Thursday, November 24, 2016

The Historical Jesus: Who Do You Say that I am?




Jesus and his disciples were on the road to Caesarea Philippi when he asked them, ‘Who do people say I am?’ his disciples replied, ‘some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets.’ Jesus then asked, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ And Peter boldly claimed, ‘You are the Christ.’[1] The story quickly turned sour for what was a moment of recognition for Peter turns into a reproach as Jesus calls him Satan for wanting to convince him to follow his own idea of what a messiah’s fate should be. These two questions Jesus asked his disciples are still echoing throughout history today. In many ways, we can answer these questions like the disciples did or like Peter. On the one hand, there are many voices still today that proclaim who Jesus is just as the disciples offered many opinions; on the other hand, there is Peter’s faith assertion. However, we can declare in faith like Peter that Jesus is Lord and in the next breath want to change Jesus into our own idea of who God should be. The search for the historical Jesus places the question, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ at the center of the search.
John Meier sums up his life work on the value of studying the historical Jesus with the following claims. He asserts that the search for the Jesus of history does attempt to prove faith (for that is impossible.) He points to the value there is in understanding something by taking into account the processes of history. In addition, he asserts that the Jesus of history takes seriously the scandal of the Word made flesh and it helps us to avoid any tendency to evaporate Jesus into a ‘timeless gnostic or a mythic symbol.’ The search for the historical Jesus also prevents us from adopting ideologies that seem to capture his essence—for he is in nature eschatological, an end in itself nor a means to anything else. Finally, Meier claims that all these measures serve as a catalyst for renewing theological thought and Church life.[2] In the effort to see the significance in partaking of the discovery of the Jesus of history let us further four of Meier’s  arguments: mainly that Jesus was shaped by his historical context and the study of the Jesus of history allows us to better know not only who Jesus was historically but also help us better understand his message, that our Christological statements of faith are grounded in the doctrine of the incarnation and by encountering the Jesus of history we are able to fully embrace this mystery, that by searching for historical Jesus we avoid turning Jesus into an ideology, and that the process of searching for historical Jesus serves as a catalyst or life-giving gift to the Church. Jesus’ question, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ finds deeper meanings as we meet Jesus in history.
At the fundamental level, the search for the historical Jesus allows us to simply understand who Jesus was taking fully into consideration his Palestinian-Jewish-first-century context. Often times, this means stripping Jesus of a Christian understanding and inserting him into the Jewish environment where he lived. In The Misunderstood Jew, Amy-Jill Levine lays out the risk of interpreting Jesus’ words and deeds from a Christian perspective. Levine explains there are two risks in doing so, first in that the scriptures may create anti-sematic attitudes, and second in that a neglect of Jesus’ Jewishness fails to take the doctrine of the incarnation seriously.[3] In the effort to answer the question, Who do you say that I am? We may resemble Peter and reflect our own wishes or biases of who we want Jesus to be. Encountering the historical Jesus allows us to reflect on this answer. If we fail to take into account the Jewish context of Jesus, we distort who Jesus is and sustains incorrect notions that are simply not historical. Levine claims these notions of Jesus are still proclaimed from the pulpit today. Beliefs that Jesus was against the law or at least how it was understood at the time, that he was against the Temple as an institution and not simply against its leadership, that he was against the people of Israel and favored Gentiles, that he was a rebel who unlike every other Jew, practiced social justice, that he was the only one to speak to women, to teach non-violent responses to oppression or to care for the poor and marginalized.[4] Often, Christians are too quick to remove Jesus from his place and time in history in order to openly criticize Judaism so that Jesus may stand apart from his object of criticism. By not taking into account Jesus’ historical context we not only create erroneous views but also support them and transmit them.
In the pursuit of the Jesus of history, we are invited to deepen our knowledge on the doctrine of the incarnation. The mystery of the incarnation substantiates all efforts to know the historical Jesus. As Christians, we believe that Jesus was fully human. Many are quick to disregard this doctrine of faith in the fear that it might take away Jesus’ divinity. The value on knowing about Jesus’ human side is evident—it provides a physical method of coming to know Jesus. If historians were to answer the question, ‘Who do you say I am?’ they can answer this question with a lot of degree of certainty. Most scholars would agree that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who was born in Galilea, he gathered disciples, taught and preached and was great in deeds and actions, the center of his message was the Kingdom of God, and he was put to death because he was considered a threat to Jewish authorities. Without making extraordinary claims, historians could assert on these principles on the life of Jesus. A person of faith however, finds value in stepping into first century Palestine to be able to rejoice in knowing about a loved one. The mystery of the incarnation allows us to see, feel, hear, touch and taste what Jesus himself experienced. The value for a person who seeks to answer, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ in faith, is to get closer to the human Jesus as an act of love and in response to see God-in-all-things that are human.
The process of knowing the Jesus of history not only transforms us personally but it also transforms us as a Church—communally. Meier warns us against tendencies to make of Jesus a timeless gnostic or a mythic symbol or to turn him into an ideology that fits our world-view. This is still a reality today. For many Jesus is reduced to a leftist-communist, a mythological figure, an indifferent deity or a self-soothing idea, not only ignoring Jesus’ personhood but making him an idol in an effort to support a cause. In the same way that we may encounter our own personal biases when we look at the Jesus of the gospels, we can also run into conventional ideologies supported by zealots, dogmatists or enthusiasts that seek to sum Jesus into a single thought. The community of believers, the Church, halts these groups and their tendencies in the process of the search of the Jesus of history. In the beginning of Christianity, these ideologies were much more evident perhaps, emphasizing the divinity and neglecting the humanity of Jesus for instance, or visa-versa. However, they still surface today in different shapes and forms. Meier teaches us that by searching the historical Jesus we encounter his personhood to be eschatological in essence, ‘that is, always pointing farther toward the ultimate meaning of who he is and what it means to be human’. [5]Nothing can sum up who Jesus is or what he stands for—for he is an end-in-it-self and the kingdom is here-but-not-fully-here.
All of these processes are a catalyst and a self-giving gift from and to the Church. It is the faithful who harvest the seeds and they too reap its fruits. The search for the historical Jesus provides individual and communal transformation—it enriches our response to the question ‘Who do you say that I am?’ It encourages the faithful to challenge our initial understandings of who Jesus is according to the gospels in order to destroy the idols we make, it invites us to openly embrace the mystery of the incarnation fully, that we may see Christ in-all-things-human, it provides a powerful tool to resist current ideologies that seek to capsule Jesus into an -ism, and it gives us life by constantly renewing our love and commitment to the journey of knowing and being transformed by Jesus. In our efforts to answer the question, ‘Who do you say that I am? It is not enough that we may declare Jesus is Lord, for we might commit blasphemy in our next breath. Instead, the question demands a serious look at our declarations of faith, it motivates us to study their origin, it encourages us to challenge our initial understanding of scripture and in the process it transforms us and refines our notion of the Jesus we know in faith.


The Gospel According to Paul: Justification in Faith and Life in the Spirit




One cannot speak of Pauline theology without taking into consideration two major facts about Paul’s life: first his conversion and second his vocation prior to this conversation. It is in the radical encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus that Paul begins his mission, making this event the starting point of departure for Paul’s ministry and Christian theological
thought. Paul believed in the resurrection of the dead prior to this event and the encounter with the risen Lord only confirmed this belief and it affirmed for him that Jesus was the messiah (Ludwig, 123). His violent conversion-experience marked him for life, but Paul’s personality and work prior to this event also provide insights on his theology. In Acts of the Apostles and in some of the letters attributed to him, we come to know that Paul is a Jew (2 Cor. 11:22) and moreover an educated Jew on religious matters. Paul is well versed in the Torah and a zealot proclaiming it. (Gal 1:14). His upbringing, education and life-work put him in a paradox with his encounter with the risen Lord. This irony is clear. Paul traversed the same towns as Jesus, yet never met him, he persecuted Christians and then is called to be a Christian apostle and he was a zealot for the law and now encounters the risen Lord that stands above it. This paradox speaks to much of Paul’s opposing themes in his writings. Paul uses juxtapositions in order to make intellectual claims. In many ways, his writings reflect the paradox he experienced in life. In his writings, he speaks of law and grace, Jew and gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, life in the flesh and life in the spirit, death and new creation, slavery and freedom, fruits of the spirit and fruits of the flesh, reconciliation and alienation, salvation in faith and salvation in works. Of all of these opposite themes that are product of Paul’s theological thought, two stand above all: Justification through faith in Christ and life in the spirit are the two fundamental themes that Paul uses in all of his writings and form part of his main theological thought. 


Justification through Faith in Christ
Paul sews a theological thread throughout his entire correspondence in the New Testament on the theme of justification through faith in Christ. It is in his the letter to the Romans that we can find Paul’s gospel in its entirety and his argument for justification laid out elegantly. First, it is important to understand what Paul means by justification. The word comes out of the context of a law court and
could be translated today as acquittal (Ludwig, 129). Often, justification is also used interchangeably with salvation. It is also fundamental to understand Paul’s outlook on the human race, since the argument found in Romans is a complete theological position on the history of salvation culminating in Christ. For Paul, sin is a religious and not a moral act (Johnson, 309). Sin is a turning away from God’s will, it is a life orientation, a rebellion, a boasting, a self-aggrandizement and Paul sums up this state-of-being by often referring to it as living according to the flesh. In short, it is our human condition to be sinful and because of it we are in need to be justified. In fact in Romans, Paul claims, ‘There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one” (Rom. 3:10-12). The argument then proceeds, because all have sin, Jew and gentile alike, all have access to justification through faith in Jesus. The Law alone cannot save. Through justification all are made righteous and reconciled with God (5:10). The letter continues with a powerful and yet simple message, justification through faith in Christ transforms. This gift we have received has real implications in our life and it demands change, ‘for the love of God has been poured into our hearts,’ (5:5) so that we may put to death the sins of the body (8:13) leading to a newness in life grounded on radical hope (8:22). The change that comes as a product of justification through faith in Jesus in the life of a believer, Paul calls life in the spirit. 

The response to the Romans to live in faith is far from a superficial assertion. Paul’s convocation to live in the spirit as one who is reconciled with God has ethical dimensions. Paul tells the Romans that this transformation must be revealed in works. In other words, there must be clear signs of Christian living that demonstrate a life lived in the spirit. As this transformation seeks what is perfect, ‘Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect’ (Rom 12:2). It is here that Paul mirrors directly Jesus’ gospel according to Matthew in the works of salvation (Getty, 224). His culmination of the life in the spirit as it is lived in the Christian life is found in Romans chapters 12-15 and it is summed up by the blessing of all, especially those who persecute you. He commands Romans to love one another in a genuine love, in a love that is mutual and perfect (12:9-21) for love is the fulfillment of the law (13:10); for a life of those who live in faith is expressed in mutual love and acceptance of one another. (Johnson, 321).

Life According to the Spirit
The life in the spirit, or the life of God, is a powerful theme for Paul. In his correspondence to the Galatians, he argues that the life in the spirit begins with the freedom received by Christ referring to the insignificance and bondage of circumcision (Gal.5:4). Instead, it is faith working through love that sets us free (Gal 5:6). It is here that Paul sums up the life in the spirit by the word agape—a love that builds up and is expressed in joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 6:22).
While the letter to the Galatians lays out Paul’s theological thought on the life in the spirit as it begins with freedom in order to serve one another in love, the letter to the Corinthians points out to the dimension of transformation that is demanded when one is committed to the life in the spirit. In the first century AD, Corinth was a metropolis and cosmopolitan society. Jews and gentiles found Christianity appealing for different reasons. As an infant Christian community, some of the challenges they faced were spiritual elitism which led to factionalism (Johnson, 264). The communities overemphasized the powers given by the spirit, causing them to identify themselves by the spiritual gift they had received. Paul’s response is drastic but it provides a clear vision of his theological outlook on Christian life. He demands two things from the Corinthians: first that they transform to be of the same mind (1 Cor. 1:10) and second, that they acquire the mind of Christ (2: 16). Those who accept this calling will put their gifts in service to the entire community, for the primary gift of the spirit is love (1 Cor.13:1-13) and its main manifestation is the building up of the entire community (Johnson, 268).
Pauls’ correspondence to the Galatians and to the Corinthians lay out a theological foundation of the life in the spirit. The life in the spirit as Paul understands it begins with the freedom received by Christ. This freedom is not to be distorted in order to neglect the law and be replaced with self-indulgence, but rather we are set free to serve one another in love. Agape—a love that builds up, is the measurement of our justification, is the measurement of our freedom, and is the measurement of our spiritual gifts.
We can see two real examples of Christian living in how Paul responds pastorally to his communities. In Corinth, the dispute between those Paul called ‘strong’ and those he called ‘weak’ demand a communal response. While Paul sides with the ‘strong’ supporting their thinking (a thinking that rejects being subject to idols), he criticizes them as spiritual solipsists and reminds them that to live in the spirit should lead them to build up the ‘weak’ (Johnson, 268). However, in Galatians, Paul speaks to the personal response to the life in the spirit. The Galatians’ aggrandizement attitude toward freedom led them to antinomianism—the notion that they were saved by faith alone (Johnson, 299). Paul urges the Galatians to retract from perverting their freedom gained by Christ.  This response is personal speaking to the conscience of the individual. 

Implications in Ministry
            The themes of justification through faith in Christ and life in the spirit that compose Paul’s gospel mirror the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul boldly claims that a transformative relationship with the risen Lord should come first, and without it the Christian life is dead. But the gospel also has implications in our personal and communal lives so that we may hope in Christ and serve and build up our communities. 
The first practical application of understanding Paul’s theology in my ministry is that it gives me the ability to be in dialogue with non-Catholic. Many Christians receive a particular understanding of salvation through faith in Christ. For instance, they often emphasize the individual journey of the Christian faith and often base it on the Letter to the Romans. I believe my role and response in dialogue is to invite Christians that embrace this theology to see Paul fully. This reflection allows me to re-direct this understanding of Paul to the demands of justification as we see in Romans, First Corinthians and Galatians. Not only to challenge Christians of all denominations to reflect in the personal relationship with the risen Lord, but to point to the measurement of this relationship in the building up of their communities—starting with the present community that they find themselves in. 
This new understanding from which to see Paul speaks to my own faith deeply as well. The theological dispute between Catholics and Protestants on salvation becomes now a personal calling to enrich the conversation further. By studying Paul, the claim that salvation is through faith alone must be supported by the entire thought of Paul’s theology not only in Romans but also throughout all correspondence attributed to him. The claim of salvation through faith alone must respond to what Paul calls life in the spirit. Justification through faith in Jesus must also answer to how Paul describes the Christian life that originates from living the life in the spirit. In other words, the measurement of justification—must be what Paul calls agape, a love that builds an entire community. 
            Finally, the Christian journey is not merely empty intellectual and theological discussion but a personal commitment to live to these ideals. Understanding Paul in a new light pose the question of whether I am living up to the standard of what he describes as the Christian life. Paul utters Jesus and therefore he reiterates the challenge to love enemies as a clear sign of what it means to be Christian. This statement is a challenge to anyone whoever comes across it. In my own life, to love enemies as Paul refers to it by addressing the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians, has a lot to do with my interactions with those who I do not agree with. As Paul describes intentionally, Greek and Jew belong to the Body of Christ and all are called as a community to do both: establish and hope for the kingdom of God. 





Thursday, August 4, 2016

Teaching Religious Education in the Catholic School: 5 Methods to Teach Religious Education in any Content Area


The mission of the Catholic school is to carry out the mission of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the mission of the Catholic school is to evangelize, through catechism and the instruction of the faithful.

Now, while the methods in which Catholic schools have partaken on the task of catechesis and evangelization is broad throughout history, for the intention of this article we will only outline the current means of catechesis as they pertain to the Catholic High School in the 21st century.

So how exactly does the Catholic Church addresses the role of evangelization in the Catholic school? Gravissimum Educationis provides an answer, through the maturity of faith, the participation in the sacramental life and the development of a personal calling for the contribution of the common good in society.

The Church continued to refine her language to describe the role of evangelization in the educational setting. In 1971, the United States Bishop wrote, To Teach as Jesus Did, a document that outlines the mission of Catholic schools in the Unites States. The bishops declared the mission of the Catholic school to be rooted in proclaiming the gospel, living in community and fellowship, and the service to humankind.

But the outline of the mission of Catholic schools will be incomplete without reference to one contemporary document that serves as the consummation of all previous documents. The Holy See Teaching on Catholic Schools is a document that is essential and a point of reference for the mission of a Catholic School in the 21st century.

Holy See Teaching on Catholic Schools designates the following five marks as essential for a Catholic school:  1. Inspired by Supernatural Vision, 2. Founded on Christian Anthropology, 3. Animated by Communion and Community, 4. Imbued with a Catholic Worldview, 4. a) Search For Wisdom and Truth, 4. b) Faith Culture and Life, 5. Sustained by Witness and of Teaching.


In the characteristic identified as Imbued with a Catholic Worldview, The Holy See highlights the need for R.E.A.C (Religious Education Across the Curriculum) in every Catholic School. The Holy See articulates what the characteristic entails, ‘Catholicism should permeate not just the class or period of catechism or religious education, or the school’s pastoral activities, but the entire curriculum.’ The document continues, ‘instruction should be authentically Catholic in content and methodology across the entire program of studies. Catholicism has a particular ‘take’ on reality that should animate its schools. It is a ‘comprehensive way of life’ to be enshrined in the school’s curriculum.’

So what is religious education across the curriculum and why do Catholic Schools need it? As mention above, the mission of the Catholic school is to evangelize.  In order to fulfill her mission, the Catholic school cannot limit this great task to the religion department exclusively, but instead should be an affair that engages the entire school community—and hence, religious education should permeate the curricula of the school. R.E.A.C is then, the effort of the school to seek religious education throughout all components of the curricula of the school.

When we contemplate the question of R.E.A.C in the Catholic school, the question of building bridges between content areas and theology can become a burden. It does not have to be so. In fact, the task might become a burden when we lose track of the mission of the Catholic school, the intrinsic connection between education and faith, and the precedence of wonder and imagination over any content area.  If this becomes our center and point of departure, it is much easier to imagine a subject of study and its correspondent religious expression.

In our task to nominate all content areas to their religious foundation, let us begin with the natural sciences.
“The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”  CCC 159.
And furthermore,
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.” CCC 159.

The natural sciences have as their domain: creation. In the journey of unveiling truth in creation, we can see the hand of the creator, face-to-face as it were. In any of the natural sciences whether it is astronomy or physics that attempt to reveal the mysteries of the universe, biology that seeks to comprehend the vast and diverse domain of life, chemistry that seeks to actualize the concept of the incarnation by studying matter, or mathematics that unfold the language of the universe, creation is the scope of study. From the heavens, stars and galaxies, to the processes of homeostasis, to the vast diverse expressions of life, to the beautiful mathematical theories that express how the universe works, all of it unfolds the creation of God. In the natural sciences, not only the scope of study is religious but the process of engaging with the material too.

The social sciences examine the religious from a different view. The affairs of societies throughout history inform us on the nature of human kind. In this process, the content as well as the process is religious. While the natural scientist can be described as a contemplative, the historian or social studies teacher is concerned with creating a Christian community. The objective of the history and social studies is citizenship, the common good, and the dialectic process of transforming society through the education of its members. Some major themes of Catholic Social Teaching, that every social science teacher can incorporate in her curriculum and methodology include but are not limited to: Life and Dignity of the Human Person, Call to Family, Communion and Participation, Rights and Personalities, Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, The Dignity of Work and Right of Workers, Solidarity and Care for God’s creation.

While social studies and history explore groups of people and the process of humanity as a whole, language arts and the humanities focuses on the individual. The language arts place the content of study on the question: What does it mean to be human? Let us recall that the Holy See calls for an education ‘founded on Christian anthropology,’ where the expression of being human is celebrated as a whole. While the dimension of spirituality of the scientist is contemplation and the history teacher is establishing the Kingdom of God, the spiritual dimension of the English teacher is metanoia, or personal transformation and conversion. The English teacher seeks to create a classroom of introspective and reflective students that internalize transformation as a necessary cycle of life. In addition, the English teacher infuses literature as a tool to contemplate grace. The Catholic imagination is a tool of literature that helps students see God-in-all-things. Through the language arts students can learn to use their imagination to shape their spiritual life.

Finally, let us contemplate the arts. The arts teach us to find joy in life, to celebrate all forms of life. Whether it is music, theater, visual arts, foreign languages, and any other form of art, the content of their subject is to communicate beauty, in all forms. The Holy See takes the arts seriously in religious education, “faith and culture are intimately related, and students should be led, in ways suitable to their level of intellectual development, to grasp the importance of this relationship.” The arts teach the diversity of peoples and their expression of the divine in each culture. The art teacher can be referred to as the psalmist, praising glory to the creator through different expressions of art. For the psalm reads
“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made, your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” Psalm 139:14.

5 Methods to Teach Religious Education in any Content Area

The method to apply R.E.A.C proposed here is solemnly grounded on the process of making questions in teaching. It encourages teaching faculty to formulate questions in their teaching based on five categories that link their content area to theology. Teachers do not need a background in religion and theology to formulate these questions. Also, in the effort to incorporate these questions in their teaching, teachers are not required to spend a lot more time planning. Instead, following these five categories below, at all time and in any lesson (even improvising), teachers can formulate these questions to add a theological and spiritual dimension to their practice. The categories are the following:
a.       Appealing to the Imagination and Curiosity: Finding God in All Things
b.      Teaching Contemplation: Falling in Love with the Good, the True and the Beautiful.
c.       Creating Christian Communities: Building the Kingdom of God.
d.      From Individual to a Global Conscience 
e.       Prayer and Rituals: Living in Community

a.       Appealing to the Imagination and Curiosity: Finding God in All Things.

No matter what you teach, the teacher is constantly appealing to the imagination and curiosity of the student precisely to lead to understanding. To conceptualize a mathematical problem, to
construct an image of a character, to visualize how societies lived in a particular time period, or simply to seek for a new way to solve problems, all of these processes require imagination and curiosity. The great Ignatius spirituality focuses on the power of imagination. St. Ignatius was convince that God can speak to us as surely through our imagination as through our thoughts and memories.

In the application of this thought process, questions can be generic enough for faculty only to encourage students to connect their subject area with their religious component. Relying on the fact that students learn best when they let their imagination and curiosity run free—the teacher is only but a catalyst that asks for students to seek connections between religion and their particular content area.

Questions can move from very generic to specific depending on the teacher’s emphasis. For instance, in biology class, a teacher may have students reflect on a question that links religion and their topic of study by asking a generic question:

“What is this topic have to do with how you understand God?”

However, the question can become more specific according to the lesson. In the same biology class, under the topic of elements, the biology teacher may ask:

“What do elements tell you about God in the way that they interact with each other to form new compounds?”

There is no right or wrong answer in this approach, only the task to spark the imagination of students to see God in all things. For a student who loves biology, God is already there. This only provides a language for her to express herself.


b.      Teaching Contemplation: Falling in Love with the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

Despite the subject of the teacher, in their practice they teach their students to love what is good, what is beautiful and what is true. In theology, this is called contemplation—the act of being mesmerized by something to the point of dedicating all your energy and time to this one thing. To have a student
fall in love with the subject he is learning is the dream of every teacher and as we have seen above, every subject already has as its content a religious expression because it either tells directly about God or about His creation. 

The way that this category formulates reflective questions is a little different than the first category. Instead of asking students to build the bridge between the content are and religion, a teach simply uses these three categories, mainly the good, the beautiful and the true, to build the bridge for them. These questions are posed in a way that has students reflect on what is good, beautiful and true in each particular content area. It is the task of the teacher to simply ask the question:

“How is this beautiful, true or good?” Or apply the negative,
“What is this lacking, in order to be true, beautiful and good?”

This process allows for contemplation in any content area. Let us take the language arts as an example. In the study of Romeo and Juliet, teachers can formulate the question:

“Is the love that Romeo and Juliet have for each other true? Is it beautiful? Why or why not? Or “Is sacrifice good in itself? Why or why not?”

These questions allow for teachers to have their students practice contemplation. To have students look not only think about what is good, true and beautiful but have a dialogue with it. In short, to have students fall in love with what is good, true and beautiful is to have them fall in love with God.

c.       Shared-Praxis Approach: Creating Christian Communities

One could say that one way to measure the success of education is through transformation. The Catholic school must create students who go out into the world imbued with a Catholic worldview. Students that are doers of justice, cultivators of peace, seekers of truth, in short, students that build communities grounded in love. This category focuses on the question, How am I going to make this world a better world. The theology translation of this question would be how am I going to build the Kingdom of God?

Every content area has a real application in life. In other words, students don’t learn concepts that have no use outside of the classroom. Instead, students learn skills that allow them to be good citizens. This approach speaks to the real application of learned skills in the real world.

This category is grounded on the application of teaching and the good news is that a lot of teachers already teach this way! The addition is that teaching faculty can formulate questions of reflection based on real problems in the world, country, or Mercy’s own community, in order to form Christian communities that seek metanoia, or transformation. These communities are the voices that proclaim the good news to the poor and marginalized. These communities are Christian communities that go into the world proclaiming the good news.

Let us take social studies as an example for this approach. In the study of U.S History, one current theme might be immigration. This is a social issue that has real applications and dimensions today, not only in the United States but in the Middle East and Europe. Teachers can use contemporary examples to create Christian communities that seek for change in this social problem. They can formulate questions such as:
“What does God teach us about treating the stranger?” Or “Why is immigration a Christian issue?” And, “What is a Christian response to immigration?”

d.      From Individual to a Global Conscience

This approach appeals to the Catholic value of teaching the whole child. In this commitment in the Catholic School, the curriculum should reflect a clear position on moral issues. There is an ethical and moral dimension to any content area. It is the responsibility of the teacher to instruct students to form their conscience intellectually and reasonably, considering the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

Teachers are required to teach by example. The curriculum we explicitly teach is only a written curriculum—but we teach with everything that we do. We set an example with every interaction that we have. Teachers need to model to their students the way in which to live a gospel-centered life. In their daily interactions with students—they are precisely doing so.

Having said that, teachers can also incorporate questions that appeal to morality and ethics without having any background on these disciplines by simply encouraging students to make the connection between their content areas and theology. Let us consider one example in the natural sciences and one in mathematics:
What do you consider the immoral or unjust application of science? Or, How could you use the rules and procedures for solving the current math problems you are studying as metaphors for living a good moral life as a Christian?  How could you apply them to specific moral problems?

e.       Prayer and Rituals: Praying in Your Content Area

This final category simply encourages teachers to ask questions that may be prayers. Teachers are encouraged to do this through their specific daily lesson objectives. There is extensive research that shows how slowing down and taking a moment to pray, mediate or simply gather one-self actually benefits teaching and learning.

A lot of teachers already incorporate rituals in their classrooms but instead they call them routines. That is, a series of actions that follow each other in an organized manner usually to have a positive
effect on classroom management. Teachers can incorporate an additional step in their numerous routines to aspire for better performance in the classroom and to yield to spiritual development. It benefits both worlds!

This category does not require the teacher to pray explicitly. While this is certainly one way to incorporate prayer in the classroom, there are many other different methods that do not require for the teacher to initiate prayer in the customary way we are exposed to prayer. Let us take the example of music class. In the beginning of class, the music teacher might have made it part of her routine to have students tune their instruments before they begin. One way in which she can incite students to pray is to simply add to this routine a question or statement. For example:

‘Today, while you tune your instrument, think about the talent you have been given form God,’ or ‘Do you attribute your talent to your own hard work, or do you attribute your talent to God?’

With no need to share response, the music teacher made an everyday routine—a theological reflection and perhaps a very intimate prayer as well. Teachers can be very creative in how they get students to pray. It is important to mention that the activity must not depart from the lesson. The teacher may find the creativity to simply add one more step to a routine he has set already. The language art can have them write a prayer, while the science teacher may practice meditation as students set up the instruments for the lab, or the language teacher may have them sing a song in another language with pictures on the background that show how this culture prays.

Finally, this area also allows for prayer in the wider context of the school to be done through the eyes of all content areas. In events where the school community gets together to pray, a prayer may be done in a way that incorporates other content areas. The campus ministry may use language to spark the imagination of students to see different content areas in prayer. Examples of this may include the replacement of God to other titles. Examples may include: Creator, Counselor, Master of the Universe, Advocate, Eternal Logos, Three-in-One, Healer, Spirit of Life, All-Powerful, Wisdom from on High, Comforter, Teacher, Spirit of God, Strong-One, My Shepherd.


Why is R.E.A.C so important in the Catholic School? Because without it the Catholic School ceases to be Catholic losing its identity by treating theology or religion class as another subject in the list. If the Catholic School fails to communicate her mission: to evangelize and to carry the good news, she ceases to be a Catholic School. The Catholic School must not do this through one subject; instead it must carry the good news in everything that she does—in every subject and content area. 

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The Jewish Roots of Christianity: Exploring Jeremiah's New Covenant



What is New in Jeremiah’s New Covenant?


          
Although disputed, most scholars attribute Jeremiah 31:31-34 to the prophet Jeremiah, however some argue the verses under examination are not his ipsissima verba.[2] Jeremiah is one of the most interesting characters in the Old Testament. What makes this character a unique figure is the fact that he is the only prophet that writes before, during and after the exile and destruction of the temple in 586 B.C. While it is a historian’s job to explore the historic Jeremiah, for the objective of this paper and to further develop its purpose, I will construct a general idea of the Prophet through the Book of Jeremiah as it contributes to the examination of the verse. The Book of Jeremiah tells us the following things about Jeremiah: He is a man of God, he has been anointed, appointed and consecrated, he is called to a celibate life for the sake of his mission, he has been sent on mission and he is a man to whom promises have been made. 
Image result for jeremiahAs a result of these promises and his ministry, Jeremiah struggles, shows vulnerability and yet resiliency in his mission.[3] We learn that Jeremiah is a man that struggles with his calling from the start and is often ready to resign from the task assigned to him. In the Book of Jeremiah we also learn that he continually advocates for the people of Judah. We learn that Jeremiah is a prophet in every sense of the word—a man destined to suffer for knowing personally the will of Yahweh and Yahweh’s tender love towards Israel. If we attribute Jeremiah 31:31-34 to this understanding of the Prophet Jeremiah, then the verse under examination expresses words of pain and hope that are a result of a lived experience from the prophet. First, this oracle may be a direct message from Yahweh, but the oracle may speak of Jeremiah’s own personal struggle as well. The story of Jeremiah tells us that he experiences the pain of Yahweh and therefore the emphasis to have the Law in the minds and hearts of Israelites could be Jeremiah’s own desires as a product of his own experience failing to rescue them from destruction.

 It is a difficult task if not impossible, to date scripture with certainty. Scholars have different opinions for the date of Jer. 31:31-34. Some think of an early time in the prophet’s career with a final editing during or briefly after the exile, while others offer strong foundations that it happened during an early exilic date shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. Yet another group of scholars date the verses to the late exilic or even post-exilic period.[4] As Jeremiah’s words are not recorded chronologically in the book attributed to him, it is only safe to say that the verse can be place sometime during his long forty-five year ministry of preaching between 627 BC and 586 BC, concluding that they are closer to the dates prior to the exile.[5]
 Jeremiah follows a long lineage of prophets that warn the people of Judah of the tragedy that will fall upon them. Among them we can find Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and Habakkuk. 
Image result for Temple Destruction 586As the prophets reiterated the upcoming devastation to fall on Israel, the historical setting provides powerful insights about the nature of Jeremiah’s ministry and preaching, including the oracle being examined. Prior to the witnessing of his oracles of destruction, Jeremiah had witnessed the failed attempt of reformation from King Josiah.[6] In his oracles Jeremiah denounces idolatry as one of the most serious grievances against Yahweh. Many believed that the defeat of Josiah was a sign that other gods were angry since the people were worshiping Yahweh, which turned the Judahites to the worshiping of idols, for protection of the next generation.[7] The ministry of Jeremiah then can be summed up as the destruction of old ways and the re-construction of new,[8] and in his effort he would make idolatry the center of his condemnation. And while King Josiah would fail in his attempt to reform Judah through political and cultural transformation, Jeremiah would fail in his attempt to provide warning of worshiping of idols through prophecy. 

Much can be said also about the Book of Jeremiah as literature. For the objective of this paper, I will contemplate where the verse in found in relation to the book and whether the verse stands alone or in relation to other literature found in the book in order to provide better understanding of the verse at hand. The Book of Jeremiah can be divided into five sections that help organize the large text. First, Jer. 1-25 speaks of oracles and accounts involving the evil of Judah under three kings: Josiah (1-6), Jehoiakim (7-20), and Zedekiah (21-24). Second, Jer. 25-36 tells stories about Jeremiah and oracles from the times of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, (where we find the verse under consideration) Third, Jer. 37-45 is where we find the story of Jeremiah’s last days. Fourth, Jer. 46-51 reveals oracles against foreign nations, and finally, Jer. 52 outlines an appendix describing the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC (taken from 2 Kgs. 25 to complete the story of Jeremiah’s words).[9] Also, Jer. 31:31-34 takes the form of a divine revelation to Jeremiah. This text is completely independent of any other texts within The Book of Jeremiah. The oracle does not have original connection with the sayings that precede it and follow it.[10] Thus, the verse must be examined independently from the chapter and only compared to other oracles of hope within The Book of Jeremiah for context. Chapters 30-31 (with Ch. 32-33) are frequently referred to as "The Book of Consolation." Jer. 31:31-34 is found here mainly because of the hope it portrays after a series of oracles foretelling destruction. While the oracles of hope are dispersed throughout the Book of Jeremiah, it provides information on how Jeremiah’s mission and prophecy shifts. Here, the prophet becomes an agent of hope and no longer a prophet that foretells of destruction. [11]

In conclusion, Jeremiah is probably speaking shortly before the exile (perhaps during the first major deportation in 594[12]), or during the exile, while personally experiencing the doom that has fallen on the people of Judah. Overall, Jeremiah had failed in his mission as a prophet trying to have the people of Judah turn to Yahweh. He preached against the worshipping of foreign idols and gods, against social injustice, and against the personal immorality of his age.[13] He was unable to prevent the destruction of Judah and the temple. Finally, this oracle illustrates how Jeremiah transformed from a prophet of despair to a prophet of hope.[14]

Now that a general external and internal context has been provided to the verse, let us approach the issue at hand. What makes this passage complex and ultimately profound is the notion of new. The term is only mentioned once in the entire Old Testament.[15] Hence, this paper raises the question: what is new about this particular covenant? The history of Israel had been established and defined by covenants. Scholars agree that while the Israelite history is full of covenants five are very significant: the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic or Sinai Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant of Jeremiah explored here.

In order to understand what is new about Jeremiah’s covenant, I will outline a brief explanation of how Israelites understood covenant-theology at the time. The word berit, often used to refer to a covenant in scripture, is unclear and scholars debate about several possible meanings including: to shackle, to bond, or to cut, although most agree that ultimately it came to refer to any form of binding.[16]  For Jews then, berit meant to be one with the counterpart of the contract. The analogy of a coin here is helpful. For Israelites, Yahweh’s covenant meant a union of two sides of a coin, where the coin itself it’s the bonding and either side reflect the statutes of each party.  It is far more precise to shift from etymology to theology here, in that the belief of a covenant captured the Jewish faith and religiosity. For the Jewish mind at the time, covenant referred to their story and Yahweh’s relationship to them. For Israelites, a covenant alluded to how they were bound to an unbreakable covenant-union with their God; how God had made known his love and his mercy to them; how God had given them commandments to guide their life; how they owed him worship, fidelity and obedience; and how they are marked by the sign of that covenant-bond.[17]And so, when Jeremiah begins with v31 and exclaims the coming of a new covenant, these concepts would have come alive to the Israelites at the time, particularly as they were experiencing the complete abolishment of the Sinai covenant in the renouncement of the Promised Land where they had prospered for so long. 
Israelites had been exposed to covenants in the Torah and embedded in their faith-experience years before Jeremiah. How is this covenant new? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to dissect the statues of the covenant and examined them independently. In v33 the first condition of the covenant reads: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts”; followed by the next statute continuing in v33, “…and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” In v34, the next decree reads, “And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” to the last statue also found in v34,  “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.’[18] But of all the statutes in Jer. 31:31-34, only one may have been new to the Israelites at the time. The notion of apprehension or engraving the Law in the heart mentioned v33 is already stated in Deut. 6:67, Psalms 37:31, and in Ezekiel 36:26-27.[19] The statue proclaiming Yahweh becoming Israel’s God, and Israel becoming His people in v33 is a parallel to previous covenants. This statute goes back to Abraham in the first covenant in Gen. 17:7 and is also echoed throughout the whole Exodus in the Sinai Covenant.[20] The notion of forgiveness of sins in v34 is also not new. Sometimes appropriated by Christians, the promise has roots in Ex. 34:6, 7 and Ps. 103:8-12 and so this notion of the covenant is also not new.[21] However, the first promise in v34 referring to the knowing of the Lord is in fact new to the Israelite. In this new covenant, it is not the content of the covenant which will be different, but how it is learned. [22]





Image result for jewish religious authorities in first centuryThe nuance of the covenant proclaims a prophetic imagining of a post-exilic community where knowledge of God (through the internalized Torah) is shared by all without any intermediary teaching authority.[23] Jeremiah uses the faculty of a prophet to visualize a community of equals in the understanding, comprehension and discernment of God. Jer. 31:31-34 proclaims a new covenant in that it challenges the pre-established social and religious order in the accessibility of knowing Yahweh, which was a radical thought for Judaism at the time. In this oracle, Jeremiah is calling for a personal relationship with Yahweh that excludes religious authority. In To Build, To Plant, Brueggemann suggests that these verses imply that “there will be common, shared access to this knowledge of God—which evidences fundamental egalitarianism in the community; on the crucial matter of connection to God, the least and the greatest stand on equal footing. No one has superior, elitist access, and no one lacks what is required.”[24] The notion of the knowing of God without intercessor is supported by the Pirke Aboth. In Ch. 3:3 it states, "But when two sit and there are between them words of Torah, the Shechinah rests between them, as it is said: 'Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another....'" (3:3).[25]  The verses are product of a time when Jeremiah had seen the fail attempts of Josiah and the ones before him to try to impose the Law on the people. Jeremiah had lost hope for an institutionalized and top-bottom religion and passing down of tradition: prophets, priests, kings and courtiers had failed to use the responsibility they had been given.[26] They had failed to teach the Torah and now Jeremiah envisions a community with no need of these religious roles in order for Israelites to know Yahweh.
            Thus, in Jewish theology, this new covenant is much more a reiterated covenant. This prophetic oracle stands out not only for its nuance but its relevance of hope and its radical claim challenging religious authority. Jeremiah had undergone three failed kingdoms in Judah that tried to impose the Law of Yahweh. He had seen Yahweh use the Babylonians as a tool to chastise Israel. Now, he is proclaiming words of hope by asserting that this knowing will not require priests, kings, or prophets. In other words, the new covenant is new in that it embodies or internalizes the Torah in lived experience. Jeremiah exclaims that no longer will it be necessary for the religious authorities to teach it, because the Israelites will know what it means to hope in Yahweh. This knowing will be in the minds and in the hearts of the Israelites: it will be in their personal exilic experience. This exilic experience did not discriminate, but came down on all Israelites despite their rank or social status. Consequently, Jeremiah’s clause on how the least to the greatest will know Yahweh is an equalizer that levels the playing field. As all Israelites are equal in the knowledge of Yahweh, religious authorities are no longer necessary. Thus, the newness of the covenant entails how of learning will be acquired, through experience, and not on what will be acquired, that is the content.

How is the new covenant relevant today? What does it teach us in its original interpretation? The prophet Jeremiah moved from a moment of grief and affliction to words of hope. He writes them not because the Israelites needed to hear those words (and they needed to), but instead because Yahweh reminds his people that he remains faithful to his promise. For the Israelites, this is not a new covenant but a reiteration of the Sinai covenant with one nuance. Jeremiah’s new covenant speaks to us in the same way that all covenants in the Old Testament do, through the providential care from Yahweh despite our unfaithfulness. As echoed throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh’s promise remains true despite the poor efforts of Israelites to honor their part of the covenant. However, Jeremiah’s New Covenant also brings about a new understanding. Jer. 31-31-34 teaches the challenge of authority in that it makes it possible for everyone to know Yahweh. Jeremiah’s covenant shows us that painful experiences teach better than religious dogma. The destruction of the temple and exile in 586 BC was the most painful experience of the people of Israel and this event would affect all Jews alike—equally, from the least of them to the greatest. In his oracle, Jeremiah claims that pain and suffering do not discriminate but plague everyone. These experiences of pain and suffering, however, can be a tremendous opportunity to know Yahweh and to tattoo his love on our hearts and remember it in our minds according to the prophet. Jeremiah teaches us that this type of knowing is not external, it is not dogmatic, it is not intellectual and it is not a product of determination; rather this type of knowing comes from painful experience. From a covenant perspective, Jeremiah speaks of this source of bonding as one that goes beyond the Torah and the Law itself. By rejecting religious authority, Jeremiah’s oracle envisions a covenant that is deeply personal. He rejects institutionalized dogma and social religious identity to emphasize an individualized relationship with Yahweh. The covenant is new in this sense: Yahweh reveals who He is to us in our most personal and painful experiences. The covenant explains that these painful experiences are an equalizer to know Yahweh in that no one escapes suffering. And while we all face suffering, our experiences of them are deeply personal and offer us opportunities to immerse ourselves in the providential love of covenantal partnership with Yahweh. This knowing is eternal, forever in our minds and hearts.



[1] Bright, John. Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31-34
[2] Potter, Harry D. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34

[3] Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet.

[4] Becking, Bob. Text-internal and text-external chronology in Jeremiah 31:31-34
[5] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
[6] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
[7] Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online
[8] Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet.
[9] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
[10] Bright, John. Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31-34
[11] Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online
[12] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
[13]Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online
[14] Gnuse, Robert K. Phd., Thibeaux, Evelyn PhD., Ryan, Thomas F. The Jewish Roots of Christian Faith. Online
[15] Potter, Harry D. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34
[16] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
[17] Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
[18] Didache Bible
[19] Wallis, Wilber B. Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant.
[20] Wallis, Wilber B. Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant.
[21] Wallis, Wilber B. Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant.
[22] Jewish Study Bible. Tanakh Translation.
[23] Rhymer, David. Jeremiah 31:31-34
[24] Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet.
[25] Pirke Aboth (Avot) Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
[26] Potter, Harry D. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34