth to be found, I truly believe that. Not sure we'll all find it on my little blog, though I would hope for that, but I want to say that we can always talk about that stuff here and always in such a impassioned, dignified manner. Know that I am constantly monitoring, just please don't expect me to constantly moderate - I'm a little busy keeping other sandboxes neat and tidy - and please don't expect that any commenter's view reflects my own.
In my next post, I'll throw in my two cents, which is about what it's worth. Until then, Tom J, it is good to know that you'll be voting McCain/Palin because you want to see a woman in office. You woman voter, you.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Things are starting to heat up around here ... and I like it!
Micah's back!!
Very quickly, before the next post ... The socially conservative base are so excited about Sarah Palin NOT ONLY because of the pro-life issue. Palin offers a broad range of experience in executive offices as well as representing the best interests of her constituents and leading with conviction in her conservative values. The VP is an unlimited potential commodity to the president and to the country, as an advisor, as a diplomat, as an executive, as one "standing by." If the VP stance on issues is of limited importance, I don't know why we take a look at them at all. It certainly makes Joe Biden's foreign policy experience irrelevant in the face of Obama's inexperience.
As for inexperience, I just don't know how Obama supporters can question Palin's experience. That boggles my mind.
If McCain were throwing a bone, he would have gone with the obvious (Ridge, even Huckabee). Palin reflects (and restores, honestly) his maverick status because of her own.
Finally, Palin's daughter's teenage pregnancy reeeeeeeeeally doesn't make Palin a hypocrite at all. Micah, you and I both know that we've done things that our parents would not approve of, taught us not to do, and stand against. They still went about their jobs and lives and no one accused them of being hypocrites.
This young woman is proof of the value, unfortunately for her. She is 17, and the age of consent in Alaska is 16. (By law in her state, she has the right to an abortion without parental consent at the age of 16.) Clearly she chose to do something she was taught not to, and clearly she did not "choose" to get pregnant. But it is also clear that she had the right to terminate the pregnancy and is choosing not to.
I'm pretty sure that my parents would have liked to lock me - or themselves - up a couple of times after I got myself into trouble (speaking of which, I ran into Valerie Truitt the other day!), but I think they realized that, as a person, I make my own mind and own my own victories and failures. Is not this individual responsibility in morality not a fundamental value for the left?
People are just angry that she didn't get an abortion. That's the bottom line there.
Friday, August 15, 2008
what are you hiding in there?
I'm kinda into this thing right now. It's amazing how much you can say with so little. Did I come on a little strong, asking you guys to just bust out with some gems? Do I ever come on too strong, EVER??? Whoops. Well, for fun, here are some little things. A couple more memoirs from moi.
My baby smiles; I am free.
Just wanted you to love me.
God forgives, Christ Saves, Spirit moves.
She doesn't know what she did.
The Oceanic Six rescued me too.
Bob Costas, just watching for you.
It is what it is. Amen.