Saturday, September 24, 2016

Revenge vs. Forgive (RF)

We now turn onto the Right-Front Trail and consider two choices in addressing the damage done: Revenge and Forgiveness.

Take a purely economic example where someone damages your property: there are essentially two possible outcomes. The first is to demand that he pay for the damages. The second is to refuse to let him pay anything. There could also be some combination of the two in which you both share the costs.

But notice that in every option the consequences –here the cost of the damage - must be borne by someone. Either you or he absorbs the consequences of his conduct; neither the need for repair nor the associated expense vaporizes. More troublesome, is that most of the wrongs done to us are not as tangible as this example and cannot be measured in dollars. Someone may have deprived you of some happiness, opportunity, certain aspects of your freedom, or harmed your reputation. No price tag can be put on such things, yet we still have an instinctive claim on justice that does not go away - even when the other person says, “I’m really sorry.”

Here again there are two options.  The first is to forcibly extract compensation. However, even when you take reparation through revenge the evil done still does not dissolve. On the contrary, evil spreads, and it spreads most tragically of all into you and your character.

The second option, an alternative to revenge, is more problematic and yet far more effective.

You can forgive.  

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Conduct and Consequences (CC)

Starting with Conduct and Consequences: my mother would often say to us children, “God always forgives, man seldom forgives, nature never forgives.”  The point she was making is that conduct has consequences.  And no matter the circumstances as regards nature, the damage is done.

Now think of sin –  as I use the term here – as having two forms: wrongdoing and personal rejection. Wrongdoing is causing harm in some visibly active manner, while rejection is more psychological but no less real and no less hurtful. In fact, the degree of pain corresponds to the degree of love the rejected has for the other.

Let’s consider the first sin.  There is the act of disobedience – eating the forbidden fruit.  That was sin as wrongdoing.  The more consequential sin, though, was turning away from God, personal rejection.  And with God loving Adam and Eve with an infinite love, the “pain” their rejection “inflicted” was equally infinite.

Furthermore, we learn from Genesis that rejecting God’s love has tragic, far-reaching consequences. Our first parents upended God’s entire creation doing incredible damage to their own nature – and thus ours – and to the nature of the world as God intended it.  It is important to note here that this was less about God punishing, and more about the consequences of our conduct.  

Not only do we have Adam and Eve turning away from God we also have Israel subsequently repeating this sin over and over again. As a collective inheritance we are born with original sin.  And if we are honest, we admit that, as individuals, we too have repeatedly turned away from God’s overtures thus personally replicating our parents’ and Israel's conduct.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Three Trails to Better Understanding

Although Jesus was clear that his death was inevitable and necessary, he wasn’t nearly so clear about the reasons. His own disciples did not, at least initially; comprehend his predictions of his death. They were notably confused about what was going to happen and why.  In the New Testament, there are only statements like this terse remark by St. Paul: “For I handed on to you as of first importance… that Christ died for our sins...”

Therefore, there is merit in reflecting on the Crucifixion to be able to provide reasons to those who question either the merits of Christ’s death or why, as St. Paul says, it is a matter “of first importance.” 

So with these three principles in mind: 1) there is no one complete answer, 2) that God’s ways are “higher” than ours, and 3) The Bible addresses but is not explicitly clear on the matter, I begin a simple exploration of why Christ had to die.
To adequately scan the breadth and depth of Christ’s death on the cross, we must climb to a gain a better view. So let's hike up three trails to access a highpoint.  There is the Central Corridor (CC), the Right-Front Trail (RF), and the Left Side trail (LS).  Specifically, we have the concepts of: Conduct and Consequences (CC), Revenge and Forgiveness (RF) and Love and Sacrifice (LS).


To be continued…  In Christ, Ken.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Why Did Jesus Have to Die?

In the Christian account, Jesus dies so that we can enter into full relationship with him.  For many, that seems ludicrous or even sinister. And so we get questions like; “Why would Jesus have to die?”  “Why can’t God just forgive us?” And sceptics say, “The Christian God sounds like the vengeful gods of primitive times who needed to be appeased by human sacrifice.” There are even a few Christian’s who ask, “Why don’t we just leave out the Cross; focus on the life of Jesus and his teachings rather than on his death? “  Before beginning in earnest to explore this matter, there are three principal points to grasp. 


First, there is no one fully complete answer. Instead there are depths that one can explore and you are encouraged to meditate on what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about Christ’s dying on the cross.  And while I will touch on some of what the Catechism covers, we will barely scratch the surface of all that God wishes us to know.

Second, when we ask questions like this, we must be careful that we are not calling God into question. To wonder why God has acted in a specific way could imply that the way He chose is not the best course of action and that some other approach would have been better.  Before we can come to grips with anything God does, we must first acknowledge that His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts — they are higher than ours.

To be continued…