-so there are a lot of pretty intense discussions ranging across the pages of Facebook, so I decided to take a stab at a subject that many of us probably haven’t really thought about pretty much ever…
Please note, I do not seek to be heretical, blasphemous, or disrespectful in any way, shape, or form with the following dissertation. I am merely seeking to provide a bit of light hearted humor to the wonderful world of Facebook…
-When we think of the great figures that have truly affected this world, we often consider figures such as Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Princess Diana, Pope John Paul II, St. Josemaria Escriva…the list goes on and on. And usually, in considering these people that have affected the world, we take into account the things they have done. Mother Teresa sought a culture dedicated to the sanctity of life, promoting the beauty and joy that was her life in serving the poor and destitute in the disease ridden streets of India. Mahatma Gandhi fought for peace - peace in his country that he firmly believed would lead to peace throughout the world. Winston Churchill was the face of British government throughout the turmoil that was the Second World War, delivering impassioned speeches promoting an end to the dreadful conflict. Princess Diana used her celebrity to bring attention to the AIDS Crisis in Africa, hoping to provide people with a glimpse into the lives of so many people living without a basic source of food, shelter, and clothing. Pope John Paul II was the face and fearless leader of the Roman Catholic Church for 26 years, beginning dialogues with many religions and traveling around the world, bringing a message of peace, hope, and love to all. St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, advocated the seeking of holiness in everyday life, hoping to inspire people to sanctify their ordinary lives and discover the divine in all that they did.
-In short, these 6 people that changed the world, each in their own way, provide us with a sort of reference point, if you will, for the next part in this, hopefully, very insightful note.
-While we can consider these people great figures, each influential in their very unique ways, I would like to add 2 people to the list of “wonderful folks who have affected the world.” One is probably a person you first thought of when I mentioned “great figures that have truly affected this world,” another is probably someone you haven’t thought about since your kindergarten years. At any rate, they can both be considered men who made the world just a bit better.
-Our first figure is Jesus Christ…that’s right – God incarnate, Word made Flesh, Savior of the World…it’s almost irrelevant to point out how He influenced the world, considering He saved it and all…but in spite of that…Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Prophecies…He was the perfection and absolute example of Priest, Prophet, and King. He came into this world to shake the very foundations on which it rested, hoping to bring truth and reveal the wonder that was loving and serving God. No Doctrinal texts of specific Dogmas are needed to back up the very simple fact that Jesus changed the world. He sought to bring people to the truth of Him…that is to say, the truth of His Father. He wanted people to realize that He had come, not to bring “peace, but division,” (Luke 12:51.) In short, Jesus Christ changed the world because He worked to, and succeeded, in re-establishing the norms of society, then and now.
-Now, for the second figure…one perhaps you did not consider and have not really thought about since your grade school days when this guy was probably the neatest person you had ever heard of.
-Johnny Appleseed, that is to say, John Chapman of Massachusetts, was a young, rambunctious kid with a dream…to bring apples to the West. With nothing more than a Bible in his hand, apple seeds in his bag, and a pot on his head, Johnny set off across America, hoping to bring apples to the unsettled part of his beloved country. Legend has it that while he traveled, he became quite popular with those he met, often attracting large crowds of children who wanted to hear his stories, and of course, growing apple trees. Some claim this story is false…that no sensible, right-minded person would hitchhike across America with a pot on his head planting apple seeds. But I say to those nay-sayers…wasn’t Jesus Christ considered crazy by the Pharisees? Didn’t they say that His outrageous claims of “raising the temple in 3 days” and “I am the Bread of Life” were absolutely insane? Yes, I believe they did…and in fact, because they were so upset by His claims, they crucified Him. And weren’t they wrong? I believe they were.
-Quite simply, Johnny Appleseed and Jesus Christ are almost direct parallels. Jesus Christ sought truth, revealing to people that He was the “way, the truth, and the light.” John Appleseed sought to bring people delicious, healthy treats in the form of apples, bringing people to a sort of “way, truth, and light.”
-Both Jesus and Johnny were considered crazy…many thought Johnny’s sleeping in the branches of trees and the signature pot on his head were absolutely clear signs that he was off his rocker, and of course, many, both in the time of Christ and today, consider Jesus’ teachings and miraculous life to be absolutely insane and completely irrational.
-for a quick similarity – they both had beards…and who doesn’t like a beard?
-Jesus Christ and Johnny Appleseed were both men of the earth…they were wanderers, always on the move to bring the truth to those who were unenlightened. Johnny wanted to provide tasty treats to the Wild West of America…Jesus wanted to provide infallible truths to the people of the Wild World.
-And of course, the most primary comparison, Jesus and Johnny are people to be admired. Without Johnny Appleseed, much of our country would be “apple-less.” No apple pies to grace the tables of dining rooms all across America, no cheesy little phrases insisting upon the consumption of an apple once a day to ward off the healers of society, no delightful delicacy that comes in green and red. And of course, without Jesus Christ, this entire world would be without salvation, plain and simple, no elaboration needed there.
-In short, Johnny Appleseed and Jesus Christ are models of what an “earth shattering figure” is and should strive to be…one who seeks to bring new truths to the world, one who seeks to provide wonderful gifts to those in need…
-In this, the wonderful season of Advent, may we strive to be a lot like Johnny Appleseed and Jesus Christ.
(again – not meant to be disrespectful…merely to provide, hopefully, a smile)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Beloved Lover
-our most basic human desire is to be loved by another…to be the beloved. But when we come to realize that we are made more complete and our happiness is sustained when we are the lover, our joy expands and our state of being the beloved and the lover collide-
God manifests Himself at random moments and in the most unexpected places, but I never expected to discover God in the dog-eared pages of my Nichomachean Ethics as Professor Parens rambled on about the difference between the life of pleasure and the life of philosophy.
Aristotle says, “But refined and active people choose honor, for this is pretty much the goal of political life. Now this appears to be too superficial to be what is sought, for it seems to be in the ones who give honor rather than in the one who is honored, but we divine that the good is something of one’s own and hard to take away. Also, people seem to pursue honor in order to be convinced that they themselves are good.”
Quite simply, the most innate human desire (in this case the desire of the common politician,) is to be honored – to be given praise and thought highly of – to be loved. And how true! No one can deny the wonderful feeling in knowing that another person cares about them. Whether it’s the filial love that pours forth in wonderful friendships, the divine love, the agape, that we all share for each other as Christians, or the eros, the romantic love, that we share with a special other, to know that we are loved in some way – that we are another’s beloved – gives us peace…makes our hearts and minds content…soothes our soul and completes us on some level. But as Aristotle is quick to point out, this want to be the honored (the loved,) is almost a superficial desire because the one who is giving the honor (the one who is loving another,) would be more satisfied.
So, is Aristotle saying that we should quell our desires to be the one who is loved and instead focus only on loving others? And if he were saying this, wouldn’t it create an unbelievable paradox, simply because everyone would be loving others who would not want to be loved because they want to do the loving? It got me thinking and set me off on a tangent, involving a good hour in the chapel trying to sort through all the confusing thoughts running through my head. And so, I wrote a few things down and hopefully this will spark some discussion between friends.
The greatest truth within our lives is that we are loved - loved by an all powerful and majestic God who never needed us, but simply wanted us. Loved into existence....that is how we are here. The divine love pouring forth from the most commanding entity of the universe created and sustains us. We are God’s beloved. Our most basic human desire, the want to be loved, is fulfilled the moment we are conceived - is sustained every second of every day that we live. And so, according to Aristotle despite the fact that he wasn’t necessarily writing from a Christian perspective, in our basic humanity, we should be satisfied because we are loved by God. End of discussion, right? Let’s take it further.
If what Aristotle originally said was true, that the one who is actually loving is more satisfied than the one who is loved, how can we accept that we are completely fulfilled in just knowing that God loves us and that we are truly His beloved?
I dare to say – despite the fact that I’m arguing against Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophical minds in human history, and probably destroying basic Church doctrine – that we cannot merely accept that God loves us…that we are doing ourselves a disservice and being unjust to God if we simply acknowledge that God loves us and move on.
We must be both the beloved and the lover. We must recognize and accept God’s divine love for us and know that we are His adored, but we must also accept the fact that we will gain ultimate satisfaction when we reciprocate that love, when we love God back, when God becomes our beloved.
I’m not saying that we can ever love God the same way He loves us. He is God – Master of the Universe, Savior of the World, Lover of all. For us to even fathom His love and to attempt to grasp the concept of us being loved into existence boggles our minds.
But we can love Him back. We can accept that His love is what causes our existence and do our absolute best to love Him in return, even if it will never match His love. We have to come to realize the state of being the beloved is even more incredible when we love God back.
Put it on a human level. Let’s say Jane and Bob are dating, and, in order to prove the point, Bob is absolutely crazy about Jane, but Jane is only half way crazy about Bob (if that makes sense.) In essence, Bob is investing more into the relationship than Jane. Bob makes the first phone call, Bob sends the first text message, Bob grabs Jane’s hand first. And one could argue that this is how a relationship should work. That it is Bob’s job to be the lover in the relationship and for Jane to sit back and be the beloved. But is Jane really benefiting from the relationship if she is simply loved and never returns any feeling? Is simply being the beloved enough in this common, everyday relationship? Moreover, is Bob really benefiting from the relationship if he is only loving and never loved back? Is simply being the lover enough in this common, everyday relationship?
The relationship must be balanced…it must be equal…there must be a dual partnership in the loving. They must both love and must both be the beloved. Bob must love Jane, but Jane must also love Bob. Otherwise, things become one sided and unfair and the relationship is doomed to failure.
This is what we must strive to avoid in the relationship with God – this one sided, unfair relationship with God simply loving us and us never returning the love to Him.
We must know that God loves us and we must accept ourselves as His beloved. We have to remind ourselves that He made us through His love…that His love is why we exist. And when we accept that, how can we not love Him back? We must be God’s lover and we must accept Him as our beloved. He must be first in our lives. He cannot take a backseat to our schoolwork or our social lives, He cannot be disregarded for the superficial things of this world. We must love Him first.
The whole reason for this, quite simply, is to point out that God’s love sustains and completes us, but that we are more fulfilled when we reciprocate that love. Our greatest joy in life will be found when we accept our role as both God’s beloved and God’s lover… when we become the beloved lover…
God manifests Himself at random moments and in the most unexpected places, but I never expected to discover God in the dog-eared pages of my Nichomachean Ethics as Professor Parens rambled on about the difference between the life of pleasure and the life of philosophy.
Aristotle says, “But refined and active people choose honor, for this is pretty much the goal of political life. Now this appears to be too superficial to be what is sought, for it seems to be in the ones who give honor rather than in the one who is honored, but we divine that the good is something of one’s own and hard to take away. Also, people seem to pursue honor in order to be convinced that they themselves are good.”
Quite simply, the most innate human desire (in this case the desire of the common politician,) is to be honored – to be given praise and thought highly of – to be loved. And how true! No one can deny the wonderful feeling in knowing that another person cares about them. Whether it’s the filial love that pours forth in wonderful friendships, the divine love, the agape, that we all share for each other as Christians, or the eros, the romantic love, that we share with a special other, to know that we are loved in some way – that we are another’s beloved – gives us peace…makes our hearts and minds content…soothes our soul and completes us on some level. But as Aristotle is quick to point out, this want to be the honored (the loved,) is almost a superficial desire because the one who is giving the honor (the one who is loving another,) would be more satisfied.
So, is Aristotle saying that we should quell our desires to be the one who is loved and instead focus only on loving others? And if he were saying this, wouldn’t it create an unbelievable paradox, simply because everyone would be loving others who would not want to be loved because they want to do the loving? It got me thinking and set me off on a tangent, involving a good hour in the chapel trying to sort through all the confusing thoughts running through my head. And so, I wrote a few things down and hopefully this will spark some discussion between friends.
The greatest truth within our lives is that we are loved - loved by an all powerful and majestic God who never needed us, but simply wanted us. Loved into existence....that is how we are here. The divine love pouring forth from the most commanding entity of the universe created and sustains us. We are God’s beloved. Our most basic human desire, the want to be loved, is fulfilled the moment we are conceived - is sustained every second of every day that we live. And so, according to Aristotle despite the fact that he wasn’t necessarily writing from a Christian perspective, in our basic humanity, we should be satisfied because we are loved by God. End of discussion, right? Let’s take it further.
If what Aristotle originally said was true, that the one who is actually loving is more satisfied than the one who is loved, how can we accept that we are completely fulfilled in just knowing that God loves us and that we are truly His beloved?
I dare to say – despite the fact that I’m arguing against Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophical minds in human history, and probably destroying basic Church doctrine – that we cannot merely accept that God loves us…that we are doing ourselves a disservice and being unjust to God if we simply acknowledge that God loves us and move on.
We must be both the beloved and the lover. We must recognize and accept God’s divine love for us and know that we are His adored, but we must also accept the fact that we will gain ultimate satisfaction when we reciprocate that love, when we love God back, when God becomes our beloved.
I’m not saying that we can ever love God the same way He loves us. He is God – Master of the Universe, Savior of the World, Lover of all. For us to even fathom His love and to attempt to grasp the concept of us being loved into existence boggles our minds.
But we can love Him back. We can accept that His love is what causes our existence and do our absolute best to love Him in return, even if it will never match His love. We have to come to realize the state of being the beloved is even more incredible when we love God back.
Put it on a human level. Let’s say Jane and Bob are dating, and, in order to prove the point, Bob is absolutely crazy about Jane, but Jane is only half way crazy about Bob (if that makes sense.) In essence, Bob is investing more into the relationship than Jane. Bob makes the first phone call, Bob sends the first text message, Bob grabs Jane’s hand first. And one could argue that this is how a relationship should work. That it is Bob’s job to be the lover in the relationship and for Jane to sit back and be the beloved. But is Jane really benefiting from the relationship if she is simply loved and never returns any feeling? Is simply being the beloved enough in this common, everyday relationship? Moreover, is Bob really benefiting from the relationship if he is only loving and never loved back? Is simply being the lover enough in this common, everyday relationship?
The relationship must be balanced…it must be equal…there must be a dual partnership in the loving. They must both love and must both be the beloved. Bob must love Jane, but Jane must also love Bob. Otherwise, things become one sided and unfair and the relationship is doomed to failure.
This is what we must strive to avoid in the relationship with God – this one sided, unfair relationship with God simply loving us and us never returning the love to Him.
We must know that God loves us and we must accept ourselves as His beloved. We have to remind ourselves that He made us through His love…that His love is why we exist. And when we accept that, how can we not love Him back? We must be God’s lover and we must accept Him as our beloved. He must be first in our lives. He cannot take a backseat to our schoolwork or our social lives, He cannot be disregarded for the superficial things of this world. We must love Him first.
The whole reason for this, quite simply, is to point out that God’s love sustains and completes us, but that we are more fulfilled when we reciprocate that love. Our greatest joy in life will be found when we accept our role as both God’s beloved and God’s lover… when we become the beloved lover…
God's desire for our love...Our fulfillment with His
It is the ultimate challenge of faith – the greatest quandary one faces when it comes to believing in God. It has sparked numerous discussions throughout history. It has pulled some further away from the truth that is faith in God, while drawing others closer to the amazing reality. It is the ever-puzzling question of how it is that God – Creator of the Universe, Master of all - loves man.
Simple and sinful, vain and insignificant, and yet still a part of the great schema of the created world, man could be considered the blemish, the stain, upon the perfect world that existed. But it is this paradox – this absurd reality that God made man – that provides the greatest comfort for those who believe. For in knowing that humans are sinful and wicked, and knowing that God still provides and loves, it is assured that there is a greater force at work – that there was a specific purpose, an absolute reason for human existence. God created man out of a desire for man -out of sheer, perfect, unconditional love - and in creating man established the ultimate purpose, the proper autonomy of a person: to serve, love, and know God.
The Word of God – the most sacred and holy Bible – begins with the magnificent account of creation. In five days God created night and day, birds of the air, creatures of the sea, and plants and vegetation to fill the land; after these five days of intense work, God gazed upon the things He had made and decided to “…make man in our image, and after our likeness…” (Gen 1:26.) Considered the epitome of creation, the moment God brought forth human life to His perfect and undefiled earth signifies a most significant expression of God’s unconditional and perfect love. The fact that God thought it necessary to create something that was in His image – something that would have elements of Himself – is the first instance where God shows a desire for man. There was no immediate need for man. God, being the ruler of all things, could have ordered creation in such a way that animals and vegetation would have no need of human interference. In essence, God created man because He wanted to.
The question is why. Why would God want man? What good does man do God? God has everything at His disposal – He created it, so it is naturally His and most specifically good – so man can give no things to God. There is no equal partnership, no balance of give and take between humans and God. Quite simply, God gave everything to man, so what could man possibly give to God? John Paul the Second, in his teachings on the Theology of the Body claims, “The reciprocal gift of oneself to God – a gift in which man will concentrate and express all the energies of his own personal and at the same time psychosomatic subjectivity – will be the response to God’s gift of self to man.” [i]
This is what man can give to God, the only thing man could possibly give – himself. When the gift of self is given to God, when all things of the world become secondary to the worshipping and loving of the Highest Power, things are in order and as they should be.
Adam and Eve could have been the perfect examples of giving this “reciprocal gift of oneself to God.” In the perfect world, the utopia of Eden, they had the chance to live in this state of giving themselves to God forever. But human error, the innate humanity and ability to fall into sin, overwhelmed them causing God to “[drive] out the man,” and marked man’s soul with the stain of original sin forever (Gen. 3:24.) Some argue that God, being omnipotent, knew man would sin all along; that He intended for them to sin and desired nothing more than to see them suffer and eventually turn to Him, begging for redemption and salvation. But this turns God into a manipulative, egotistical deity likened to the mythological Athena and Zeus who sought to toy with the lives of the simplistic mortals roaming the unruly earth, and God – the Father Almighty – is anything but scheming and arrogant. God created man with the ability to rule himself. He gave humans free will, the potential to decide things of one’s own accord – to control one’s own life. This free will is what caused Adam and Eve to sin, not a calculating nature of God’s.
So the question arises, why would God create man with free will? If God’s entire purpose in creating humans was to establish a people that would seek to serve and worship Him always, then why would He not control man at all times? Why would He give humans the chance to control themselves? Because God wanted man to choose Him. That is to say, God gave man free will – the potential to chart one’s own course in life – so that man would have to openly acknowledge and accept God, seeking to love God the same way that God loves man. God did not want a world filled with people blindly following Him…what sort of a testament of faith is it when one believes something that is forced and could never be questioned? So God gave the gift of free will, hoping – knowing – that many would discover the truth in believing and loving Him.
It is when man recognizes and acknowledges that the free will he has been given is meant to lead him to God – that he is supposed to freely will himself to loving and serving God – that the truth of faith and the reality of life is shockingly revealed. Psalm 8, a psalm of God’s divine majesty and man’s human dignity says, “What is man that you are mindful of him…?” (Psalm 8:4.) The psalm sings of the great wonders of the earth, the marvels of creation that man pales in comparison to. And in marveling over the magnificent creation that is the world, man recognizes what his purpose is, to sing out “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!” (Psalm 8:9.) When man looks at the world and the beautiful things God has created, he is hard pressed to find an excuse to not worship and praise the Almighty Father. It’s in recognizing man’s simplicity and undeniable humanity that leads to an unabashed worship of the everlasting God.
******************************************************************************
God’s desire for man – His love of the human person- does not stop merely in knowing that He granted man the opportunity to willingly choose Him. The epitome of God’s love and desire for the well-being of man is shown with the life, death, and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict XVI, in his powerful book Jesus of Nazareth, writes,
“What has [Jesus] brought? The answer is very simple: God…Jesus has brought God and with God the truth about our origin and destiny…”[ii]
The existence of Jesus Christ – with His miraculous life, sacrificial death, and redemptive resurrection – brings the truth of God into the world tenfold. The very fact that God manifested Himself in the world, choosing to send His son – a being absolutely human and completely divine – shows that God wanted man to know Him. By sending Jesus, by giving Jesus, and by raising Jesus, God gave the world undeniable proof that He wants man to love Him…that He desires nothing more than for us to desire Him.
God’s want for us – His ultimate wish for us – is that we want Him. Our function in life is to serve God – to give the gift of self - and in so doing, we gain more than we could have ever imagined. The bumper-sticker Bible verse, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only- begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,” is the blatant evidence that God gave the world Jesus so that we would come to believe and gain perfect and everlasting happiness with Him in heaven (John 3:16.) But it is the often overlooked verses following this inspiring favorite gives the undeniable purpose of Jesus’ existence. John chapter 3, verses 17 and 18 are very distinct with, “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” That is to say, because God sent us Jesus He gave us proof of His existence and His unconditional love, and any man who denies God after He has given us this gift of His son is damning himself. We cannot deny God’s love when we look at the gift of Jesus, so therefore we cannot deny loving God with our whole selves and giving ourselves to Him.
******************************************************************************
God’s desire for man is shown through the creation of mankind on the 6th day of creation. It is further evidenced in that He provided man with free will, giving man the chance to determine his own fate and control his own life. And God’s want of man reaches its epitome with the life, death, and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ. Man finds solace and comfort in knowing that God desires man, wanting him on His earth and existing amongst His creation, but is further challenged to reciprocate that love and give of himself for the greater glory of God.
[i] John Paul II’s Theology of the Body: Man and Woman He Created Them 68:3; published 1986
[ii] Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth pg. 44; published 2006.
Simple and sinful, vain and insignificant, and yet still a part of the great schema of the created world, man could be considered the blemish, the stain, upon the perfect world that existed. But it is this paradox – this absurd reality that God made man – that provides the greatest comfort for those who believe. For in knowing that humans are sinful and wicked, and knowing that God still provides and loves, it is assured that there is a greater force at work – that there was a specific purpose, an absolute reason for human existence. God created man out of a desire for man -out of sheer, perfect, unconditional love - and in creating man established the ultimate purpose, the proper autonomy of a person: to serve, love, and know God.
The Word of God – the most sacred and holy Bible – begins with the magnificent account of creation. In five days God created night and day, birds of the air, creatures of the sea, and plants and vegetation to fill the land; after these five days of intense work, God gazed upon the things He had made and decided to “…make man in our image, and after our likeness…” (Gen 1:26.) Considered the epitome of creation, the moment God brought forth human life to His perfect and undefiled earth signifies a most significant expression of God’s unconditional and perfect love. The fact that God thought it necessary to create something that was in His image – something that would have elements of Himself – is the first instance where God shows a desire for man. There was no immediate need for man. God, being the ruler of all things, could have ordered creation in such a way that animals and vegetation would have no need of human interference. In essence, God created man because He wanted to.
The question is why. Why would God want man? What good does man do God? God has everything at His disposal – He created it, so it is naturally His and most specifically good – so man can give no things to God. There is no equal partnership, no balance of give and take between humans and God. Quite simply, God gave everything to man, so what could man possibly give to God? John Paul the Second, in his teachings on the Theology of the Body claims, “The reciprocal gift of oneself to God – a gift in which man will concentrate and express all the energies of his own personal and at the same time psychosomatic subjectivity – will be the response to God’s gift of self to man.” [i]
This is what man can give to God, the only thing man could possibly give – himself. When the gift of self is given to God, when all things of the world become secondary to the worshipping and loving of the Highest Power, things are in order and as they should be.
Adam and Eve could have been the perfect examples of giving this “reciprocal gift of oneself to God.” In the perfect world, the utopia of Eden, they had the chance to live in this state of giving themselves to God forever. But human error, the innate humanity and ability to fall into sin, overwhelmed them causing God to “[drive] out the man,” and marked man’s soul with the stain of original sin forever (Gen. 3:24.) Some argue that God, being omnipotent, knew man would sin all along; that He intended for them to sin and desired nothing more than to see them suffer and eventually turn to Him, begging for redemption and salvation. But this turns God into a manipulative, egotistical deity likened to the mythological Athena and Zeus who sought to toy with the lives of the simplistic mortals roaming the unruly earth, and God – the Father Almighty – is anything but scheming and arrogant. God created man with the ability to rule himself. He gave humans free will, the potential to decide things of one’s own accord – to control one’s own life. This free will is what caused Adam and Eve to sin, not a calculating nature of God’s.
So the question arises, why would God create man with free will? If God’s entire purpose in creating humans was to establish a people that would seek to serve and worship Him always, then why would He not control man at all times? Why would He give humans the chance to control themselves? Because God wanted man to choose Him. That is to say, God gave man free will – the potential to chart one’s own course in life – so that man would have to openly acknowledge and accept God, seeking to love God the same way that God loves man. God did not want a world filled with people blindly following Him…what sort of a testament of faith is it when one believes something that is forced and could never be questioned? So God gave the gift of free will, hoping – knowing – that many would discover the truth in believing and loving Him.
It is when man recognizes and acknowledges that the free will he has been given is meant to lead him to God – that he is supposed to freely will himself to loving and serving God – that the truth of faith and the reality of life is shockingly revealed. Psalm 8, a psalm of God’s divine majesty and man’s human dignity says, “What is man that you are mindful of him…?” (Psalm 8:4.) The psalm sings of the great wonders of the earth, the marvels of creation that man pales in comparison to. And in marveling over the magnificent creation that is the world, man recognizes what his purpose is, to sing out “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!” (Psalm 8:9.) When man looks at the world and the beautiful things God has created, he is hard pressed to find an excuse to not worship and praise the Almighty Father. It’s in recognizing man’s simplicity and undeniable humanity that leads to an unabashed worship of the everlasting God.
******************************************************************************
God’s desire for man – His love of the human person- does not stop merely in knowing that He granted man the opportunity to willingly choose Him. The epitome of God’s love and desire for the well-being of man is shown with the life, death, and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict XVI, in his powerful book Jesus of Nazareth, writes,
“What has [Jesus] brought? The answer is very simple: God…Jesus has brought God and with God the truth about our origin and destiny…”[ii]
The existence of Jesus Christ – with His miraculous life, sacrificial death, and redemptive resurrection – brings the truth of God into the world tenfold. The very fact that God manifested Himself in the world, choosing to send His son – a being absolutely human and completely divine – shows that God wanted man to know Him. By sending Jesus, by giving Jesus, and by raising Jesus, God gave the world undeniable proof that He wants man to love Him…that He desires nothing more than for us to desire Him.
God’s want for us – His ultimate wish for us – is that we want Him. Our function in life is to serve God – to give the gift of self - and in so doing, we gain more than we could have ever imagined. The bumper-sticker Bible verse, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only- begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,” is the blatant evidence that God gave the world Jesus so that we would come to believe and gain perfect and everlasting happiness with Him in heaven (John 3:16.) But it is the often overlooked verses following this inspiring favorite gives the undeniable purpose of Jesus’ existence. John chapter 3, verses 17 and 18 are very distinct with, “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” That is to say, because God sent us Jesus He gave us proof of His existence and His unconditional love, and any man who denies God after He has given us this gift of His son is damning himself. We cannot deny God’s love when we look at the gift of Jesus, so therefore we cannot deny loving God with our whole selves and giving ourselves to Him.
******************************************************************************
God’s desire for man is shown through the creation of mankind on the 6th day of creation. It is further evidenced in that He provided man with free will, giving man the chance to determine his own fate and control his own life. And God’s want of man reaches its epitome with the life, death, and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ. Man finds solace and comfort in knowing that God desires man, wanting him on His earth and existing amongst His creation, but is further challenged to reciprocate that love and give of himself for the greater glory of God.
[i] John Paul II’s Theology of the Body: Man and Woman He Created Them 68:3; published 1986
[ii] Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth pg. 44; published 2006.
the holiest...
-dedicated to Garland Prejean, a father of inspiration-
I’m trying so hard to be perfect –
I’m seeking that cosmic prayer experience…hoping for the defining moment
I’m trying so hard to be holy –
I’m putting up a front…showing only that which is good and pleasing and perfect.
And in my confusion and misunderstanding, my turmoil and hurt,
You call out…
Child, my child.
Beloved of my heart.
Seek to show the world what I see…
-the glorious mess that you truly are –
-the glorious mess that I made –
-the glorious mess that I died for-
-the glorious mess that I love-
I am holy – am a saint –
When I fall face down and admit that I am most certainly not…
When I am humbled in His most sacred presence…
When I willingly accept Him
I’m trying so hard to be perfect –
I’m seeking that cosmic prayer experience…hoping for the defining moment
I’m trying so hard to be holy –
I’m putting up a front…showing only that which is good and pleasing and perfect.
And in my confusion and misunderstanding, my turmoil and hurt,
You call out…
Child, my child.
Beloved of my heart.
Seek to show the world what I see…
-the glorious mess that you truly are –
-the glorious mess that I made –
-the glorious mess that I died for-
-the glorious mess that I love-
I am holy – am a saint –
When I fall face down and admit that I am most certainly not…
When I am humbled in His most sacred presence…
When I willingly accept Him
Ambiguous Beauty...Virtuous Justice
The Republic, Plato’s most prominent work, centers itself around both Socrates’ creation of an ideal city and the political turmoil and drama of Glaucon. These two central aspects of this ancient philosophical text are intertwined throughout the ten books chronicling the speeches of Socrates, and are designed to eventually give a description of justice within a society. However, as the perfect city comes into hypothetical existence, Socrates finds himself having to explain the concept of beauty to the confused Glaucon. Often placing the varied definitions of justice next to the different standards of beauty, Socrates is hoping to convince Glaucon that when beauty becomes the focus of a city, justice, the virtue designed to maintain a city, is often overlooked and thrown to the wayside.
Early on in the dialogues, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus engage in a conversation concerning justice and injustice in regards to a man. Glaucon poses a scenario involving a ring that makes the wearer invisible. The man in possession of this ring has, in essence, the power to do whatever he wants. The question is, if both a just and unjust man were to each be given a ring of this nature, would the just man remain just? If given the chance to do unjust things – steal, release prisoners, have intercourse with any woman at any time – is a just man likely to remain as honorable and just as he would if such a ring were not with him (360b3-c7)? Socrates argues that no, the just man would become an unjust man, at least when he had the ring, simply because no one would know what he was doing. He would still have the reputation of a just man, but be benefiting from the spoils of unjust deeds.
This discourse on the ring leads into Socrates’ presentation of how to test a man’s true character. Two men will be studied, one just, the other unjust. The unjust man will earn a reputation as a just man. His unjust pursuits will be completely disregarded and he will be viewed and respected as a man with the utmost qualities of justice. The just man, however, will be seen as an unjust man. Despite his esteemed efforts in, “doing no injustice, let him have the greatest reputation for injustice, so that his justice may be put to the test to see if it is softened by bad reputation and its consequences,” (361c4-6.) At the end of his life, each man looks back, reflecting on the things he has done. The unjust man is satisfied with the life he has led. He has done the things unjust men do, but has been regarded as a just man. The just man reflects and realizes that he would’ve been better served had he been unjust, because then he would have earned the reputation of a just man – the reputation he truly deserved. Socrates, in describing the reputations and lives of these two men, is presenting the concept of justice falling prey to injustice. When presented with which to pursue, either justice or injustice, this argument claims that to be unjust would better serve one’s personal wants and needs. This is the first time Socrates presents the concept of injustice being attractive, and this will prove essential in the argument to follow, simply because the attractive – the beautiful - things in life are the easiest to access and participate in.
Therefore, if injustice is beautiful, it is easier to be attracted to the unjust way of life, which Socrates is trying to pull Glaucon away from.
As the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates continues, they begin to discuss the actual city they want to create. Glaucon, as the reader will learn, is overly concerned about luxurious things in his city. Upon noticing this obsession with fine things Socrates launches into a comparison between healthy and feverish cities. He claims that in the feverish city, “nothing stands in the way,” meaning, that what anyone wants, anyone gets (372e6.) The feverish city is Glaucon’s “luxurious city,” a city filled with people “concerned with figures and colors…” (373b4.) Plato is presenting us with a character drawn to the glamorous spoils of the world in the form of Glaucon. Socrates knows that Glaucon enjoys beautiful things, and because injustice is beautiful, Glaucon would be pulled to a life of injustice. Therefore, Socrates must convince Glaucon that if a city is overcome with beautiful things then the city will not be the perfect city they are striving for. In essence, Socrates must make the beautiful appear unattractive. Once again, it is seen that beauty and justice rub together; Socrates cannot persuade Glaucon into a just way of life when injustice is beautiful. If Socrates is unsuccessful in his argument, injustice will prevail over justice within their city in the form of beautiful things.
In order to provide greater stability within his argument, Socrates begins to discuss the forms of the soul. Presenting the qualities of moderation, courage, liberality, and magnificence, Socrates claims that a musical man notices the people who have these qualities within their soul, and that when these dispositions are joined together it is “the fairest sight for him who is able to see” (402d2.) And, because Socrates needs further clout in the debate, “the fairest is the most lovable” (402d5.) Quite simply, the musical man – the man with a harmonious nature – loves the man whose soul is in order. This musical man, this being in possession of internal harmony, can appreciate and understand beauty. He does not see beauty on a physical level; instead, he appreciates the beauty within, the beauty that comes from a soul connected with the forms. This is the type of beauty Socrates is advocating, and on some level, Glaucon already appreciates this beauty. Socrates must tread lightly, however, because the fact still remains that the beautiful things, internal or external, are easiest to be attracted to.
Knowing that beautiful things are highly attractive, in creating this ideal city Socrates must pay close attention to the people who have and cherish luxurious things. In previous conversations, Socrates and Glaucon have discussed the guardians of the city and where they stand in the social workings of the established society. It is established that the guardians will live in common; they will share housing, food, women, and property – in essence, they won’t be able to claim anything as their own (416d3-e). According to Socrates, this lack of ownership will prompt the guardians into believing in “the good of the city,” that is to say, their personal happiness will be sacrificed for the city’s happiness (420b1-4.) Socrates explains to Glaucon that this sacrifice for the city’s happiness is absolutely necessary, simply because the guardians must never experience the beautiful things. He draws a comparison saying that when a farmer is given “fine robes” and “[we] bid them work the earth at their pleasure,” they become less of a farmer (420d6-e.) Since they have now seen and have a slight understanding of beautiful things, they will want to have and experience them forever, meaning they could not live a farmer’s life. The same would happen with a guardian if he experienced beautiful things. In having his own property, the guardian would assume an “owner’s attitude,” and constantly be trying to attain more for himself instead of working to bring more to the city. If the guardian were to shirk his duties in working for the city, then the city and its inhabitants would be served a great injustice. If there are no guardians, then there is no law and order. If there is no law and order, then peace and prosperity would be non-existent in the city. If there is no peace and prosperity, then the city is pointless and the peoples’ lives have no merit. Socrates is making his primary point to Glaucon: when beauty within a city becomes the focus of the inhabitants and their daily existence, then justice is overlooked and suffers in practice.
Glaucon is aiming to rule this ideal city. He is tempted with the thought of being a tyrant leader and Socrates’ main task is to persuade him against this. In order to do this, Socrates has to convince Glaucon of the hideous nature of natural beauty. Socrates begins to discuss the difference between “lovers of sight” and “[who] alone one could rightly call philosophers,” (476b2.) He argues that the lovers of sight find happiness in the beautiful things, but are unable to grasp the actual “nature of the fair itself,” (476b5.) They experience beauty on a surface level, whereas philosophers, those who know the things of the world, are “able to approach the fair itself and see it by itself,” (476b8-9.) Socrates goes further, saying the men who merely see the beautiful are dreaming – they are confusing likenesses of beauty to actual beauty –and their reality of beautiful things is distorted. Inadvertently, Socrates is accusing Glaucon of being a “dreamer.” Glaucon knows he is not a philosopher and therefore lacks the ability to truly understand the nature of beauty. If he cannot grasp the concepts of beauty, then the beautiful things must be purged within his city. This purging is a return to the city of necessity – a city in possession of justice – initially presented by Socrates.
Throughout the work, justice and beauty are often presented side by side. One is rarely shared without the other surfacing in some way. Because Glaucon is drawn to beautiful things, which would pull him away from advocating and participating in justice, Socrates’ primary task is to convince him of the ambiguous nature of beauty. The essential argument against beauty within the city comes forth in the presentation of opinions of man versus the actual knowledge of man. Socrates says, “Knowledge is presumably dependent on what is…” (478a6.) That is to say, the things that are known are definite – they are precise in their being. He goes further, saying “To that which is not we were compelled to assign ignorance…” (478b15.) Specifically, things that are unknown have no absolute in their being. So, drawing a conclusion from these two points, opinion is the cross between knowledge and ignorance (478d2.) To make the official reference and comparison to beauty, Socrates says, “…of these many fair things…is there any that won’t also look ugly?”(479a6.) Where something is beautiful to one person, it could be considered ugly by another. That is to say, there is no common standard for beauty – there is no definitive reference as to what could be considered beautiful; beauty is, in essence, a cross between what is and what is not. The old adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” proves meritorious in this argument.
Socrates’ main point is to say that there is no standard for beauty – that a man’s opinion determines what is beautiful. Therefore, if there’s no common reference for beauty, then beauty within the city would be different for each person. Where the farmer finds a new plow a glorious luxury, a ruler would see it as a simple, normal tool for his mundane job. The “beautiful and luxurious city” would be filled with double standards; man would consider only his opinion in determining things and personal happiness would take precedence over the overall happiness of the city. Socrates can only explain justice while defining beauty, and he can only examine the truths of beauty when drawing in justice. He must convince Glaucon, quite simply, that when beauty is the focus, the ambiguous nature of the many beautiful things confuses the ultimate quality needed within the city, justice.
Early on in the dialogues, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus engage in a conversation concerning justice and injustice in regards to a man. Glaucon poses a scenario involving a ring that makes the wearer invisible. The man in possession of this ring has, in essence, the power to do whatever he wants. The question is, if both a just and unjust man were to each be given a ring of this nature, would the just man remain just? If given the chance to do unjust things – steal, release prisoners, have intercourse with any woman at any time – is a just man likely to remain as honorable and just as he would if such a ring were not with him (360b3-c7)? Socrates argues that no, the just man would become an unjust man, at least when he had the ring, simply because no one would know what he was doing. He would still have the reputation of a just man, but be benefiting from the spoils of unjust deeds.
This discourse on the ring leads into Socrates’ presentation of how to test a man’s true character. Two men will be studied, one just, the other unjust. The unjust man will earn a reputation as a just man. His unjust pursuits will be completely disregarded and he will be viewed and respected as a man with the utmost qualities of justice. The just man, however, will be seen as an unjust man. Despite his esteemed efforts in, “doing no injustice, let him have the greatest reputation for injustice, so that his justice may be put to the test to see if it is softened by bad reputation and its consequences,” (361c4-6.) At the end of his life, each man looks back, reflecting on the things he has done. The unjust man is satisfied with the life he has led. He has done the things unjust men do, but has been regarded as a just man. The just man reflects and realizes that he would’ve been better served had he been unjust, because then he would have earned the reputation of a just man – the reputation he truly deserved. Socrates, in describing the reputations and lives of these two men, is presenting the concept of justice falling prey to injustice. When presented with which to pursue, either justice or injustice, this argument claims that to be unjust would better serve one’s personal wants and needs. This is the first time Socrates presents the concept of injustice being attractive, and this will prove essential in the argument to follow, simply because the attractive – the beautiful - things in life are the easiest to access and participate in.
Therefore, if injustice is beautiful, it is easier to be attracted to the unjust way of life, which Socrates is trying to pull Glaucon away from.
As the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates continues, they begin to discuss the actual city they want to create. Glaucon, as the reader will learn, is overly concerned about luxurious things in his city. Upon noticing this obsession with fine things Socrates launches into a comparison between healthy and feverish cities. He claims that in the feverish city, “nothing stands in the way,” meaning, that what anyone wants, anyone gets (372e6.) The feverish city is Glaucon’s “luxurious city,” a city filled with people “concerned with figures and colors…” (373b4.) Plato is presenting us with a character drawn to the glamorous spoils of the world in the form of Glaucon. Socrates knows that Glaucon enjoys beautiful things, and because injustice is beautiful, Glaucon would be pulled to a life of injustice. Therefore, Socrates must convince Glaucon that if a city is overcome with beautiful things then the city will not be the perfect city they are striving for. In essence, Socrates must make the beautiful appear unattractive. Once again, it is seen that beauty and justice rub together; Socrates cannot persuade Glaucon into a just way of life when injustice is beautiful. If Socrates is unsuccessful in his argument, injustice will prevail over justice within their city in the form of beautiful things.
In order to provide greater stability within his argument, Socrates begins to discuss the forms of the soul. Presenting the qualities of moderation, courage, liberality, and magnificence, Socrates claims that a musical man notices the people who have these qualities within their soul, and that when these dispositions are joined together it is “the fairest sight for him who is able to see” (402d2.) And, because Socrates needs further clout in the debate, “the fairest is the most lovable” (402d5.) Quite simply, the musical man – the man with a harmonious nature – loves the man whose soul is in order. This musical man, this being in possession of internal harmony, can appreciate and understand beauty. He does not see beauty on a physical level; instead, he appreciates the beauty within, the beauty that comes from a soul connected with the forms. This is the type of beauty Socrates is advocating, and on some level, Glaucon already appreciates this beauty. Socrates must tread lightly, however, because the fact still remains that the beautiful things, internal or external, are easiest to be attracted to.
Knowing that beautiful things are highly attractive, in creating this ideal city Socrates must pay close attention to the people who have and cherish luxurious things. In previous conversations, Socrates and Glaucon have discussed the guardians of the city and where they stand in the social workings of the established society. It is established that the guardians will live in common; they will share housing, food, women, and property – in essence, they won’t be able to claim anything as their own (416d3-e). According to Socrates, this lack of ownership will prompt the guardians into believing in “the good of the city,” that is to say, their personal happiness will be sacrificed for the city’s happiness (420b1-4.) Socrates explains to Glaucon that this sacrifice for the city’s happiness is absolutely necessary, simply because the guardians must never experience the beautiful things. He draws a comparison saying that when a farmer is given “fine robes” and “[we] bid them work the earth at their pleasure,” they become less of a farmer (420d6-e.) Since they have now seen and have a slight understanding of beautiful things, they will want to have and experience them forever, meaning they could not live a farmer’s life. The same would happen with a guardian if he experienced beautiful things. In having his own property, the guardian would assume an “owner’s attitude,” and constantly be trying to attain more for himself instead of working to bring more to the city. If the guardian were to shirk his duties in working for the city, then the city and its inhabitants would be served a great injustice. If there are no guardians, then there is no law and order. If there is no law and order, then peace and prosperity would be non-existent in the city. If there is no peace and prosperity, then the city is pointless and the peoples’ lives have no merit. Socrates is making his primary point to Glaucon: when beauty within a city becomes the focus of the inhabitants and their daily existence, then justice is overlooked and suffers in practice.
Glaucon is aiming to rule this ideal city. He is tempted with the thought of being a tyrant leader and Socrates’ main task is to persuade him against this. In order to do this, Socrates has to convince Glaucon of the hideous nature of natural beauty. Socrates begins to discuss the difference between “lovers of sight” and “[who] alone one could rightly call philosophers,” (476b2.) He argues that the lovers of sight find happiness in the beautiful things, but are unable to grasp the actual “nature of the fair itself,” (476b5.) They experience beauty on a surface level, whereas philosophers, those who know the things of the world, are “able to approach the fair itself and see it by itself,” (476b8-9.) Socrates goes further, saying the men who merely see the beautiful are dreaming – they are confusing likenesses of beauty to actual beauty –and their reality of beautiful things is distorted. Inadvertently, Socrates is accusing Glaucon of being a “dreamer.” Glaucon knows he is not a philosopher and therefore lacks the ability to truly understand the nature of beauty. If he cannot grasp the concepts of beauty, then the beautiful things must be purged within his city. This purging is a return to the city of necessity – a city in possession of justice – initially presented by Socrates.
Throughout the work, justice and beauty are often presented side by side. One is rarely shared without the other surfacing in some way. Because Glaucon is drawn to beautiful things, which would pull him away from advocating and participating in justice, Socrates’ primary task is to convince him of the ambiguous nature of beauty. The essential argument against beauty within the city comes forth in the presentation of opinions of man versus the actual knowledge of man. Socrates says, “Knowledge is presumably dependent on what is…” (478a6.) That is to say, the things that are known are definite – they are precise in their being. He goes further, saying “To that which is not we were compelled to assign ignorance…” (478b15.) Specifically, things that are unknown have no absolute in their being. So, drawing a conclusion from these two points, opinion is the cross between knowledge and ignorance (478d2.) To make the official reference and comparison to beauty, Socrates says, “…of these many fair things…is there any that won’t also look ugly?”(479a6.) Where something is beautiful to one person, it could be considered ugly by another. That is to say, there is no common standard for beauty – there is no definitive reference as to what could be considered beautiful; beauty is, in essence, a cross between what is and what is not. The old adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” proves meritorious in this argument.
Socrates’ main point is to say that there is no standard for beauty – that a man’s opinion determines what is beautiful. Therefore, if there’s no common reference for beauty, then beauty within the city would be different for each person. Where the farmer finds a new plow a glorious luxury, a ruler would see it as a simple, normal tool for his mundane job. The “beautiful and luxurious city” would be filled with double standards; man would consider only his opinion in determining things and personal happiness would take precedence over the overall happiness of the city. Socrates can only explain justice while defining beauty, and he can only examine the truths of beauty when drawing in justice. He must convince Glaucon, quite simply, that when beauty is the focus, the ambiguous nature of the many beautiful things confuses the ultimate quality needed within the city, justice.
The love we cannot understand...
It goes back to a quiet night…a quiet night, with a velvety sky above and a soothing calm washing over the earth.
And two people – a gentle man and a sinless woman who understood the call to surrender.
And there, in the peace and splendor of the evening, a baby comes into this world.
An innocent child with 10 fingers and 10 toes and a soft whimpering cry that is hushed by the rhythmic rocking in His mother’s warm arms.
An infant comforted, resting now, for one day rest will not come so easily – and He sleeps…
Sleeps because of His mother’s love.
A restless boy with a heart for adventure, and a soul compelled to know more.
Sneaking away, He knows there’s a purpose – a deeper meaning to His simple existence.
And moved, pulled into the sacred rooms of the glorious temple, He discovers where His heart surely rests – with the unexplainable presence of God.
And they both know, realize that their son of just 12 has come to realize who and what He truly is.
A boy comforted, resting in His presence now, for one day rest will not come so easily – and He learns…
Learns because of a newly discovered love.
An honest young man, comfortable with friends and family, and a heart for helping others.
Knows what He is truly here for, but unsure of when or how to begin.
So prodded by His mother, the woman He adores most, He reveals Himself and begins this life of devoting self.
And He knows that His public self has come to be.
So He teaches and heals, calls forth and challenges, resting in His understanding now, for one day rest will not come so easily – and he lives…
Lives because of His Father’s love.
A beaten man. A beaten, worn, bloody man hanging upon two beams of splintery wood, nailed up for all to see.
Who hours before had prayed to be delivered of such a terrible end, but who had accepted this enormous task, now dying a slow and painful death.
So drawn, drawn to the inevitable end and the pain in death, He goes.
And they all know who He was, the man who had come for them.
No longer resting in His mother’s arms.
No longer resting in God’s sacred presence.
No longer resting in His understanding.
This is the moment where rest does not come easily, for His death is not the peaceful end, but rather a harsh beginning.
And He dies…
Dies because of the world’s sin.
Dies because of the unbelievable need.
Dies because of His unconditional love.
And two people – a gentle man and a sinless woman who understood the call to surrender.
And there, in the peace and splendor of the evening, a baby comes into this world.
An innocent child with 10 fingers and 10 toes and a soft whimpering cry that is hushed by the rhythmic rocking in His mother’s warm arms.
An infant comforted, resting now, for one day rest will not come so easily – and He sleeps…
Sleeps because of His mother’s love.
A restless boy with a heart for adventure, and a soul compelled to know more.
Sneaking away, He knows there’s a purpose – a deeper meaning to His simple existence.
And moved, pulled into the sacred rooms of the glorious temple, He discovers where His heart surely rests – with the unexplainable presence of God.
And they both know, realize that their son of just 12 has come to realize who and what He truly is.
A boy comforted, resting in His presence now, for one day rest will not come so easily – and He learns…
Learns because of a newly discovered love.
An honest young man, comfortable with friends and family, and a heart for helping others.
Knows what He is truly here for, but unsure of when or how to begin.
So prodded by His mother, the woman He adores most, He reveals Himself and begins this life of devoting self.
And He knows that His public self has come to be.
So He teaches and heals, calls forth and challenges, resting in His understanding now, for one day rest will not come so easily – and he lives…
Lives because of His Father’s love.
A beaten man. A beaten, worn, bloody man hanging upon two beams of splintery wood, nailed up for all to see.
Who hours before had prayed to be delivered of such a terrible end, but who had accepted this enormous task, now dying a slow and painful death.
So drawn, drawn to the inevitable end and the pain in death, He goes.
And they all know who He was, the man who had come for them.
No longer resting in His mother’s arms.
No longer resting in God’s sacred presence.
No longer resting in His understanding.
This is the moment where rest does not come easily, for His death is not the peaceful end, but rather a harsh beginning.
And He dies…
Dies because of the world’s sin.
Dies because of the unbelievable need.
Dies because of His unconditional love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)