Our Need for Roots and Its Connection to the Bible

Simone Weil on the Human Need for Roots

Simone Weil wrote that “to be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.”

(a quote)

The modern condition of rootlessness is a foundational experience of totalitarianism; totalitarian movements succeed when they offer rootless people what they most crave: an ideologically consistent world aiming at grand narratives that give meaning to their lives. By consistently repeating a few key ideas, a manipulative leader provides a sense of rootedness grounded upon a coherent fiction that is “consistent, comprehensible, and predictable".

Cf: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/arendt-matters-revisiting-origins-totalitarianism/#! . Accessed 2019-08-28

***

 (another quote)

And yet, as the French thinker Simone Weil indicates, “To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul. It is one of the hardest to define.” Weil rightly notes that we feed these roots through “real, active and natural participation in the life of a community, which preserves in living shape certain particular treasures of the past and certain particular expectations for the future” (The Need for Roots, p. 41).

Cf: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deuteronomy-16-18-21-9-quest-for-rootedness_b_1813589

Some Thoughts of Mine Related with 'Roots' and the Bible

Simone Weil's assertion of the "need for roots" is a foundational idea for the book that I'm writing at present (during this sabbatical year). The work is about ... of course... the Bible and how we could ... better yet, how we should relate to it as something like "the village that raised us." In other words, for many of us, for better or worse, Christianity and its heart (which is the Bible) acts (in an abstract sense) like the Tradition in which many of us were raised. Put in a more concrete image, the Bible, I would like to suggest, is something like the village which raised us. This image is rooted in my Asian-North American identity... (This would especially resonate with you if you come from Asia, from a context like the Philippines where family and its extended network of so many people such as uncles and aunts [tito and tita], cousins [pinsan], god-fathers/mothers [ninong and ninang], "extended" siblings [kapatid] and so on and so forth, virtually form a whole village that raised you and continually supports you and interacts with you through all the vicissitudes of life.)

However, at present, many of us who are located in secularized, Western(ized) contexts can be said to feel estranged and alienated from our religious, particularly, biblical roots because we are either not familiar anymore with the Bible and its main stories, characters, concepts, and messages or we have acquired the idea somewhere along the way that all that religious and biblical stuff is no longer relevant to us today, maybe even detrimental for us today.

I strongly feel that this kind of alienation from our religious roots, in short, this kind of "rootlessness" has quite a negative effect on us in the sense that philosopher Simone Weil pointed out. Many of us don't know where we came from; for this reason, we likewise don't know where we're going. 

We have to tap into our roots (a significant portion of which are religious ones) in order to know where we came from, where our traditions lie, where/what our original village was. By doing this, maybe we would know better what direction we're supposed to go. 

This village image is not meant only for people like me who come from an original context in which the 'village ties among people' are really strong. The village image is meant for everyone, even in this Western context where the emphasis is on rugged individualism. I contend that if we dig deeply enough into our traditions and, dare I say, into our common humanity itself, we all come from a place like a village because, as philosopher Simone Weil argues, we all need roots! Hence, I would like everyone to discover their roots and when they do, they will find out that religion has been and is an important part thereof, something that each one will have to accept in order to find out more deeply who they really are.

By "re-rooting" ourselves in our biblical traditions and relating with them as if they were vital members of the village in which we were raised, I don't really mean to say that we have to be "religious" in a way that is childish - that is, uncritically accepting of any or all of our religious traditions. By religious "re-rooting", I mean instead, we become, first, familiar once again with the big plots and the important stories (and the ideas behind them) that comprise our religious traditions. Next, because we ourselves are now grown-ups, we can have a critical sense toward the village that raised us, a village which we didn't choose but we're just simply born into! That means (put in technical language) applying both a hermeneutic of trust-retrieval as well as a hermeneutic of suspicion; put more simply, we ought to have both an attitude of trust and openness to rediscovering whatever is life-giving in our traditions but, at the same time, also have a healthy dose of suspicion, of wariness to spot and call out the things that are inimical to our holistic flourishing today. This even entails rejection of parts of our religious traditions that are not beneficial to the wholesome development of our common humanity today. 

Biblical Studies - Should it End? (Hector Avalos)

Hector Avalos ‘The End of Biblical Studies’

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGKzbfEEPo&t=1607s

The following notes are based on the youtube interview cited above originally created in 2007. Parts of this blog in-between parentheses are my own comments.

Violence (also Religious Violence) is Caused by Scarcity

All violence, according to Avalos, has "scarcity" at its core. If people perceive that there's not enough of something, they will compete in order to get a share of that and that struggle frequently results in conflict and violence. Religious violence is similar in cause and structure. At the national level, things such as water, political power, energy ... all of these could be scarce resources. 

Religion works in the same way. Religion creates scarcity. Avalos points out four religious scarcities:  1) Access to divine communication=only some people get divine revelation or more divine revelation than others; 2) Sacred Space such as the Holy Land=Israel as a physical-geographical location is not so valuable. It is very valuable though in terms of what it means for the religious identity of certain religious groups; 3) Group privileging on the basis of religion; 4) Salvation - long-term commodity such as eternal life. If only some are saved or if only one can be saved because of practicing or following a certain religion, then salvation itself becomes a “scarce resource.” Because of these religious scarcities, religion becomes an ingredient in causing violence.

The big problem here is: Religious scarcities can never be proven to exist or they may not exist at all. 

The End of Biblical Studies (2007 book)

Avalos’ main contention in the book is: Biblical Studies as it is currently practiced should end. Why? As the discipline stands now, it still functions as an arm of the church. It is founded on and permeated by religious and theological assumptions (that can never be proven). It is not yet completely secular. (By this he means, objective and free of vested theological interests. For Avalos, only if biblical studies becomes truly secular can it become also truly objective.) 

In biblical studies, there is always some apologetic aim, e.g., to defend the validity of the Bible for the current world. In all sub-fields of biblical studies, scholars try to prove that their disciplines are important even though the results have proven that they are not. (By that he means: many things contained in the Bible such as its laws and principles are so irrelevant to the world today. But biblical scholars try to show that they are still relevant.)

Why is the Bible not relevant to current life? Many Christians simply don't read the Bible. According to him, 21% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics do not read the Bible. What about those who do read the bible in some way? They actually do not read much of it. (Frequently, the reading style of many Christians is very selective, hence, many Christians only have a sketchy knowledge of the Bible.) Many Christians, even if they try to apply the Bible to their lives, apply very little of it. (The reason for this, I think, is that it is so difficult to apply many parts of the Bible as they stand!)

Promoting the relevance of the Bible today can be described as a mere marketing strategy. They try to say: you really need this book. The whole enterprise of biblical publishing is based on the message that this book is so important, you've got to have it!

Biblical translations often hide what the Bible really says in order to make it relevant and palatable to modern sensibilities. But if you take the Bible at face value, many of its injunctions are downright absurd or distasteful (bizarre, unacceptable or offensive) to modern people. E.g., Lk 14:27 "You must hate your parents to follow me." The Good News Translation says

²⁶ “Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well. 

(“love me more than your parents” is not really the same as the original word “hate”.)

The book's title ‘The End of Biblical Studies’ is meant as a double entendre. There are three possible scenarios for biblical studies for Avalos:

• End it completely - not Avalos’ position
• Keep it going as it is - not completely objective. Obviously, this is what Avalos is struggling against.
• Keep biblical studies but expose the way in which biblical studies has been hiding what the Bible really says. No to a "doctored" (palatable to moderns) image of Bible. This is what Avalos wants!

My Reactions to Avalos’ Points

I am very sympathetic to the concerns that he raises about biblical studies being in many ways duplicitous and I agree to a certain extent that it is because the field is, as he says, meant to be an arm of the church in promoting Christianity’s message.

I’ve had the same dilemma for many years now. This is one of the major reasons why I became convinced that I could not remain a member of the clergy class anymore.

However, my position on this question is: I consider the Bible as an integral (hence, unabandonable and, yes, indispensable) part of the tradition (even the “Tradition”) to which many of us belong. In short, it is like letters, journals, documents that our family (ancestors) wrote and/or considered (even canonized as) sacred and foundational. The right relationship with the Bible therefore is not completely abandoning it but considering it thus (a family heirloom that still tells us where we came from and thus who we are [according to the tradition]).

Armed with that, we apply both a hermeneutic of trust-retrieval (positive) as well as a hermeneutic of suspicion. In short, we relate to it with love and a critical sense. Often we’ll have to struggle with it even by correcting and revising it in order to forge a better future.

All of these things are going into the book that I’m currently writing (while on sabbatical).

Thinking again about Postcolonialism in the wake of CWM-DARE Global Forum in Taiwan

     I was honoured to participate in this year’s CWM’s (Council for World Mission) DARE Global Forum held in Taiwan last June 19-21. I didn't quite understand the raison d'etre of CWM-DARE before the event but after having participated in the conference, I've begun to grasp its rationale and crucial importance. I'm really thankful for having been given this wonderful opportunity to participate in this forum and especially to learn from the insightful reflections of so many of my colleagues who attended the event.

Here is the report published at the CWM website.This article describes succinctly what happened at the said meeting:

Dare to engage radically and envision creatively a just world

Discernment and radical engagement are at the heart of the mission that makes CWM what it is. Attentive to the signs of the time and in response to imperial powers and powerholders that exploit, divide, despoil and threaten the world, CWM’s DARE program is a voice of counter-imperial consciousness.

This year’s DARE Global Forum was held from 20-21 June in Taiwan, a location we chose in solidarity with the Taiwanese people and especially with our member church Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (PCT) for their continuous struggle for democracy. During the opening service at Lo-Tong Presbyterian Church, CWM General Secretary delivered the keynote address and launched “Scripture and Resistance” – the second book in the “Theology in the Age of Empire” series.

The DARE Forum was a platform where theological and biblical scholars, activists and interested peoples engaged creatively to critique mainline scholarships, confidently rooted their views upon on the ground struggles and concerns and shared their radical engagements with global readership.

At the gathering, each presenter presented an academic paper, attended and engaged with the presentations by other participants of their stream, and submitted the revised paper for publication. There were six streams – earth, class, race, gender, occupation, and artificial intelligence (AI) – this year, and presenters were encouraged to discern and engage radically, creatively and justly.

Here are my most salient takeaways from the event:

Taiwan’s Plight as the Context for our Reflections

     I was really struck at the plight and marginalized international status of Taiwan. Taiwanese pastor-scholar Rev. Omi Wilang’s talk on his indigenous culture was particularly significant. There he emphasized the status of Taiwan as an international orphan which refers to its state of international isolation because of mainland China's continuing efforts to literally coerce the international community to recognize the "one China policy" by which only mainland China is legitimately recognized as the “real” China and Taiwan as an illegitimate entity.

     I ruefully reflected though that, recalling what I learned in younger days, when the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek fled the mainland and established their base in Taiwan in 1949, it was Taiwan that was trying to convince the world that it was the legitimate China and not the Communist-led government that had taken over the mainland. Fast-forward 70 or so years later when China has become the gigantic and impossible-to-ignore military and economic powerhouse that it is today, the tables have been completely turned and Taiwan is at the mercy of the Chinese empire.

Resisting Empire

     I ended the conference thoroughly struck at and convinced once again that <reflecting critically-doing scholarship-theologizing or even just engaging in the very basic activity of thinking about life> in the context of empire (and postcolonial and decolonial critique) is a serious and most urgent task. Why? For the simple reason that imperial ways (known by many alternative names such as the basic human "lust for power and/or domination") have tried and largely succeeded to rule humanity itself and our world from the very beginning of history in countless forms. Imperialism is practically built into many of the structures in which we find ourselves. This time in Taiwan, however, I was made more acutely aware of empire's destructive effects because they threaten now more than ever the very existence of our earth-home through an impending ecological disaster.

My Own Modest Part in the Forum 

      

     There were several streams to reflect critically on the themes of empire, resistance and critical engagement at the conference: Land, Race, Gender, Occupation, and Artificial Intelligence. For my very modest part, I presented the significance of Paul's religious experience for the concept of artificial intelligence. I basically suggested that to retrieve the origins of how we imagine Artificial Intelligence as a “super intelligence”  (as expressed particularly in some science fiction movies), it may be worth looking more closely at what happened to Paul as a consequence of his religious experience and how he envisioned everyone and everything as “One in Christ” (Gal. 3:27-28). I didn’t have the time and space to reflect more on the implications of this for the theme of empire and power but I intend to touch on that aspect as well in my final paper. My proposal was originally prepared for the 'Race' stream but it seemed to have been well received by my AI group. 

Why Postcolonial Thought? (Revisited)

     At last year's SBL meeting in Denver, CO, I attended a session of the Theological Interpretation of Scripture unit in which the topic was, broadly speaking, postcolonial efforts to interpret the Bible theologically. During the Q&A session, someone asked this fundamental question: "What is it even necessary to do this postcolonial theological interpretation of scripture?"

     That question still keeps ringing in my ears after all these months and it was brought to the fore and answered in many ways in Taiwan. It is just incredible that there is still a substantial number (even of scholars, particularly, Roman Catholic theologian-colleagues of mine) who have not thought about or are not yet convinced why a postcolonial critique of theology and religious studies is even necessary. 

    

     To this question, I can only offer once again what I already stated in my 2012 book How Immigrant Christians … Interpret Their Religion (56).

What is the value of a postcolonial framework? Edward Said has, in my opinion, expressed most eloquently the need for a critical academic sense vis-à-vis the problem of imperialism when he states, “we are at a point in our work when we can no longer ignore empires and the imperial context in our studies.”(Culture and Imperialism, 1993, p. 6). He further remarks that, “whether or not to look at the connections between cultural texts and imperialism is therefore to take a position in fact taken – either to study the connections in order to criticize it and think of alternatives for it, or not to study it in order to let it stand, unexamined and, presumably, unchanged” (ibid., 68).

The implications of Said’s remarks are staggering. If we ignore imperial ideology in our critical studies, we are in reality actively contributing to its continuing unjust oppression of people. In short, we cannot remain neutral on such a key issue. There is a major ethical issue at stake here. Ignoring imperialist elements in our fields of study places a large interrogative against the integrity of all our endeavors. If we further reflect on the fact that many of us who are engaged in the Christian theological field have a confessional interest in Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed as the Christ and that his most pressing concern seems to have been the ushering in of the reign of God’s justice in the world to the detriment of this world’s unjust empires, the issue of integrity becomes all the more urgent.

 ---

My Notes on - The Burial of Jesus by James McGrath

Overview 
This is (Butler University's New Testament-Religious Studies professor) James McGrath's "no-frills" study of and reflections on what Christians call "the Paschal Mystery," namely, the high point of Christian faith - the death-resurrection of Jesus. The book aims to mediate between history and (Christian) faith. What makes it unique is that McGrath pays particular attention to details regarding the burial of Jesus (hence the title) and what those factors imply for the historical and theological assessment of Jesus' death and resurrection. For its diminutive size (13.3 x 0.8 x 18.4 cm and only 142 pages of content!), this book, I would say, "packs a punch" and lays out succinctly but very well practically all of the major considerations related to the history behind and theology regarding the death-burial-resurrection and very person of Jesus, with an introductory section to different issues that make up Gospel study to boot! Even though New Testament and Christology are two of my main fields of study, I finished this book with much food for thought and truly learned a lot from it! I would recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about how history and faith correlate when it comes to the death-burial-resurrection and very person of Jesus.

My (Three) Takeaways

• [The Role of Faith and Doubt]  Faith and doubt even with regard to the burial and resurrection of Jesus are not polar opposites. They are necessary partners in approaching this subject. An uncritical faith can be described as accepting uncritically things that we are told by --what we think are-- the right book or the right person. On the other hand, in order to have a more critical (thus, more mature) faith, we need history, as well as the interplay of faith-as-trust and doubt (cf. p. 10, 13).

• [On the Burial of Jesus]  McGrath gives priority to the Gospel of Mark's bare-bones, most probably more historical account of the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47). He puts the spotlight on the following noteworthy factors: Jesus' disciples were not in a position to give Jesus an honorable burial as they thought he deserved. As a consequence of that, (as we can observe in the developing tradition about this event in the New Testament itself)  "later Christian authors tried desperately to obscure [that historical fact]" (See pp. 70-75).  What most probably happened was that Joseph of Arimathea was a pious and observant Jew (not so much the "hidden" disciple of Jesus as he is portrayed in later New Testament traditions) who was not so much concerned about Jesus (as later portrayals make him to be) but was more keen on the observance of Jewish Law which forbade the leaving of dead bodies on the cross before sundown when the Sabbath begins. Because of this devotion to the Law, he put the body of Jesus in a tomb that was close to the execution site without much fanfare (not even giving Jesus' body to his family as popular piety has portrayed e.g. in Michaelangelo's pieta). This dishonorable burial embarrassed the early Christians and so they altered the story as time went on and made the burial of Jesus more honorable (pp. 76-86).

• [What Happened to Jesus'Body & Resurrection Faith]  Contrary to what many Christians think and believe, McGrath suggests that "not only is what happened to the body not the decisive factor in resurrection faith; in many respects it is irrelevant to it" (p. 97). McGrath's thoughts on this deserve careful reading and pondering!

The Wounded Body of Christ: Toronto Theological Colloquium on the Catholic Sexual Abuse Crisis (Part 2)

THIS IS PART TWO. TO GO BACK TO PART ONE, CLICK HERE

Clericalism

Boston College’s Mary Ann Hinsdale began her lecture by going back to the Vatican II theologian Edward Schillebeeckx (one of my theological heroes) to draw pertinent lessons for formulating an ecclesiology that can speak to aspects of this abuse crisis. Again, some of my random recollections and impressions:

·         Ministry as Too “Sacerdotalized”   Ordained ministry in the church has become too “sacerdotalized,” that is, it has been conflated too closely with being ordained a priest. That, in turn, has been explained in ontological terms in which the priest (“sacerdos” in Latin) undergoes an ontological change into a character that enables the priest to preside over a community and have, as one of his most important roles, the duty to “confect” (manufacture) the Eucharist. This, one can argue, lies at the root of the exaggerated sense of importance that priests have of themselves (that’s my own take).

·         Women in the Church  Schillebeeckx thought that as long as women are effectively left out of real decision making in the church, there can be no real liberation for women (I hope I’m paraphrasing this fairly). My addition: I’m convinced that the real liberation is not only for women but for everyone in the church. In short, sharing real power and authority in the Church with women is the only way for us Catholics to have a balanced church!

·         Clericalism  … can be described as the protection of rights of clerics even to the detriment of non-clerical members of the church. This is a seriously dysfunctional element that has to be remedied through the improvement of seminary education, among others. Evils such as sexual abuse should be dealt with through restorative justice.

Some Other Noteworthy Matters

·         “Policing Oneself” is Wrong!  In the last session, lawyer Simona Jellinek dropped some pretty intense remarks: First, allowing an institution to police itself is just wrong! Hey, isn’t that Catholicism 101? The whole of the RCC’s polity, as Sr. Nuala also remarked, is “up-down.” There is no “down-up” way to make the church accountable. In effect, there are no effective “checks and balances” in place.

·         First Things First   Another noteworthy point (from Simona), the priority now in the Church should be, first, help the healing of those who were abused. This is the most urgent task. Then and only then can you fix the church. But justice and healing for the victimized should be the priority.

·         Where’s the Clergy?  I heard a lot of voices saying that there should have been more clergy (especially clergy with real power and authority in the church) present in this colloquium because it is this group that has to hear the message most urgently

My (Preliminary) Concluding Thoughts

·         Share Authority!  There is a fake (although insightful) Albert Einstein quote in which the brilliant physicist is supposed to have claimed, The mentality that created a problem cannot solve the same problem it created. The sexual abuse crisis, although devastating for everyone in the church, (I think it is fair to say) has been created by the dysfunctional and unjust hierarchical structure of the church and perpetrated mainly by the members of the hierarchy. But then, who has real authority and power in the Roman Catholic Church? Despite Vatican II and its encouragement to the church to be the people of God, (as they say in the Catholic Church), the church ain’t no democracy! Let’s be honest, the only ones who have real authority and power in the church are bishops and priests. And, as the fake Einstein quote says, they will not be able to solve a problem that they themselves have created and are part of. Unless authority and power in the Catholic are shared in a real way outside the circle of <ordained, male, celibate>, I’m afraid nothing substantial will change.

·         My Personal Context  A remark on personal context is called for here. I myself was a religious order priest (Salesian of Don Bosco) for 10 years. Before ordination, I trained for the priesthood for an even longer period of time. In 2005, I finally decided that, in conscience, I could no longer remain a member of the hierarchy because I came to the conclusion that this select clique of <male, celibate, ordained> persons was, ethically speaking, “uncondonable,” deeply dysfunctional and—I thought then—incapable of reforming itself. Yes, I know that everyone and everything is flawed. But the level of being flawed can reach a state which can no longer be tolerated and I thought that the Catholic hierarchy was that 14 years ago when I resigned as a priest and religious. This makes me a jaded wimp and, sadly, I’ve also been treated sometimes as a “traitor.” But I very simply concluded then (after years of intense discernment and prayer) that “institutional church” was overrated and that working for reform in the church was—in the words of theologian Matthew Fox—like standing in front of an oncoming train. And so, I thought, I had better, more important things to do in life. Fast forward … when I hug my wife and daughter today, I somehow have a sense of the most important things in life. I have never looked back although I still self-identify as Catholic (as well as ecumenical) and, more importantly, I still deeply love the Catholic tradition (with this important qualification) as a critical grown-up child of the tradition (and we all know how complicated those relationships can be!)

Why do I feel that there has been no substantial change today? I walked away from the colloquium with deeply mixed feelings. I still feel that the only real ones who can actually solve the problem (because only they have real authority) cannot and, sadly, just don’t have the real will to solve the problem. I repeat, this will happen only when we open up real authority in the church to transcend the <male, ordained, celibate> group!

The “Grain of Wheat” Must Die   At the very end of the colloquium, a survivor (who was not one of the panelists), took the microphone and said (words to the effect of), “Here we are talking of rebirthing the church. Why? The church in the form it is now should die! We should think about what has to come out after that death.”

That remark has remained with me. We cannot fix this problem with Band-Aid solutions. Something more radical is needed. Perhaps, Jesus’ words in John 12:24 should be radically applied to the church (sorry, I’m a New Testament prof), “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit”

I’ve also written down other thoughts elsewhere if you’re interested:

A biblical-theological reflection on the Catholic Sexual Abuse Crisis where I advocate a spirituality of brokenness: https://www.catholica.com.au/gc4/jkk/014_jkk_121118.php

My thoughts on the Vatican Summit on Sexual Abuse:

http://spiritual-notandyet-religious-jkk.blogspot.com/2019/03/my-thoughts-on-recently-concluded.html

Sorry for seemingly throwing cold water on the whole enterprise. Let’s end on a hopeful note: Sr Nuala pointed out that, for all the imperfections that could be pointed out about Pope Francis, he seems to display an awareness of this ecclesiological pathology that lies at the heart of this crisis. Now that is a clear sign of hope. I got deeply disillusioned with the institutional church during the John Paul II and Benedict XVI years. I’m pleasantly surprised that I am much more hopeful now under Francis! I savor and cherish that! I really, really hope that things will turn around. I’ll try my best to do my part to contribute to that.

Thank you very much, Jim (Dr. James Ginther-Dean of St. Mike’s theology department), and your collaborators, for hosting this important and urgent colloquium!

Peace and healing to all!

The Wounded Body of Christ: Toronto Theological Colloquium on the Catholic Sexual Abuse Crisis (Part 1)

(held in Toronto, March 14-15, 2019 at the University of St. Michael’s College, Faculty of Theology, co-sponsored by The Centre for Advanced Research in Catholic Thought, King’s University College, London, ON)

As director of our King’s Centre for Catholic Thought, I, together with Profs. Mark Yenson, Andrea DiGiovanni, Carolyn Chau (as official representatives of our College), attended this event held on March 14-15, 2019 in Toronto. Here is my very cursory and random summary of the event (hurriedly written in this crazily busy time of the year).

Disclaimer: the account of the event and of the thoughts expressed by the speakers are all filtered through my own subjective lens.

Believing in a Sinful and Holy Church

Dr. Brian Flanagan from Marymount University in Virginia started the event with a public lecture. He emphasized that Sin and Sanctity are dual realities that make up the Church and we have yet to develop an adequate theology to deal with these two realities in tandem. We might need some kind of “affirmative action” in speaking about ecclesial sin because we, as a church, just lack practice in doing so. 

When we speak of “sin” in or of the church, we are speaking at four levels: (1) individual sins; (2) individual sins are, in actuality, “sins of the church” since we are the church!; (3) collective church failure; (4) social and structural sin – We should keep in mind that structures take on the results of past sinful actions. So, how do we go about developing a theology of a sinful church yet, at the same time, maintain hope in the same breath? This is a key question to answer and a goal to reach. One possible way forward: Let us recover an eschatological worldview with regard to the church, particularly, by keeping in mind that the church is a migrant community, i.e., we are still on the way to fullness. God is with us; holiness is also present in the church (particularly, as evidenced by the presence of holy people—both past and present—in this community). At the same time, the church is also deeply, deeply flawed; there is evil and sin in the church.

A very lively Q&A session followed Dr. Flanagan’s talk, one of the best I’ve seen after a theological lecture. There were, I estimate, around 100 people who came. This shows how urgent this topic is.

March 15: Theological Colloquium. (I think also 80-100 people turned out at various moments during the day)

 The full day colloquium was composed of two morning sessions: (1) Voices from Survivors: Mark Hawkins, Leona Huggins, and John Swales; (2) A Lecture by Dr. Nuala Kenny: Diagnosing Spiritual and Ecclesial Pathology Manifested in the Clergy Sexual Abuse Crisis. The afternoon also had two sessions: (1) A Lecture by Dr. Mary Ann Hinsdale: Clericalism: Roots, Relevance, and Remedies; (2) A Roundtable chaired by David Byrne involving all the speakers and lawyer Simona Jellinek to discuss the topic of the colloquium.

I will share below my own (subjective) recollections of and thoughts on the colloquium.

The Devastation of Sexual Abuse

The most powerful experience I had at the colloquium was undoubtedly the testimonies of the survivors of sexual abuse. As they recounted their particular stories, I was able to put concrete faces to the phenomenon of sexual abuse. Yes, I’ve read a lot about the abuse, but when someone shares his or her own very painful experiences in an eloquent way in front of you, you just become existentially more aware that sexual abuse is a real evil and that it wreaks destruction in the lives of the abused at so many levels. The abused have to live with these deep scars for the rest of their lives. I really am thankful to Mark, Leona, and John for sharing their stories with us.

Some concrete messages from them were indelibly etched in my mind and heart.

Leona continually emphasized that the sexual abuse is not only her story. No, IT IS OUR STORY. Let’s not consider this problem as outsiders but as insiders who are truly and really impacted by it. I was really saddened to hear that when she came out with her story, she was dismissed from her job at a Catholic school --- the victim is victimized all the more!

I was shocked to learn from Mark that although he had talked about his painful and intense experience in front of other Christian denominations, it was the first time that he was sharing his story with a Catholic audience. This is, first of all, very sad. It means Catholics have not really been keen to hear the stories of our hurting brothers and sisters. On the other hand, at least now he has talked to a Catholic audience. Hopefully, this is the first of more.

John explained that sexual abuse affects not only the survivors, but also their family and friends, the church, the laity, society as a whole and the perpetrators themselves! So true! He also reminded us hauntingly that although their stories are painful, the very fact that they are now standing in front of us, able to share their stories with us, means that they are the lucky ones … many more of the abused did not make it up until today because they could no longer go on in their painful states. John also said that if we do not walk away from the gathering scathed and scarred by what we heard, there is just something wrong with us. I want to say, John, that I really walked away from that gathering bearing deep pain in my heart for my suffering brothers and sisters …

Ecclesial Pathology Revealed by the Abuse Crisis

Sr. Dr. Nuala Kenny gave a powerful and enlightening talk on this topic. Some random recollections and impressions of mine:

·         Rooting Oneself in the Experiences of the Victims   You cannot help the healing process unless you root yourself in the experience of the victims. Nuala offered a unique perspective coming from her long experience as having dealt as a medical doctor with the victims of sexual abuse.

·         Root Causes  Besides, real healing cannot even begin if only symptoms are treated. One has to go to the root causes of a problem. In the case of sex abuse, causes involve beliefs, practices, relationships, etc.

·        Spiritual Power   Lord Acton (Catholic historian) famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If we apply that to the sex abuse crisis, “spiritual power corrupts spiritually.” Let me add my own take: Absolute spiritual power (the one many churchmen are led to believe that they possess) is the most insidious and damaging kind of dysfunctional conception of power because God is understood (mistakenly of course) as being on the side of the one who purportedly has spiritual power.

·         Septic Shock   One metaphor that could be used to describe the crisis is that in this present (2018-19) resurfacing of the sexual abuse crisis, we might be dealing already with a kind of “septic shock.” A septic shock begins as a localized medical problem but because it is left untreated, it becomes bigger and more powerful and it leads the different crucial body parts to shut down. Aren’t we experiencing some kind of ecclesial septic shock now?

·         Diagnosis – not Simple   For this crisis, a single, simple diagnosis has to be treated with caution (e.g., “homosexuals are the cause of this crisis.” That’s untrue and unfair). When we get sick, we have the tendency to want a short, snappy answer (treatment) to speedily solve our problems. This crisis is NOT something that can be dealt in that way. There are many causes that demand a careful, thorough diagnosis and an equally careful, thorough, long-term treatment.

END OF PART ONE. GO TO PART TWO HERE

Didymus Judas Thomas - "the Twin" and Its Profound Implications

We’ve been discussing The Gospel of Thomas in our Censored Scriptures class. What struck me this time in my re-reading of different sayings and my review of different aspects of The Gospel of Thomas is the meaning of the name "Thomas." In Aramaic, "tūmā" means "twin." John's gospel (11:16) and Thomas make reference to Thomas' being "the twin." 

(beginning of the gospel) These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which “Didymus Judas Thomas” wrote down

"Becoming" or already "being" Jesus' twin seems like a significant matter because it suggests becoming "like" Jesus, or even, a mystical union with the person of Jesus, which is, after all, the goal of the transformative way in Christianity. This is strongly echoed in saying #108 where Jesus says,

He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.“

What does that imply? Another book also found among the Nag Hammadi writings called The Book of Thomas the Contender spells out its implications in an insightful way:

• "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself. …
• “…And I know that you have understood, because you had already understood that I am the knowledge of the truth. So while you accompany me, although you are uncomprehending, you have (in fact) already come to know, and you will be called 'the one who knows himself'. For he who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved knowledge about the depth of the all. So then, you, my brother Thomas, have beheld what is obscure to men, that is, what they ignorantly stumble against."

The dominant thought in the above lines is contained in the injunction "Know yourself!"  I interpret that to mean: the image of God, the image of Christ is already embedded and embodied in our deepest core, in our authentic selves. When we go past the superficial levels of our personhood and delve into our innermost core (e.g., Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle), there we come upon the presence of God and the image of Christ. 

This teaching of Thomas then is profoundly mystical. It is furthermore echoed in the various teachings of the mystics (Christian or otherwise) and implied in various spiritual exercises such as Centering Prayer. 

It can also have a potentially active dimension. If our identity as Christians can be described as “being a twin of Christ,” that also implies that as we go out into the world, we are like “other Christs” because we are his twin-siblings. We therefore should be agents of compassion, forgiveness, inclusivity, and (distributive) justice in the world, just like our twin brother Jesus.

My Thoughts on the Recently Concluded Vatican Summit on Sexual Abuse

There have been lots of news and opinions on the web and in the media lately about the recently concluded Vatican Summit on Sexual Abuse held in Rome, Feb 21-24, 2019.

I've found a number of helpful online commentaries on the event.

Here is The Washington Post's story about the just-concluded event. It highlights Pope Francis' call for an "all-out battle" against sex abuse in the Catholic Church

Theologian William Lindsey's different links and commentary are also very useful. From his blog Bilgrimage.


Other significant matters connected with the sexual abuse crisis are the following:

Cardinal Pell was convicted of sexual abuse in Australia.

I also wrote some biblical reflections on the sexual abuse crisis published in Catholica in November 2018. I think that this is a time for Catholics to basically follow Jeremiah's injunction to the people of his time to "bow down to Babylon."

Jason Berry, a frequent Catholic "whistle-blower," points out in his article at NCR that "structural mendacity" (in short, an endemic and systemic habit of lying in the Catholic Church) lies at the heart of this sexual abuse crisis.

Paul Collins, author of Papal Power and Absolute Power, writes in this blog piece that the last 12 months have simply been Catholicism's "year from hell."

Finally, Pope Francis presents 8 points on which the church will focus to combat sexual abuse.


Now here are some of my dominant thoughts on this occasion:

1. Abuse of Power.  Clerical sexual abuse is at its core an abuse of power. The “sexual abuse” crisis is the tip of what is a more gigantic iceberg - the abuse of power and authority. When all power is concentrated in a select caste (men, celibate, ordained), the temptation to abuse this "absolute" power is just too strong for normal humans. I would go so far to say that keeping such an absolute authority structure in place without the proper checks and balances just ensures that some unscrupulous or even warped people will succumb to it. Hence the continuous toleration of this system is itself unethical! 
2. Checks and Balances.  It is better not to tolerate such a system; better even, it seems to be imperative not to make such a system even possible. How? What we need are more proper "checks and balances." Any organization needs healthy checks and balances in place so that no single person (be he a pope), no single caste, no one cabal can claim some sort of absolute and unchecked power and authority for himself or itself. For the Catholic Church, to correct the grossly unbalanced authority structure centered around the exclusive male-celibate-ordained caste, it urgently needs to set up checks and balances that counter the exclusivity of its present authority structure. 
3. Invoking God to Support an Unjust Absolute Power.  Claiming or invoking God as the source of power and authority in an absolute manner is unethical because one "uses" God in an improper way. The truth of the matter is that the claim of divine authority (e.g., as it is done in many areas of the Catholic Church) is by and large just hyperbole and exaggerated. There is a sense in which the supposed divine bestowal of authority (as claimed in Catholicism) is, at a profound level, simply untrue. For people to realize this, a careful study of the historical origins and development of the Catholic tradition is necessary. Historians and theologians, therefore, play a crucial role in this.
4. Hubris.  Jason Berry has made reference to "structural mendacity" in his article. I would add: at the heart of this sex abuse crisis, aside from the abuse of power (point #1 above) and (2) (Jason Berry's) structural lying, we must also consider a third factor - (3) a deep institutional hubris. This hubris is tied intimately with point #3 above. The deep-seated hubris is expressed in an exaggerated claim of divine authority for itself. This institutional hubris is extremely difficult to eradicate because those having power, especially absolute power in their hands, will fight tooth and nail to preserve it to the bitter end. What is worse is that some of these people are convinced that God is actually on their side! Hence, we often need an external agent, some sort of "avenging angel," if you will, in order to coerce those inordinately clinging to power to finally relinquish it. This is what I meant when I said in the Catholica article that Catholics should take to heart Jeremiah's injunction to "bow down to Babylon." The external agents in this present Catholic sexual abuse crisis can be several things. It can be the state which is actively forcing the Catholic Church to become more accountable and transparent and to come clean of its crimes. It can be the people (laity) themselves who (at least in Western countries) are leaving the church, voting with their feet in droves. It can be the young who no longer care about the Christian heritage of their culture or "just don't give a damn anymore" about such a dysfunctional church. It can be a pope who is sincerely trying to reform the system like Francis.
5. Renewal Possible?  Brian Coyne at Catholica asked, "Can this institution renew itself?" Hmmm... There is a fake Albert Einstein quote (which, nevertheless, is very insightful!) in which Einstein is supposed to have said, "A problem cannot be solved by the same consciousness that created it."  If we apply that to the Catholic Church, then we can say, the clerical system and the mentality behind it which has created this problem is simply not capable of solving it.

Now, if you think that all these reflections come from an “outsider” looking in, then I'll have to disclose that I was an active Roman Catholic priest for 10 years before my resignation which was motivated not only by personal reasons of conscience but more so by my inability to continue being a member of an exclusive hierarchical echelon of an institution that, I concluded, is flawed in ways my conscience could no longer tolerate. For me, the hierarchical church's flawed state reached the "uncondonable" level (yes, I know that everything/everyone is flawed but there are just some "flawed" states that should no longer be tolerated). I trained for the priesthood for even longer than the time I spent as an active priest. I've been educated in the center of the Catholic Church (Rome) and have seen the institution and its most intimate workings at close quarters ... I hope that gives a bit more weight to my personal opinions on this matter.

I also want to say that I still consider myself in a deep way as Catholic and that I actually love the tradition deeply and dearly, but, for my salvation and those dear to me, I try to keep a distance from the toxic aspects of the institutional expression of Roman Catholicism.

Gnosticism: Trying to Understand a Phenomenon

“Gnosticism” is one of those key words in early Christian history because it refers to a movement that one has to understand in order to get a good sense of how Christianity developed in the formative centuries of its history.

I suggest the following links (particularly to my students) as aids to accomplish this:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GepjFpVqinQ

2.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzQnDRIp7s&feature=related

3.  https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/tag/gnosticism/

  Link #1 is New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's brief description of Gnosticism. Link #2 is N.T. Wright’s (another important New Testament scholar) more extensive description of the movement. Wright, I should add, seems to be more negative in his evaluation of the movement. This probably reflects his more “conservative” leanings (I know, that’s not entirely a correct description of Wright). Link#3 is the Westar Institute’s series of blogs on Gnosticism that highlights important aspects of the research conducted over several years about the movement. Westar’s research is arguably on the cutting-edge of recent research done about Gnosticism, hence, it deserves close attention.

  I also think that Gnosticism is one of those movements that could serve as a test case in order to illustrate how we (even those of us in the academy!) try to understand any phenomenon. We have to begin with generalizations which, we have to be well aware, are basically simplistic and even unfair caricatures of the phenomenon. This stage, although not imbued with scholarly rigor, is (I would say) still necessary in the quest to grasp practically anything. What we should not do is: remain in that simplistic stage. We have to go further: deepen our knowledge by more research with the result that the first basic and simplistic caricature of the phenomenon is deconstructed, transcended and/or further nuanced.

  The links I have provided above about Gnosticism might also serve to illustrate this process of starting with generalizations and going deeper into more nuanced understandings of the phenomenon (provided by the Westar Institute’s research).

Is Your God “You” Enough? …And What That Means for Evaluating the Fourth Gospel --- Deification of Humans

I started reading a book entitled Is Your God Big Enough, Close Enough, You Enough? Jesus and the Three Faces of God (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2017) some time ago as spiritual reading-research. Author (Theologian-Pastor) Paul Smith’s approach is novel and intriguing, especially the “You Enough” part. He invites us to think of and relate with God keeping firmly in mind what he terms the “three faces of God”: God as "big" (transcendence), "close" (immanence), and even as "me myself" (radical immanence).

One major assertion of Smith is that these are the very same ways in which Jesus himself related with God. There are actually abundant references to this in the gospels. Jesus (the historical person) related with God as transcendent Father, as the One over all beings and things (e.g., Matthew 11:26 / Luke 10:21 “I bless you, Father, Lord of heaven and of earth …); Jesus also related with God as a close intimate Being (e.g., John 17:21 “May they be one as you are in me and I am in you”). But then, Jesus also spoke “as God!” (e.g., John 10:30, “The Father and I are one!”). Christians have always taken that last statement to be a reference to a special ontological divine status that Jesus had. Smith, on the other hand, seems to suggest that relating to God as “one with you,” that is, “as you” is something each and every Christian should also do, just like Jesus!

I was particularly intrigued, as mentioned, by the assertion that the God we believe in and relate with should also be “you [or ‘me’] enough.” I never heard that we have to think and relate with God as being “myself” because, in traditional Christian doctrine, that is tantamount to idolatry! However, on careful consideration, I can say that this way of thinking of and relating with God has actually many things to commend it. It leads to other significant insightful epiphanies. Among these are: it can be linked with the principle of "nonduality," the goal, we can argue, of every and all genuine spiritual paths, that is, of the whole enterprise of spirituality! It could also be taken as an effective way (the most radical and thorough one actually!) to explain the Christian Trinitarian (or any religion’s concept of) God’s immanence. A third insight I picked up is that it can positively account for the phenomenon in the Gospel of John of Jesus being clearly "divinized."

That third insight requires more comment. At some point in my life-journey, after I clearly realized that the portrait of Jesus in John is by and large non-historical and more a reflection of John and his community’s kind of (high Christological) faith in Jesus, I have to admit that John became somewhat of a disappointment for me, given my zeal to seek for the historical Jesus. There are many voices regarding the pluses and minuses of “divinizing” Jesus. We can no longer change Christian history; it is what it is. However, my interest in the historical study of Jesus has made me realize that John does present a challenge for people to see Jesus as a truly historical, flesh-and-blood first century carpenter-turned-rabbi!

So this suggestion that <the God we worship actually desires to be and should be appropriated by us as radically immanent> was a breath of fresh air. From this vantage point, John’s Gospel is more clearly revealed to be mystical and John, a mystic - someone who saw that Jesus and God are linked in a nondual way, hence, Jesus could also be called "One with the Father" (Jn 10:30).

However, why was John so unloving to his enemies in certain parts of his gospel? Here we can use the principle from Integral Theory that one can have a "mystical experience," a "waking up" experience in any stage of growth. The waking up experience is not a panacea. The person will interpret his/her mystical experience in terms of the stage of growth in which s/he finds herself. John, it can be said, was apparently still in an ethnocentric stage, even though he had a deep and significant "waking up" experience about the non-duality between YHWH and Jesus!

The logic then is: If relating with God as “Me Enough” was true for Jesus, that is also true for each one of us. We, like Jesus, can be "one with the Father (Abba-God, in his terminology). In other words, God should also be “me enough!”

“Theosis”

In order to show us that his assertion that we should relate with God as “me enough” is a bona-fide Christian practice, Smith provides us with a veritably amazing, eye-opening substantial compendium of references in Scripture and from tradition to the explicit declaration that “we are gods” or that “our goal is to be divinized.” I'm just amazed at the constant thread in the Christian tradition, particularly in the Christian East (but also some data from the West), which makes reference to the fact that one of the most important matters in Christian existence and Christian anthropology is the notion that humans are called to “become gods” - that is, deification, theosis! (Cf. pp. 183-96 of the book).

 It is impressive that there are a great many scriptural passages that explicitly mention the teaching of deification, theosis (transformation into divinity), apotheosis (deification = apo [change] + theosis = changing into divinity), and the like. This teaching has indeed been unfortunately by and large neglected in the Western Christian tradition! Now, thanks to Smith’s insights, I am convinced that theosis is a major teaching of Christianity because of overwhelming evidence in the tradition! Thanks also to the Eastern Christian tradition that has treasured this principle in a particular way!  (Cf. pp. 196-203)