Movies about Saints my way

Temptation

Salvador Dali’s Temptation of St Anthony

With the Golden Globes finished, and the Academy Awards around the corner, I wanted to publish this long overdue. I often find Catholic Saints film a bore. For fifth grade catechesis, maybe, but not much for inspiration in my faith. For Greater Glory & There Be Dragons pushed the Action and Intrigue. They attempted to make Saint stories suitable for Big Budget / Big Screen Cinema. In 2014, we had Biblical epics picked up by Directors who may have been atheists. The Gospel According to St Matthew, directed by atheist, marxist, homosexual Pasolini, is on the Vatican’s list of top faith films.

While many Catholics dream of big budget, suround sound, 3-D, nationally screened Saint films, I wonder what could be lost. Some saints might get their action sequences. Most saints are dealing with interior dilemmas that just cannot be communicated in the same manner as Big Budget / Big Screen Cinema. You might have to talk to directors who have dealt with smaller scale, intimate portrayals, accompanied by character development. On the one hand, you might limit the audience. On the other hand you might reach an audience (that wouldn’t waste their time on a cheesy sentimental saint film) for an intelligent, thoughtful, artfully crafted film experience around a particular saint.

Continue reading

Advertisements

4 unusual, although typical priestly encounters

When random people encounter a priest, they are often ready to open up about their entire life. I find, that when I visit different parishes to preside at Sunday Masses, there is always a person or two who will briefly tell me their life story, or want to know mine.

As I am a “young” or “cool” priest, or perhaps a priest without grey hair or a gut, somehow they find me strangely fascinating. My actual ministry is to high school students at an all boys school, and so these sorts of encounters don’t happen at all where I work. Most adolescent boys like to hear stories from their teachers. Myself included. Yet, they never ask me for my vocation story, quite like the adults or elderly people that I encounter at parishes.

Just yesterday, I literally had 4 encounters that I think could virtually sum up what all such encounters.

Continue reading

The Trinity for Agnostics Part 4

Read Part 1

Read Part 2

Read Part 3

Trinity is very personal. Person was the term used to distinguish the Trinity in the early Church. Three persons of one substance. The substance is the communion of persons. Persons was a Latinization of the Greek Hypostatis. Hypostasis means the grounding of being. Each Hypostasis had a grounding distinguishing integrity, in much the same way that each of us do.

But even this entire philosophical processing can feel cumbersome that it is not even talked about in our Church.

Contrasting to many the pop-culture eastern mysticism, has at its heart, that the individual and personal integrity of the individual is meant to diminish until the person becomes non-existent. That is Buddhism. Self-Annihilation. Many of the self-asserting individualists who turn Buddhism into their consumer product don’t actually realize the hypocrisy in their spiritual quest. People who want the Dalai Lamas new book like it’s a trendy pair of jeans miss the point entirely.

Yet, in contrast, the Christian is to believe that we become most fully ourselves in God. We have all our personal integrity intact. We are not meant to lose it. We are, however, meant to diminish in the sense that we deny and die to our petty ego-centricism. This is not self-annihilation, neither is it self-assertion.

So we are most our own person in God’s person.

Conversely, we are most our own person in God’s communion, and in relationship to God’s communion in the Trinity. There is a relational dimension we are invited to. This is our salvation. We are redeemed from the wretched suicide of sin.

It is hard for me to describe God in his own existence. But even that is important to consider, because we are so obsessed with our own well-being. Having made it clear that God is more concerned with care for each of us then anything, we also have to shift our concern.

God existed as a communion of persons eternally, preceding any history or creation of the world. Preceding our own existence God was a communion of love. Some of the Church Fathers referred to this as a mutual indwelling of the three persons in a Pericoresis. Pericoresis was a dynamic Greek term that connoted a rotating. The strange thing for present theologians to consider is that the term implied dance.

The Triune God has engaged in a mutual indwelling dance from all eternity.

Augustine also referred to the Holy Spirit as the Unity of Charity between the Father and Son. Therefore we can say that God is Love. Therefore we can say that the Spirit unites Christians and peoples. Therefore we can say the Spirit is always moving in love in all the world.

Some of these images form a basis for reflection in prayer and theology, and they have helped me at all times. The God who is so magnificent and glorious to be conceived by my petty human mind, is the same God who discloses himself in the events in history, and particularly fully reveals himself in the man  Jesus of Nazareth, and the fire and life of the Church the Holy Spirit. God is already active before I was born, in a loving dance of unity. The Incomprehensible Transcendent Triune God existent before all ages, is the same God who cares and saves us.

The posture of the Trinity is always one of love, unity, integrity, and mercy. What then is our posture. It is always easier for us to be agnostic, because embodying compassion, charity and justice in the same way as God is always more difficult then in hiding behind the fact that we are a spiritual seeker, who is more apt at aimless drifting. When we encounter a person it demands the greatest reverence, it changes us. Therefore we must be ready to meet the aimless drifters and genuine spiritual seekers of truth with a personal encounter. God afterall, is very personal.

The Trinity for Agnostics Part 3

Read Part 1

Read Part 2

Augustine refers to having valued Jesus because of what his mother Monica taught him. He probably admired the person Jesus of Nazareth for being another remarkable teacher or philosopher. I think it would bear resemblance to your average agnostic today.

If you were to take your average lapsed Catholic agnostic, and ask them about Jesus, they would probably be in agreement on many things that perhaps do not agree with the Catholic Tradition. Beyond blaming the sorry catechesis, I think it would be interesting to see the generic and harmless Jesus that can only be the product of an overly materialistic consumer society. Jesus is another self-help guru. I am sure that is how they imagine him. He had some non-religious spiritual wisdom teaching, and he was a healer just like self-help gurus are or whatever. At the same time, there is nothing compelling or urging about this caricature, who can as easily be disregarded with each new pop fad. But by and large, Jesus remains a positive person that even the agnostic has a hard time overtly disrespecting him.

The apostles were vividly struck by this man Jesus of Nazareth. He was like the prophets before him. But he was not like them. He was like the lawgiver before, but Jesus was totally something beyond that. Jesus was, and Jesus was not quite in the way they understood. The Gospel themselves clearly testify to a certain Apophatic reflection on the person of Jesus as they grappled to categorize and bracket him into what their experience knew. Another lawgiver. Another prophet. Another teacher. Another preacher. Another wonder-worker. But Jesus was not any of these things.

Jesus was the son of a carpenter. Yeshua bar Yosef, he would have been referred to. Christ was not his last name (or Joseph and Mary’s). But what was with this guy? He was nothing like his family. There was nothing that could prepare anybody for the authoritative teaching, the inspiring proclamation, and the wonders he worked among the people.

All of this turned them on their head absolutely when they saw him in glory after having been publically executed. Their lives were turned on their head. They all went to the ends of the earth to endure brutal torturous death on account of the proclamation of this wonderful event.

Jesus said that his Spirit would come upon his followers, and there was a concrete and tangible difference. Whereas the Apostles locked themselves away in terror when Jesus was captured, suddenly they had no fear in the face of similarly gruesome torturous assassinations and executions.

They baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each of these titles corresponded to something, or someone they experienced. It was clear that Jesus was not the Father that he prayed to, but Jesus was the one with the Father. That Jesus was not the Spirit who came upon the disciples, but there was a unity.

The whole movement of the Church exploded amidst bloody persecutions. There was something alive and flamboyant at work behind the scenes. It took them a while to let their intellectual reflections catch up with their own experience and the tradition. It was clear from the beginning that there were three divine persons, each with their own solid ground and integrity. Yet, It was clear, as has always been that there is still one God.

As the Church Fathers were quite comfortable with articulations about God, balanced with an incomprehensible Divine Mystery, the idea that there God is Triune was not altogether difficult to accept. It is, unfortunately far removed from our experiences. I do believe that the magnitude of the incomprehensibility of Divine Mystery has been so incredibly undervalued publically, that many people do become agnostics. But God has acted in history. God has acted in our lives. It is quite concrete, so much so that it does not make sense to remain an exclusive agnostic for very long. Jesus, the Son of God, had flesh and blood like us. He hungered and feasted as us. And he spoke to us. He speaks to us in the Scriptures. Perhaps the Father is caring, nurturing, and providing for us. Perhaps the Spirit is moving and vivifying us likewise. It does not make sense to remain agnostic, because God is acting in our lives in a concrete manner, demanding a concrete response.

People who remain hard hearted agnostics, often will find themselves deliberated trapped, to protect themselves from hypocritical Christians. They want to see results. They want to see that following God leads to happiness, that the moral life is possible, and that they are all connected. Most of all they are craving communion, not more abstract moral theories, not more abstract moral doctrines. It is not that these have no value.

But the story of God is very personal. The story of Trinity is very personal. The Son of God is Incarnate. The Son of God has eyeballs, ears, a nose, and a tongue. The Son of God has a story, the story is our redemption, the story becomes our story, our story becomes part of his story, our story becomes the Church’s story, the Church’s story becomes our story, the Son of God’s story becomes our story. The Story of God follows with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and we can receive that gift through the Sacraments. We begin our Trinitarian Life at Baptism, in the Name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So it becomes very important for us to be well versed in this story. It becomes important for us to reflect on our personal part in this story in the Life of the Trinity. We see our past with new perspective, and God transforms our pain into something beautiful.

Augustine looked deeply into the story of Jesus, and the story of the Church, and the story of the Communion of the Saints. He saw something too remarkable to deny, and followed his heart into the story.

Read Part 4

The Trinity for Agnostics Part 1

“God is more thought than can be uttered, God exists more than can be thought.” -Augustine

For Saint Augustine, and For Saint Gregory Nazianzus, they spoke much of God. Yet, scattered throughout all their theological musings and quandaries was a reverent hesitation evoked by a heart in wonder hushed by the divine mystery.

Since the age of Enlightenment, or rationalism, or modernism, we have viewed activities of knowledge with rigor. We mixed in the idea of positivism: what can be known must be demonstrated or verified with concrete data and facts. Only what can be measured in the most pure of scientific settings can be held to be true. What cannot be measured and demonstrated in strictly empirical or scientific matters must be ignored. This seems to be at the root of much atheism today.

But most people are not atheists. Some people think that they have become atheist merely to liberate themselves from the shackles of religion. I believe it is the opposite, that many atheists have come to atheism because only positivism, or rationalism, or enlightenment, or whatever gives them confidence.

Instead of atheism, people get caught between religion and agnosticism. I was an agnostic for a long time. Some of my agnosticism was not a reaction to religion. It was a reaction to positivism and rationalism, which had become enshrined our secular society, and even our modern theology.

It was not because I had the certitude of a verifiable alternative that I became agnostic at the age of 15. I think that it was because positivism in the west, and particularly America was tying things so tightly and comfortably together. Unlike the stereotypes of Catholics somehow clinging deeply to irrational biblical fairy tales or whatever, we have actually always had a healthy management of reason amidst faith. But this is not really a defense of that. In some ways reacting to hyper-rationalistic secularism, we were actually hyper-rationalistic to the point of articulating our theological constructions of God that became positivistic or rationalistic. The problem was that it reduced God in so many ways to be grasped and articulated with scientific precision and clarity. God was reduced to a piece of empirical data.

Augustine struggled with this all throughout his work the Trinity. He always wavered between developing an affirmative speech about God, and then denying whatever he attempted to articulate. Even Thomas Aquinas wanted to throw away all his theological investigations after some sort of encounter with the Divine Mystery.

Even the most brilliant theologian saints themselves appear in some ways to be agnostic. Some apologists might be apt at quoting Aquinas against any objection or objector, which is great to a point, as if faith is not a gift from the Holy Spirit, but can be intellectually demonstrated in a positivistic rationalistic laboratory. God is not a lab rat. We cannot make God run the maze and say that is God.

On the other hand, we have plenty of gods in our films, whose power is demonstrated with spectacular special effects. I think many people walk away from the Church, because they are walking away from sloppy or inaccurate depictions of God that is so small as to fit into our theological demonstrations, or that Hollywood special effects God does not behave like the movies or whatever.

But the story of Augustine goes like this. As he walked along the coast of North Africa overlooking the vast Mediterranean struggling to put two words this theology of the Trinity, he was distracted by what some child appearing to play games. The child dug a little hole in the sand, and repeatedly went to the water transferring from the Mediterranean to his little hole in the sand with a little shell. Augustine inquired of the child what this game was. With innocent enthusiasm, and outstretched arms, the child said “I am going to put the WHOOOOOOOOOLE OCEAN in this little hole…” Augustine thought what folly! But the child, who was some sort of angel, “Don’t you know it is folly to attempt to put the Glorious Divine Mystery of the Trinity into your tiny little head?”

Read Part 2

Read Part 3

Read Part 4

5 Reasons I Love Religion!

It may be that the “I Hate Religion, I love Jesus” video has officially passed out as a cultural phenomenon like many other pop culture trends that this very video is indebted to, while Religion still stands. It may be that another critical response is so late in the game, that it is somehow irrelevant.

I, however, still did wish to share some affirmative critical responses in favor of Religion. My Catholic Church still stands despite my ability or incapacity to defend it. My defense of it does not validate it any the more. After some time on reflecting, as well as much time postponing for various reasons, I offer my thoughts. I only hope to add a few of these affirmative responses, if only that they are not merely responses but affirmations that are relevant beyond the moment.

Many of the responses to the video that I have read act merely as ad hoc phrase by phrase responses. Having had a few days to gather some of my thoughts and emotions together I decided to piece together five significant reasons why I am proud to be a Religious follower of Jesus Christ.

Reason 1 Children

I had the awesome experience of helping a 2nd grade class prepare for their 1st Holy Communion.

1st Holy Communion Masses are inundated with plenty of Catholics who have not attended Mass in years, and are notorious for becoming spectacles. They are running around Church taking photos of their precious pristine children taking a rite of passage. And the irony is, that despite it being special to them, they themselves may not even be receiving communion. Despite what may be some overt hypocrisy… Well it does not even take away from the amazing nature of the sacrament if believers fail to grasp the magnitude of the event. Even if they inherently know this day to be set apart from others, they carry a sense of pride for their children. Even if the children themselves fail to see the riches of the Sacrament. Hey, that is the wonder of being a child, joyful discovery.

Unlike the jaded fallen away Catholic, or anyone who insists on Jesus and no religion, who dismisses this joyful discovery. The Jesus without religion insists that this faith experience of the child has literally no value, while the religious person carries the joy that they have an entire life to joyfully discover and grow into the understanding of this very event.

I cannot merely dismiss the faith of a child, given they do not understand the magnitude of the event, it is just uncharitable. In fact, I think their own humble willing acceptance is seriously valid. It is something we share, and I am proud to share the faith, and inspired by the faith of children. In fact, in some way, my own religion insists that the faith experience of these children is somehow more valid then my own. This is so radical and counter intuitive in the same way that Jesus proclamation of the Kingdom of God was so radical and counter intuitive, and not as radical and counter intuitive to insist that understanding people only apply to the alter call. To insist that the only valid encounter of faith is an adult who “accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior,” fails to grasp the magnitude of childlike faith, and submits itself to the sinful yoke of cynicism.

I cannot help but think that I am a better man when we have a religion where children are full and valid participants.

Reason 2 Art, Music, and Architecture

A few years ago I studied medieval and renaissance art in a university setting. I was inspired by the course, and impressed by how far the professor managed to cover the spiritual and religious genius of artists that we covered.

Although on one hand I am sure many people would flock into magnificent churches over the centuries with the same human inclination for the spectacular that they flock to in laser show mega churches and special effect extravaganza blockbuster movies… There is still something more at work. The impulse in the human spirit to craft magnificent beauty in the cause of a greater purpose is one of the most amazing things about humanity. To dismiss this aspect of the human spirit as idolatry or as uncharitable is more ironic idolatry than anything. In fact, the impulse itself only verifies the existence of our Creator and the creative achievement. To have one’s heart dramatically arrested in silent reverence, seems to ennoble the soul to greater virtue, more then the cold and nearly inhuman insistence on dismissing the entire western repertoire of artistic achievement.

Because some people fail to appreciate the divine beauty manifest in art does not itself invalidate the art, or more significantly, the glorious realities that the art manifests. However, to fail to acknowledge the total human person, sensuous and emotional, traps the human person in their own ideological madness. When you kill the poetic imagination in the human spirit you are left with nothing then legalism or fanciful speculative superstition. Perhaps that is whey our society is so fragmented on ideologies, is because our culture has been so iconoclastic when it comes to religious art. Perhaps this is why “Jesus and No Religion” is so legalistic with all its “No religion, no art, no this, no that.” Perhaps that is why there is this rampant obsession with speculative superstitious interpretations of the Apocalypse with non-contextualized passages of Scripture.

In order for their to be a great artistic tradition, it requires a shared pedagogy of symbols. Religion does that. Where there is no shared pedagogy, you see as modern art is reduced to intangible reckless subjective nonsense.

I cannot deny that somehow I have become a better man by a religion that drives women and men to manifesting beautiful art music and architecture.

Reason 3 Culture and Communal Christian Identity

I grew up in Southern California, going to a parish established by Spanish Franciscan Missionary Junipero Serra in 1771 before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Catholic story of the American Southwest is a different one than the Catholic story out in the East Coast. The Catholic story of the Irish, Italian, and German immigrants differs from the Hispanic Catholics who became part of this country without ever immigrating. You see the results, and the Mission Church to which I grew up in is markedly different then the Churches I see out here, is different from the Churches in Europe.

A philosophy professor when I started College made the comment that Protestant Churches throughout the world make very little admission for cultural differences then Catholic churches, and that says something significant. Perhaps old Protestant Churches only permitted Gothic styles, and modern Evangelical churches only permit theatrical auditorium settings, while Catholic Church admit to a diverse inclusiveness when it comes to cultural settings. This is not to say that certain aspects of Catholic worship are incredibly essential, and this theory overlooks the sad state of Catholic architecture in the past thirty years (which itself is not the point, it is more a failure to relate and live up to something essentially Catholic).

The same could be said about the devotional life of Catholics of differing settings. Unfortunately, when you have a dogmatically narrow self-righteous insistence of Jesus and no religion, you hypocritically fail to allow a communal relationship with Jesus to grow in a particular character, and you fail to allow the Spirit itself to work. At some point years ago, I was instinctively opposed to some sort of “Religion of the Masses.” That instinct was itself a self-righteous disdain to set myself over and above others who failed to live up to my own narrow idea of purity.

What you end up getting is a bunch of Evangelical, Pentacostal, Non-Denominational churches sprouting up targeting Hispanic Catholics condescendingly as biblically ignorant while training them to disdain their own Religious Cultural Patrimony. Believe me, I have seen it happen my entire life growing up in Southern California. I am sure the same could be said as Evangelicals likely do the same elsewhere.

Reason 4 I am liberated from the tyranny of self

Although on the one hand I become most fully myself in my relationship with the Divine Trinity, there is still something about myself that has to die. Perhaps it is a result of a sinful impulse within me, that we often refer to as Original Sin, that causes me to desire to protect myself from God’s work in my life.

It is like I want, at all cost, to accumulate more things. There is this survival instinct that fears that I will not have enough, and that I will wear out and die. There is this tendency to put my short term desires and needs ahead of my own long term destiny, and the destiny of humanity in general.

Jesus comes around preaching the Beatitudes, and giving himself up to die on the cross, and it turns this whole human dynamic on its head. It turns Communism, Capitalism, Consumerism, and every other self-protecting ideology on its head. In fact, it turns this same sinful self enclosing instinct to have Jesus and no religion on its very head as well.

Even to hold the bible in my own, like an app on my personal smart phone device only closes up God in a box even more, if I cannot allow the bible to be interpreted by a community more competent then myself. Perhaps this is why I see the value itself in Patristics, as well as a legitimate authority that is not me, because of my own instinct to protect myself.

The tradition of the Church has always been helpful for liberating myself, and others from their own selfish instincts, while Jesus and No Religion only helps one to give power to their own selfish instincts. What an incredible hypocrisy then, to talk all this stuff about what Jesus insists that you do, while pretending that there is no religion at all behind it. To be accountable to a 2000 year tradition and a standing authority that is not me, only refuses to allow myself to become the tyrant of my own interpretation of what Jesus meant.

When the Church comes up with a legal code, Canon Law, has been a way of verifying the rights and responsibilities of the members and the institution beyond stringent lists of forbidden things. That is not to say that there are some limits that are forbidden, if only that the Church will insist that I will be losing my total human spiritual identity by crossing those limits.

There really is no way around it, but I cannot be a better more liberated person if I am not accountable to those things.

Reason 5 Sanctified Rhythm of Life

The logical conclusion of Protestant failure to carry a sense of Sacred with things has resulted in a failure to worship with a beautiful liturgy. There is no Sacred Sunday of the Resurrection, there is just a day to hear Pastor Preach. There is no entering into the Divine Drama in Human History in the Rhythms of Feasts and Seasons each year, as there is only another day to listen to Pastor Preach. There is no participation that takes us beyond the daily mundane of our lives, as there is only the incessant demand that Pastor Preach, or to incessantly demand that God deal with all the daily mundane of our lives. This is the whole market with Evangelical Self Help books, bible daily devotionals, and the like.

Not only does an authoritative tradition act as a balance to my own instinctual fight for survival, a living tradition imparts life insofar as I participate in it.

Think about it. We have Advent, leading to Christmas, and Lent leading to Easter. We behave in a different way in Advent then in Lent, and a markedly distinct manner in Lent compared to Easter. We hope in one and relish in the other. We cry in one and solemnly rejoice in the other. We are losers in one, and we participate in God’s victory in the other.

The very act of praying in such a seasonal manner sanctifies our sorrows and consecrates our ecstasy. It places each tear and each smile of our lives in a greater story. It relates our pain and pleasure to something beyond our everyday mundane, and even goes so far as to identify it with all of humanity and with God’s story.

People tell me that I am always so joyful and always so happy. I tend to laugh with irony during the month of November when I listen to melancholy music thinking of the Holy Dead, and meditating on my own mortality. When Christmas arrives, with its cakes, candies, and drinks, I go to Mass over and over again, and then go party over and over again. I laugh and dance with pride and gusto. This is what religion does to me. It does not dismiss my sorrow as morbid, nor does it dismiss my celebration as excessive.

Of course, the “Jesus and No Religion” do not even know how to celebrate and drink like Jesus, with their puritanical insistence on no alcohol. They are more like the Pharisees who will criticize the disciples of John the Baptist who mourn and fast (as they will dismiss anybody who does not always and everywhere remain happy for Jesus Resurrection) while simultaneously, like the Pharisees criticize Jesus disciples who drink and feast (as they dismiss “worldly” people with their excesses).

To the non-religious person who says they follow the teachings of Jesus

People often say that they follow the teachings of Jesus, as a way of skirting around the issue. They accept, and/or follow some vague, fluffy, generic, abstracted, unspecified and imprecise collection of ideas and values from a variety of religious traditions, as if to boast on their inclusivity and open mindedness. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of things from Orthodox and Evangelical Christianity which have inspired my faith, as well as many particular things in Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism as well. The problem, when people say that they accept Jesus teaching, they do not actually accept Jesus teaching, they merely accept a vague, fluffy, abstracted, unspecified and imprecise collection of ideas and values which are often refered to as Judeo-Christian. Let me explain, it would be like telling the person who declares their love to you, that you are more in love with the idea of love then them in particular.

Let me make it clear. There is a whole lot of what Jesus taught which was not particularly revolutionary, and which was traditional wisdom among the Jews of his day. In this sense, he was a good Jew in every sense of the word. One can look at his condemnation of religious hypocrisy, and find similar statements among the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. One can look at the ideas behind his parables, and find the echoing sentiments and values from the Wisdom Tradition of Israel. Some scholars also debate on some phrases which were put on the mouth of Jesus by the early Church. Even for the Christian, who believes in the inspiration of the New Testament, this is not troubling, as the inspiration in the living Church, the Body of Christ, does not require every single word uttered by Jesus to have actually literally been uttered by him at a specific time, place, and moment documented absolutely perfectly as data. To be so nitpicky to the letter of the law of empirically verifiable data is only to fall into the very irrational madness that Jesus and the Prophets condemned repeatedly.

So there are two aspects of Jesus life and teaching which were incredibly radical. The first was more principally his actions, his good works, and miracles to those in need. When individuals say that they follow the teachings of Jesus, what is the big deal. Jesus went around multiplying fishes and loaves, food for the hungry, sight to the blind, and forgiveness to the sinner, and then he turns around and insists that if we have enough convicted faith and devoted love in him we may do even greater works than this. Often times, in my experience, people go around saying they follow what Jesus taught, but do not imitate what he did; which is what Jesus mandated.

Further, I cannot seem to find a place that Jesus insists that we follow what he taught, rather Jesus insists, mandates, commands, that we follow him. Jesus does not want us following his words, he wants us to follow him who is in the Incarnate word. Jesus does not want us being spiritual seekers of the truth, Jesus insists that he is Truth, and that we commit to that Truth. What would truth be, if we merely accomodated it to our liking and comfort, rather, when Truth finds us, we are compelled to sell everything we have.

It is really easy to say that all religions are the same, when you reduce Christianity to a set of morals. Ironically, people who are not religious seem to like Jesus for challenging the legal narrowness of the Pharisees, but when they turn around and reduce Christianity to a set of morals, they themselves become legalistic in the opposite extreme. What we find in Jesus is not a strict moral code, but a compelling moral witness for a better world. This is the Reign of God that he preaches, and he insists that in him is the fullness of this Reign, verifying it in his actions, his death, and his Rising from the dead. If the Jesus in exposition of the Scriptures and Tradition is absent, you have a neat little legal Judeo-Christian all religions just the same, and you can keep it safe, and you can keep yourself safe in your complacency. However, if what Jesus taught us that he is the living water, the bread from the Heaven, the Word made flesh, God’s Reign come, then that puts our clever manipulations in danger. When we encounter Jesus Christ, the Truth, we can no longer float in a vague, fluffy, generic, abstracted, unspecified and imprecise collection of ideas, because Truth is a person, and we must dare to make a specific, living, actual, and precise person, and what they are about. The Jesus who is the Christ of the Scriptures is a threat to all our complacency and comfort, so therefore, it is much easier to reduce Jesus to a moral teacher, because it requires nothing else of us that sacrifices our self-righteousness.