Christmas Eve 2017
The practice in hospitals today is that when a baby is born, the family gathers in the mother’s room to hold it.  Until recently, newborn babies were kept isolated from everyone.  After they were born and bathed, they were taken from their mothers and put in little bassinets or beds, arranged in rows with the other infants.  And most importantly, behind glass.
None of this holding the baby or letting family members touch the infant.  Family members who were permitted to visit were obliged to look at the baby through the window and would make all sorts of funny faces and ridiculous gestures to try and attract the attention of the baby.  One of the challenges was to be sure that you were trying to attract the attention of the right baby.
So, why am I a talking about visiting babies?
In celebrating the birth of Jesus, we don’t precisely re-enact the birth, but rather re-enact the visits people and even angels made.  The Gospels mention the angels singing praises “Glory to God in the highest,” the shepherds silently watching over the Lamb of God and the wise men from the East bringing precious gifts.  Most likely there were animals (they were in the area where the animals were kept) and possibly curiosity seekers who wanted to see this baby who was attracting so much attention.  And then there might have been people who just wanted to see a new baby.
Today in this church we are making our visit to the Child Jesus.  If this newborn baby were only like the billions of other babies who have been born into the world, we would probably be making ridiculous gestures and strange sounds over the baby.  But this baby is different: He is God.  How do we approach God?
Do we approach the Child God as if we were approaching a fearsome King or Judge with attitude of caution and mistrust.  (This is a baby right now, but will become an all-powerful adult who will eventually be ready to punish us for every misdeed.)  We are  making a visit in a stable, but act as if we were in a courtroom, expecting to be judged.   Our attitude is one of guilt and fear, searching for ways to prove to this Child God that we are worthy of his love and mercy.  We don’t focus on the baby, but on ourselves—hoping that we make a good impression.
This is the wrong approach.  Instead of trying to convince God that we love Him, let’s focus on the love that He has shown for us.
Love then, consists in this: not that we have loved God but that he has loved us and has sent his Son as an offering for our sins (1 John 4:10)
Pope Francis on many occasions has urged us not to approach God as a judge, but rather as one who loves us, who wants to help us.
In our prayer, let’s not waste our time trying to convince God of how good we are, of how we love Him.  The Lord knows what is in our hearts.  Instead, let us take the words of Deuteronomy to heart: “You must be altogether sincere with the Lord, your God.” (Deut 18:13).  This means that letting God know who we really are; This means being able to identify our own feelings and not being afraid to show God when we are tired, afraid, happy, lonely, confident and strong, weak and hesitant.  We do this instead of trying to make a good impression.   After all, God knows who we are.  
The ridiculous gestures we make in front of other babies may be the way to go.

Inculturation and Evangelization - Presentation at Colgate University 30 October 2017

Inculturation and Evangelization:

“And the Word Became Flesh”*

            I want to thank Father Jason Hage for the invitation to be with you for the Catholic Conversation here at Colgate University and briefly to reflect on the notion of inculturation in the context of evangelization. 

When the topic of “inculturation” comes up, the discussion usually follows the line that the Gospel is able to take root in any culture such as China, Africa or even America. A safe way to approach the issue of inculturation would be to examine the various cultures in which Christianity exists.  This would be safe, satisfy a bit of our curiosity, but really would not challenge us in any way.  Therefore, I would like to reflect on different—fundamental—aspects of inculturation.

This year we are celebrating the 500^th anniversary of Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Cathedral of Wurtenburg.  We must admit that Luther had some valid points, but that the reform brought many unforeseen and even tragic consequences for society and the Body of Christ.  In any case, I am going to adopt his methodology and just present a few “theses” or “bullet points” for your consideration. 

1.     There is no uninculturated Gospel.  From the moment of the conception of Jesus, the Gospel has been inculturated.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the Gospel message can be adapted.  Like a lot of conventional wisdom, this assertion is true, but a bit misleading.  It gives the impression that there is a neutral “Gospel” that is not inculturated.  We are all familiar with the scripture quotation, “and the Word became flesh.” (John 1:14).  On the front of the altar in Nazareth, there is a plaque that says (in Latin) “and the Word became flesh here.”    Jesus became flesh at a certain time and in a certain place, in the context of a specific culture.   He was a Jew who was conceived in a backwater province of the Roman Empire in Nazareth, a village of 120 inhabitants.  He spoke Hebrew, and probably knew Greek since Galilee was quite pagan and some Latin since the country was occupied.  This is the cultural origin of Christianity.  And the Gospel continues to “take flesh” as it finds expression in different cultures.

2.     During his earthly ministry, Jesus was apparently not so concerned about inculturation.

We must remember that Jesus was proclaiming the “end times.”  He spoke of the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven” often, but only rarely (three times in Matthew) is the word “Church” recorded as coming from his lips.  Time was short and the issue of inculturation was a long-term concern.

Jesus’ conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman manifests a strong antipathy for anyone who was not a Jew:

But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”  (Mark 7:25-27)

(In a spirit of full disclosure, this woman was perhaps a grandmother in the 10^th degree to Father Jason or me—this conversation was taking place in what is now modern Lebanon.)

We find Jesus rejecting the woman, arguing that his message was intended exclusively for a specific people and culture, that of the Jews.   Consistent with all of salvation history, the Good News was to be given to the world through the Jews, God’s chosen people.

3.     After the resurrection, the “exclusivity” of the Gospel message disappeared.

After the resurrection, we find Jesus breaking down the barriers of culture:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”  (Mark 16:15)

No longer was the Good News to be restricted to the Jews, but was to be taken to all peoples.  Such a program of evangelization required linguistic and eventually cultural adaptations.

4.     The earliest crisis in the Church addressed inculturation.

Even though Paul of Tarsus was not present to hear the command of Jesus to go into all the world, this is exactly what he did.  Consequently, a crisis arose: Did the pagans, e. g., the Greeks and the Romans, need to become Jews in order to be Christians?  The decision taken in Jerusalem in 52 AD was that they did not need to do so.  This was the first cultural adaptation of the Gospel message.

This willingness to inculturate finds expression in Saint Paul’s claim, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) 

5.     Inculturation presumes openness towards the world.

We live in what many describe as a post-Christian society.  The response of some to this situation is to erect fortresses, safe spaces in which we can live out our Christian lives.  While Rod Dreher offers many good points (e.g., the support of fellowship), his book The Benedict Option is a defensive reaction to what some describe as a “post-Christian” society, contra mudndum.  What if the apostles had taken this approach?  The Gospel message would have expired in a small room in southwestern Jerusalem. 

The evangelist Luke took another approach, one that was positive about the “pre-Christian” world they were called upon to evangelize.   Looking at both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of Apostles, written by the same author, we find that the ministry of Jesus is essentially a journey directed to Jerusalem and the mission of the apostles was directed away from Jerusalem to the farthest corners of the world.  There are strong indications that the apostle Thomas (“Doubting Thomas”) took the Gospel to southern India.  By the sixth century, the Good News had reached Mongolia.  This presumes a courageous, open attitude toward the world.

6.     Not every culture and cultural value is suitable for the Gospel.

We are tempted to say that the Gospel has no cultural boundaries, but that would not be true.  There are boundaries There are some cultures and cultural values that need to be rejected by Christianity.  Nazi Germany is an easy example.  The nationalism, racism and aggressive stance could never been incorporated into Christianity. South Africa’s apartheid could never find a place in the Gospel message or the authentic life of the Church.  But these are easy examples, perhaps too easy.   As Christians in North America, we need to examine what qualities would be appropriate for Christianity and what qualities would not. This is not any easy task.  We need to make a distinction between what is an issue of faith and what is an issue of culture and custom

7.     Through inculturation, the Gospel is transformed and also transformative.

Taking the bulb of a certain flower from Europe or the Far East and planting it in North America will eventually result in a different flower because of the climate and the soil.  The flower is different.  A Gospel planted here is different than in its lands of origins.  But this place is also different because it now has a new beautiful flower.  The flower has been transformed by its surroundings and has transformed its surroundings.  The same is true for the Gospel.  Inculturation must take place in order for the Gospel to transform societies.

In closing, it is pleasant and easy to examine the capacity of the Gospel to be inculturated by examining different external qualities such as language, music and garb. It is a challenge to examine our own culture—and perhaps the cultures of others—to decide what cultural values can be incorporated into Christianity and what cultural values must be rejected. 

---

* Notes from a presentation given at Colgate University on 30 October 2017.

Homily for Fortieth Anniversary of Ordination to the Priesthood - 6 November 2016

And I Will Be Your Waiter...

Several years ago, I was having dinner in South Boston in a nice restaurant with asome priests.  Unfortunately, it was not going well: we were having difficulties with the waiter.   Everything was going wrong: I don’t know if it was us or him, but we were just not communicating well.  The waiter was blaming all the mistakes on us.  He insisted that we had ordered something that we didn’t want.  The waiter was rather elderly and one of the priests—uncharitably—remarked that the waiter was arrogant because he had served the meal at the Last Supper.  At that moment, I chuckled--uncharitably, but later that evening, I reflected that—at least for the most important part of the meal, the institution of the Eucharist—there were no waiters.  Jesus Himself washed the feet of the invited guests, “His loved ones, those He called His own.”  Jesus served the meal and, finally, at the end shared with his fellow diners His own Body and Blood.   

In today’s Church, it is the priests who are the waiters.  Quite often priestly work is described as “ministry,” but I think that this somehow obscures the role of one who is called upon to wash the feet of others.  Waiter or server is much more apt.

The relationship between the waiter and the restaurant diners is not usually one that either of them sought out.  Fate brought these strangers together.  It is most likely that neither the parishioners nor the parish priest chose either other.  Precisely, it is the bishop who made the dinner reservations.

The waiter is the one given the task of feeding the group.  The waiter is not part of the group of people dining at the table.  He is the servant—always outside the group.  He might be our favorite waiter in our favorite restaurant.  We might exchange pleasantries, inquire about him and joke with him, but he is still the waiter.  He will come and go.  He will serve not only our table, but enter into similar relationships with other diners at other tables.  So it is with the priest. The priest serves families; he shares in their joys, their sadness, their secrets; he provides support and guidance, but he is not part of the family.  He moves on to other families, to other parishes.

The waiter’s role is two-fold.  First of all, he is to take the orders.  This sounds basic and easy, but there is a great deal to it.  First of all the waiter must be familiar with what is one the menu.  He must know what the restaurant can and cannot serve.  This degree of familiarity does not mean that he rattles off a list of plates, but the he know the ingredients and how they are prepared. The waiter cannot dictate to the people what they should order to eat, nor can he force them to eat the food if they don’t want to do so.  He must treat the diners with respect.  He must not be intrusive or obnoxious, drawing attention to himself. 

In taking the order, the waiter needs to be patient and listen to the diners.  They may not be familiar with the menu; they may have a difficult time in making decisions.  The waiter needs  to listen, patiently without interrupting.  The waiter should respond to the questions with respect, clarity and sincerity. 

Again, we reflect that this is the role of the priest.  The priest brings the gifts of God to the people.  He cannot force them to accept them or even appreciate them.  He can simply offer them in the best way that he knows how.  It is the right and the responsibility of the people to use these divine gifts in the most effective manner.

The diners must understand that they are not the only concern of the waiter.  He has other tables to serve and other tasks to perform that go unnoticed until they are not done.  The requests of the diners must be reasonable; they cannot expect Chinese food in an Italian restaurant.   Nor can they bring their own food to the restaurant. 

The waiter must be treated with respect.  The faithful must respect their priest, taken into consideration his responsibilities and accept what the priest can and cannot do for them.  The faithful must realize that this is a Church, devoted to life with God.  There are other activities in the parish to be sure—but the church is for prayer. 

The second part of the waiter’s job is to bring the food to the table.  It is not his food; he did not prepare it.  He just brings to us what he has been given.  And this is like the role of the priest.  The priest is not bringing to us something that is his. He hands over what he has been given.  The Church has entrusted the priest with the most precious gifts of Word and Sacrament—and the priest shares these gifts with us.  The priest shares with us the inspirations of the Spirit that he has received in prayer and study.

The task of the waiter does not end after the food has been put on the table.  It is the common practice for the waiter to return to the table after a few minutes to see if the diners need anything else.  The waiter might also be called upon at any moment to fill a water class or bring more bread, or replace a spoon for a child who has dropped three others.  The waiter is wearing a uniform to indicate in a visible manner his availability.  So, with the priest, the requests can come at any time or in any form.  We also dress in a certain way, thereby indicating to everyone our willingness to stop and help.

Diners need to realize that waiter is not simply at their beck and call.  He may be taking the order of another table, delivering food or cleaning off plates.  The diners need to be patient, realizing that the waiter will address their needs as soon as possible.  There is no need to provide an application of this to the priest.

Things do not always go right, in a restaurant and in life.  The waiter must realize that if the diners are not happy with something, he is the only person the diners have to voice their complaints.  Again, he must be patient and do everything he can to rectify things.  The priest is the “face of the Church.”  In most cases, he is the one people have to express their concerns and, yes, complaints.  He must again listen with patience, respect and understanding and be willing to change the things that he can change.

The waiter should not expect too much praise.  He just brought the food; he didn’t cook it.  So, if he gets a nice tip and perhaps a kind word of thanks, that is enough.  He would be foolish to expect a statue in his honor for the meals he served.  So too must the priest be cautious in his expectations for recognition, accolades or rewards.. In the end, we priests must expect nothing more than the words offered spoke by the master of the good servant in the parable, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful…” (Matthew 25:23)

Let us recall that we have all been taught how to treat waiters.  Abusive and unreasonable demands are uncalled for.  Even when things don’t go as one would expect, let us be patient and appreciate at least the good will of the waiter.  As we deal with our priests, the great majority of whom have served with grace-filled dedication, let us remember that they offered themselves for priestly ordination because they want to serve us.   This should count for a great deal for us—it does with God.       

Finally, like the poor waiter in South Boston, we grow old and need to be replaced.  We look to these young men, at least one or a few of them to take our place and continue the service.