A Response to Prophets: A Word of Caution

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, a prophet is one who is regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. Inspired they may be, but being a prophet hasn't always been a viable occupation. They have been, not all, but certainly some, arrested, tortured, and executed. Less dramatically, others, and probably most, have been shunned by dominant institutions, whether political, social, or religious. Knowing this, people who want to be a prophet, or regard themselves as one, are not only not surprised to run into people who don't like them, but they expect it, and some even thrive on it. This, of course, begs the question of whether or not a genuine prophet would thrive on confrontation. One thing is certain, whether genuine or not, they get people talking. Nonetheless, there is this idea that a prophet is infallible, whether genuine or not. That is, if one is labelled a prophet--in his own eyes or of his followers--then they are, by nature and virtue of their "office," inerrent. This mentality would put, in the eyes of their followers, and quite possibly in their own, such a person above a priest, bishop, or even pope, not to mention a government, who speaks out in contradiction to the prophet's words.

Obviously, this notion of infallibility is very divisive. You are either with that person and adhere to his message, or you don't. If you don't, and since the prophet is, by virtue of his office, infallible, then you are being deceived by either the spirit of the world, the spirit of the flesh, and/or the spirit of the devil, or a mix of all three. Certainly no one wants to be deceived, so this experience can be disheartening and confusing. It can be difficult to know where the truth is in all this, especially if it involves close friends or people whom we admire. So how can we know if the Spirit of God is, indeed, speaking to us through this person? St Paul ran into a similar progblem, and taught us to base our judgement on the presence of the following "fruits of the Spirit": "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Gal. 5:22). These fruits act as markers for us, along with the gift of discernment of spirits, that tell us if the Spirit of God is present in a particular work or not. If he's not there, well, there are four options: the spirit of the world, the spirit of the flesh, the spirit of the devil, or a mix of all three.

Speaking of these external "markers," I don't know why this is, but some of these prophets that I've met look and act the same. Sure, I may not know them all that well, but I can know enough about them to know whether they are happy or sad, joyful or sorrowful. What I sometimes see are people who have no joy left. There is no peace in their eyes, only melancholy. They have become utterly sorrowful. What does that mean? Perhaps not too much--maybe I caught them on a bad day. Like I said, I may not know them too well, but sometimes I do know enough about them to know that the confident, strong, inspiring leader that I met 10 years ago, for example, isn't the same person telling me that the end is near--in fact, it is often quite the opposite. But my perception doesn't necessarily mean too much. Nonetheless, when I hear his/her message, the voice I hear in his admonitions is a melancholic one, not the voice of Isaiah nor Elijah--who were filled with a noticeable hope. In these guys, I really do not hear any hope, only doom and gloom. But, like I said earlier, I may be the one being deceived--certainly the followers would have me think so.

A Response to Prophets: Obama and the Economy

Lately, I've seen some emails, forwarded messages, mostly, that are snippets of prophetic warnings. Interestingly enough, they are mainly concerned with two things: Barack Obama and the tanking economy.

It's true, Barack Obama has a horrible voting record on abortion, but what we often forget is that it is not any different from that of the Democratic Party that he represents. Remember the Clintons? Sure, he is the Clinton's times 10, but the culture of death has also gotten vehemently stronger since the 1990s. So, when I think of Obama's abortion record, not only does it not surprise me, but I see it as a reflection of the particular culture we are in. He's bad on issues of life, but we need to remember that politicians often reflect the sentiments of those they represent, and who places them in power--despite how charismatic and trustworthy they seem to be.

The other thing that these modern prophets have on Obama is his message of hope and peoples' response to it. However, do you remember the spiritual or religious revolution of the late 19th century? Jehova's Witnesses, the Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, all came out of that particular climate. From what I understand, that climate wasn't unlike ours is right now. People were thirsty for a relief from poverty and hopelessness. I will bet anything to say that if you looked throughout history and examined the points when a country's morale was low, you will find one figure that roused hope in the hearts of his people. So, should we be surprised about Obama as if he were an historical anomaly? Not at all. In fact, the response to his message is very predictable given the cultural climate that the West is in right now. In fact, how do we know that the hope and unity that Obama is proclaiming is not unlike the hope and unity that Christ wants for us? Certainly, the abortion thing is a huge elephant in the room if we want to talk about comparing Obama with the message of Jesus Christ.

However, if we are to believe that all mythologies and religions find their fulfillment and aim in the person of Jesus Christ, then why not the messages of particular people? Look at some of the mythologies for a second and think about what this means. It means that there were elements in Aztec devotions that point, albeit imperfectly, or at least find their true satisfaction in Jesus Christ. Granted, and this is key, not all actions performed in the name of faith, and even in the name of Jesus, were what Jesus would have wanted or done, but they do find their ultimate goal in his revelation. All religious practices find what they are looking for in Jesus, in the sense that they are performed in order to sacramentally encounter the God of all life. Embedded within the human heart is a longing for this source, for this person who is our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Back to our original topic, why not Obama's message of unity and hope: the hope that things can and do change, especially when we work together. What is so wrong about this message that equates him with the antichrist? Why can't his message be touched by the redeeming power of God? Can we not hope that his policies on abortion can change, or is it all lost? How does the appearance of this man, at this point in history, mark the end of all time? The answer, or at least what I believe these prophets would say, is a matter of mathematics. A certain series of events, happening all at once, signify an even bigger event than all of them put together. In this case: armageddon. This part of the equation is the algebraic "e": our economy.

We have to place this current economic crisis into perspective. When people speak about it, they often claim that it hasn't been this bad since the 1980s, or since the 1930s, or even earlier. Just this morning, I heard one of Canada's richest persons, Stephen Jarislowsky , speak about how Japan experienced a similar economic crisis years ago, and has since pulled through. I suggest that you listen to what he has to say, it is really quite interesting. Although there are significant markers that are unique to this current crisis, as Mr. Jarislowsky points out, I am not sure that they are significant enough to claim they are signaling the end of all time.





P.S.
Interestingly enough, Obama wasn't the only wanna-be President preaching change, and he certainly wasn't the first. He was, however, the most well-endowed with the necessary cash, celebrities, and panache to pull of the message of change. Check out Sen. Ron Paul, for example. He was preaching this message of change long before Obama began, it's just that Obama did it better. We can call Obama an opportunistic politician, really. He is strongly supported by typical Democratic supporters like Planned Parenthood, and remember too that Americans were thirsty for a change in political leadership. Obama gave them what they wanted and what he needed to be more successful. Is he insincere? He might be, time will tell. I do think, however, that he sincerely wants to help his people the best way he knows how--especially if it means that he gets paid.

A Response to Prophets: One Hell of a Spanking

Regarding recent admonitions and prophecies, the last thing that I want to touch on is this notion that God wants to give us one hell of a spanking. This idea is common throughout all of these so-called prophets that I keep hearing about. Now, what they mean, or at least imply, is not simply a breaking-the-wooden-spoon-on-our-bums kind of spank, no, for this one, they mean an if-a-kid-or-2-gets-slaughtered-in-the-process-it-is-all-just-par-for-the-course kind of spank. We are talking about a God who has become so fed up with humanity that he is going to roast us like multi-coloured smores, and still turn around and say, "Hey, I really do love you, really. Now come to me." Would you go to him? I wouldn't, but, then again, I'm the one being deceived.

I know I'm being coy, but people who think that these prophets are, indeed, prophetic, base their presumption on scripture, namely, the book of Genesis. The idea is that since God smote Sodom and Gomorra and washed the earth of Noah's peers, he can and will do it again. In fact, to not kill us off, or, at the very least, to not make us suffer in a really bad way, is akin to "sparing the rod and spoiling the child." You probably know scripture better than I, but I seem to remember God saying something about not ever doing that again. You also probably know the teachings of the Catholic Church better than I do, but I certainly remember something about Christ dying for my sins so that I wouldn't have to. But maybe I don't fully understand this and I simplify this issue of salvation and benevolence. I mean, what ever happened to the book of Wisdom (Wis. 1:13)?? If you've got a better reply to this notion that God has no qualms about a second flood, then please, I am all ears.

Don't get me wrong, natural disasters happen and people die. But these events are intricately connected with our sins in the generic sense that all of creation fell at The Fall, and, as a sinful people, we continue to abuse the world--and our economy and our unborn children--in such a way that has disastrous effects. This is different, however, from saying that since God allows this to happen, he wants it to happen. On the contrary, he gave us free will, and such calamities are the consequences of our free choices. To remove such consequences from our actions is to remove responsibility and accountability from our free will, and effectively, remove our free will along with them. Whereas to allow such consequences is to be an Affectionate Father, because to allow them is to preserve our freedom and dignity as human persons. This is very different from the Father that these so-called prophets been painting.

In fact, what does Pope Benedict XV say? I am glad you asked. You can read his short address here, but the gist is that, and I quote, "no one can know the moment of the Lord's return" and we should be "on guard against all alarmism, as if the Lord's return were imminent." What this implies is that if anybody, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, claims that Christ is coming next week and we should "be afraid, be very afraid," don't buy into it. Sure, we have been in the "end times" since the Ascension of Christ, and we ought to be alert and ready for his return, but we need to do this because we don't know when he will come back--and if he is a dude who lives up to his promises, he will come back. So, live every day as if it were our last--Carpe Diem! In fact, Advent is a call for us to cleanse the manger of our hearts of all debris, and prepare a throne for the expected King. We don't do this because we "ought to be afraid," but because we ought to love the one who adores us, unconditionally. To quote Pope Benedict one more time:

the early Church, instead of becoming distracted by alarmism, "understood more and more that the 'nearness' of God is not a question of space and time, but rather a question of love: Love is near! Christmas will come," he concluded, "to remind us of this fundamental truth of our faith and, before the crèche, taste Christian joy, contemplating in the face of the newborn Jesus the God who drew near to us for love."

The Analogy of Marriage

Marriage is a reflection of the relationship between God and humanity.

I understand that I am not the first one to say this stuff, in fact, it was reflecting on my limited knowledge of the Theology of the Body that inspired me to think of it. I wanted to figure out why God became a male. My professors and peers were claiming that it was an accidental event, or, if it wasn't accidental, that God HAD to become a male in order for people to respond to him. However, I think that the answer comes from our understanding of teleology -- the idea that life has a plan, a purpose, and a promise, and the Christian understanding is that this design comes from an intelligent designer, one who is personal, benevolent, and just. This of course raises many other questions, such as the problem of evil, which we will not discuss at this time, but if God is teleological, then why was his masculine incarnation purposeless?

First of all, we can understand why God would want to visit us. We are tactile people; we receive love by touch, and being near our loved ones provides comfort and joy. Therefore, it is natural to think that a God who loves us beyond our understanding would want to touch us, would want to be near to us.

Secondly, Christians think of God as a being who accommodates, and the incarnation, his taking on flesh -- becoming a human to the fullest extent of what it implies to be a human -- is the best example of this reality. The question is, however, what was he accommodating, society and its laws, or the human individual who was an inseparable member of the Jewish community? Of course we can apply this question to modern times, since the issue of Christ the Accommodator is very real to the many facets of social and religious thought. Nonetheless, if Christ was appealing to public sentiment, then he would be, in fact, guilty of sexism in one of two ways: through a sin of omission or a sin of commission--in other words, involuntary of voluntary acts, respectively. That is, Christ's sin could be seen as implicit, by simply becoming a male in order to appease popular thought, or explicit, by intentionally condoning such an ideology. To claim, then, that the Incarnation was an inherently sinful event, is heretical since it denies the unfathomable love that the Father has for us.

Furthermore, we know that God is teleological. He is intentional. He deliberates and acts upon what is best. Therefore, it cannot be an accident that Jesus Christ came as a male, and that he gives his body to us in the Eucharist. God wants to encounter us, or rather, he wants us to encounter him. Touch: a spiritual, psychological, emotional, and sexual connection between God and us is what he longs for. He chooses to need it, to be incomplete without our union with him. Marriage, then, is the only human relationship that fits this type of love and commitment. Hence, this all-loving, accommodating God is calling us to be in a marital covenant with him.

But why marriage? Because marriage is an intimate union between the sexual, emotional, and intellectual traits of a male and a female. It demands a converging, an encounter with the other, as spouse and partner. Marriage demands a death to the ego of the individual, and a vibrant unity of two wills. Marriage necessitates touch; it requires an emotional, sexual, psychological, and physical intimacy between the lovers. Without this, their relationship is incomplete. The desire for the union of marriage ontologically subsists within our human nature.

The analogy of marriage, then, reminds us that Christ came as a male so we could be the female, so we could receive and incubate his divine life within our hearts. He wanted to enter a marital relationship with us. Therefore, if we claim that he came as a male to appease the unjust social maxims of his day, or that it was purely accidental that Christ came as a male, then we do nothing less than cheapen the incarnation and its relevance to the intrinsic nature of our humanity.

Man: The "She" of Creation

*** An interesting note: without realizing it, this post was origianlly written on the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year. I wanted to change the date so that my next topic would be right above it. Still, I thought that was kinda neat, since I will be discussing humanity's relationship with the Trinity ***

I would like to hear some thoughts on this one. I was listening to Christopher West's take on the Theology of the Body, and this phrase popped in my head while I was trying to make sense of what he was saying: "Man is the 'she' of creation." In my next few blogs, I want to try to discuss what that phrase might mean, and what might be its implications.

The "she" of humanity, the female, the woman, is receptivity. Women, who naturally espouse this receptivity, are "incubators," much like soil, in that they receive a word, an idea, or a concept, and allow it to germinate, take root, and blossom. This kind of receptivity is also evident in their physiology, since their bodies are even hardwired to receive and incubate life. Men, on the other hand, generally shuffle information much like a cd player, moving form one song to the next, often with no record of the previous song. Again, the male physiology mirrors this -- especially in our sexuality (and the same goes for women). Have you ever heard of the cliche, "men are like microwaves, women are like slow-cookers"? It refers to is our sex drive -- push a button, and the male is ready to go, while it takes a little while for the female to get ready (generally speaking, of course). The female incubates, the male plants. Although the degree to which each male or female plants and incubates varies, no matter how you look at it, there will always be this stark difference in how we process and recieve information. Spiritually speaking, the male must become like the female in this respect. The male must move from planting to receiving in his relationship with God. In fact, all of humanity must somehow become this "she" in order to find fulfillment; in other words, the "he" of our humanity must become like the "she." We must be willing to receive from God, the source of our humanity, if we want to become fully human.

But the question that I have is this (and I want to talk about this later): if we are to become the "she" of creation, then what does that make God? Do we continue to treat God as a complete genderless being and speak of God as some sort of androgynous entity? Or is there wisdom in the words of Christ: "This is how you ought to pray: 'Our Father...'"? Furthermore, is it purely an acidental phenomenon that Christ came as a male?