the Resurrection.

Once I heard a theologian pose the question, 'Would Christianity have had the impact it did on the world without the resurrection of Jesus?' and then he added, 'Would you be a Christian had Jesus not resurrected?'

Every Easter Sunday, almost inevitable I think of these questions. After all, that is the most important event that sets Christianity apart from any other tradition or religion. The fact that we believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead. That he did so in a real way, in flesh and bone and dined in presence of the apostles. It is often simple to believe in the resurrection in a very non-physical type of way. At least, for a while I used to reconcile the very difficult idea of Jesus resurrecting. I often thought about resurrection as the overcoming of obstacles, pain and suffering that is embodied in the cross, and the willingness of the spirit to not only endure trial but overcome it. In this way, we can actually relate to the resurrection many times during our life.
 Whenever life becomes difficult, and we know it does often, whenever we get through these hard times we often think and feel as if we had resurrected. As if we are a new creature that thinks and feels different about the world or a particular state of affairs. But, the question the theologian I heard many years ago was posing was a very direct one--not metaphorical or symbolic at all.

I wrestle with the question because I do not seem to be so caught up on the fact that Jesus came back from the dead. Shocking! Yes. I do not entertain whether the project of Christianity had taken off and been such a success without the resurrection story, but with the part of whether I would still follow Jesus even if that part of the story was missing. If Jesus had died on the cross and that had been the end, whether I would be Christian at all. I know that logically I could not entertain this question without first acknowledging first that Christianity became a success historically because of the resurrection, but granting that this could have happen without the resurrection, whether I would still follow Jesus.

Part of what makes Christianity so appealing in fact, is that it cheers for the underdog. Maybe this is why the project of Christianity would still have been successful even without the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How much more dramatic would have been if Jesus, had died and not been a 'winner' by resurrecting? Would his followers be still more detach from the 'heaven in their minds' and live a life simply without any reward by following a messiah that gave his life and did not receive anything in exchange? I do not know, but it is nice to think of this 'type' of Christianity.

So, to go back to the question, I would like to believe I would still be Christian had 'those pages' from the gospels had gone missing at some point in history. Why? Because despite of the resurrection I find in the man of Jesus Christ a person that is not only worth imitating and following, but one that speaks with an authority that makes the kingdom of heaven a possibility. A man that indeed I know is God-made-man. A God-man that goes under the cross for the sins of humanity and who speaks of the love of the Father as the one of the Progidical-Son parable. Perhaps, a God that manifests himself this way does not need to resurrect to show humanity the nature of his being, which also, is inevitable to love in return.

Noah: A Film Review.

There has been a lot of controversy around the recent Hollywood film 'Noah' concerning the inaccuracies of the film regarding the ancient bible story. For many who consider the interpretation of biblical texts literally, the movie depicts a story that is not only inaccurate but that as a consequence one that threatens the understanding and passing down of a holy story.


The film directed by Darren Aronofsky starting Russell Crowe as a stubborn Noah has a double spin of Hollywood's over the top fantasy with fallen angels made of huge beings made of rock and a philosophical and theological approach where Noah struggles with the will of God contrary to his conscience. In addition, the film tries to make of an ancient story a contemporary and relevant narrative.
For some, keeping the story accurate to the text is the one single most important fact. The argument of course, that the bible is the literal word of God and any description that shows otherwise is altering the truth of the biblical text. This argument, dismisses the possibility of holding down to truths that are metaphorical. The story can contain a message which holds to be true despite of whether every fact within the story actually happened.
Having said that, it is extremely difficult to understand the theological truths of God in the story of Noah. A world that has gone awry and as a consequence God decides to punish all alike by starting a flood that would wipe all of humanity except for one family. What can we preserve from this?
The film adds a twist to the original version. Spoiler alert, it is in Noah's hands to choose whether or not to continue humanity where one of his children marries and conceive two daughters. Noah still in the ark, having set in his mind that God has decided to sweep humanity out of the world because of their wickedness has to choose of whether or not to let the newborns live.
Noah, personifying the will of God in the story--chooses life. He chooses life over death, he chooses a new beginning over the end of all, he chooses restoration over destruction, he chooses opportunity over resignation, he chooses love over accountability, he chooses mercy over judgement and perhaps, this is the message to be kept form the story of Noah: A God who acts the way Noah did.

Lent: A Personal Journey

It is that time again, when the faithful return to church to get ashes and are told to repent. It is the time when millions of people around the world are told to pray, fast and to give alms for forty-days. Yes, it is the time when networks start showing movies about Jesus and his ministry and how he died on the cross. Its the time of Lent.

I think back of what this all meant and how it changed for me as time went on. As a cradled Catholic I grew up thinking of lent as the prohibition of meat on Fridays and the complete silence during the Tridium Paschal leading to Easter and what seemed as a time of prohibition of fun altogether. All this meant was that I had to find ways to keep myself occupied at home, to refrain from asking to be outdoors and to try to be quiet the best I could. Lent wasn't fun. In fact, when the time approach, I would dread the idea of it. People were not talking to each other, fun wasn't allowed and to top it all I had to confess my misbehavior to a priest!

I remember the day that my conception of Lent started changing. Around the time I could ask questions and not be afraid of being told that the Church knew what was best for me or that I had to do certain things a certain way because the priest or Church said so. Around the age of 12, when I was doing my first-communion and I was immersed in Catechism I would ask, why do we even celebrate Lent? It made little sense to me. Christmas on the other hand was a feast! Everybody likes new born babies and if they're healthy it is a reason to celebrate. That is why we celebrate birthdays! Then it hit me, I was reminded that we also remember the people that left, we also remember our love ones that have died. We celebrate by remembering them. Lent was celebrated for this reason. It all was troubling for me, after all, the concept of celebrating death for a kid is somewhat troublesome or a contradiction almost.

Then, at some point. I was told of the importance of the Liturgical Calendar. In the same way that we all have days that are very important for us and we keep them in mind, graduations, anniversaries, accomplishments, etc. in the same way, the Church celebrates and remembers those days of the life of Christ. At this point, Lent made a little more sense. By now, I was told of the association of the death of Jesus himself for my sins and for my salvation, and so it made more sense to be respectful and mournful during this time. I would still dread the time, but at least now it made sense so I would not complain about it.

Many years later I would have a personal religious experience during my confirmation at Thursday of Passover in the beginning of the Paschal Tridium and once again my understanding and experience of lent would change. At this point, I was a fully grown adult. Now, lent would no longer be something that didn't make sense, but now it was personal. I celebrated it not only because it had to do with the life of Christ, but because it had to do with my life!

Yet, my experience and contemplation at that time would be still incomplete as it is still incomplete now. Many masses and sermons later I kept pushing, trying to make a connection between my personal experience of lent, my personal understanding and the world where I lived. I wanted this all to come together alive in the community of believers. Sure enough, what I was seeking came to be realized yet again. I approached lent once again through understanding, through time and history, through all the people who have celebrated it over centuries, through the culture barriers it breaks. This worldview was pointing at what I would referred to as a mystery beyond time and space for a lack of a better expression. A celestial community that transcends history and time and yet a story that speaks to the very here and now that we experience. Lent was a story about the redemption of human beings, that takes place now. It was about the universal reality that grounds all men to the same fate--death. Yet, lent told me that it doesn't end there. Yes, this was after some philosophy courses had shaped my vocabulary.

Today, I now live lent as the reality that speaks of the redemption of people. In all ways that people can be saved. We are called to enter these wounds, which are the wounds of Christ Himself and in doing so to experience resurrection. The brokenness of the world reminds us of the cross. The lack of charity in our own hearts reminds us of the man who gave it all. We celebrate because these wounds do not define us. We celebrate because we can overcome them. We celebrate because death is not the end. We celebrate because we are together in this journey.





 

A Treatise on War

The Gap: How does this not become #1 issue for Christians?

Read Article

• Exodus 22:20-26 
•       You shall not oppress the poor or vulnerable.  God will hear their cry.
• Leviticus 19:9-10
          A portion of the harvest is set aside for the poor and the  stranger.
• Job 34:20-28
          The Lord hears the cry of the poor.
• Proverbs 31:8-9 
          Speak out in defense of the poor.
• Sirach 4:1-10 
        Don’t delay giving to those in need.
• Isaiah 25:4-5 
          God is a refuge for the poor.
• Isaiah 58:5-7
          True worship is to work for justice and care for the poor and oppressed.
• Matthew 25:34-40 
          What you do for the least among you, you do  for Jesus.
• Luke 4:16-21 
          Jesus proclaims his mission: to bring good  news to the poor and oppressed.
• Luke 6:20-23 
          Blessed are the poor, theirs is the kingdom of  God.
• 1 John 3:17-18
          How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s good and sees one in need  and refuses to help?

The World's Parish Priest: Restoring the True Authority of the Church

Recent Vatican documents exposed that there were more than 400 priests defrocked under the pontificate of Benedict the XVI due to accusations regarding sexual abuse. While the tone of recent elect Pope Francis hasn't changed, as he encourages the Church to go out and proclaim the gospel among the most vulnerable, the Church again faces the dichotomy of having to justify itself for its lack of transparency while staying true to its authority. The problem seems to be that one correlates directly to the other. The more the Church lacks transparency the more it looses its authority.


Pope Francis however, seems to navigate the true meaning of authority and transparency. It is not through a mirage of moral perfection that he seems to reestablish moral authority and faith in the Church but by giving it a real human expression. It is by restoring the primacy on pastoral sensitivity rather than doctrinal righteousness that the human-face of the Church shines once again. The Church, after all composed by sinful members, is holy--but it is holy because it is sanctified by Christ alone.Pope Francis reminds us that the holiness of the Church does not come from its members but purely by the grace of Christ. He has not changed any teachings in the Church but has said enough in making them the primacy of our journey of faith. Instead of speaking of abortion or gay marriage let us speak of the overflowing grace of God's mercy that pours out to all humanity. By doing this precisely is that the Church reestablishes its authority because it places it in Jesus Himself through His grace and not in its teachings.


Pastoral primacy means nothing more than putting first the everlasting mercy of God. Another recent example of the Pope's approach on pastoral sensitivity is the issue of marriage annulments. While the Church's teachings are clear regarding the issue, the Pope has urged priests and bishops to act with a great deal of 'delicacy and humanity' when approaching these issues. The more sensitive the Church is, (the more human), the more it reflects God's unconditional love and mercy. In other words, not by imposing the teachings upon the faithful forcefully, but by reconciling the sinful to unconditional love of Christ.

The 'World's Parish Priest' as he is becoming to be recognized has made of his pontificate a radical embrace of pastoral primacy. From taking 'selfies' with young visitors in the Vatican, to kissing babies and embracing a disfigured man to sneaking out at night to hang out with homeless, Pope Francis has made it clear that it is this human face that brings back authority to the Church. Not by his own means and efforts, but simply by reminding the Church that it is the grace of God that comes first--not its righteousness and its teachings.

And so what happens when pastoral primacy is placed before doctrinal righteousness? Well, for one issues like having 400 priests defrocked don't scandalized but are seeing through the lens of mercy and hope. Issues like sex abuse in the Church don't have to be hidden and kept away from the faithful but rather approached through prayer and accountability because it shows us that we belong to a church of sinful members. What happens when a priest expends millions of dollars renovating his home in Germany? It reminds us once again that the grace of God's mercy should prevail. In the same way, it reminds us that we are to love our gay brothers and sisters before we are so anxious announcing what is right and wrong. It gives us an empathetic and compassionate heart with the single mother that seeks abortion through desperation and anguish, instead of being quick to expose what the Church teaches regarding the issue.

Here is where I add a personal note. This is the Church I love. This is the Church I find myself a part of. As a sinner and someone that always comes short I rely on the grace and mercy of God to save me and come to my rescue everyday of my life. I don't rely on my own understanding or any other teaching. I only rely on the mercy and love of God and I make of that my First Commandment: To love others as God loves me--unconditionally. Everything else is second. For this reason alone is that pastoral primacy comes first and as a consequence that the Church has true authority in what it proclaims.

Hollywood's Lane: 'The Ongoing tale of the American Dream that No Longer Exists'

It is no surprise to find out the usual themes in the Hollywood big screen: money and power. Two of the big films now showing and giving a lot to talk about spin around these themes. American Hustle, a film starting Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, tell the story of a couple that cons their way to the top starting a loaning business that scams people. Later, the couple will find trouble as one of them is busted and has to cooperate with the FBI in operations to capture mafia members and representatives of congress who are willing to take bribes. All of this, while money and power become the protagonists of the film. The Wolf of Wall Street, starting Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort, makes of money and power an emblem in the film. The film tells the story of Belfort, a stockbroker that succeed by mal-practicing creating a firm that overpriced penny stocks for big corporations. Money and power become the central theme in this movie as well, as Belfort moves from one succeeding step to the other, living a hedonistic life until he is caught by the bureau.

The fascination with these stories lies in that they are somewhat true. Hollywood does not produce movies that will sell, but they produce movies that will sell for a reason. The market of everything, including the film industry, is knowing why your product is selling. In this case, the reason behind why these movies sell is that the spectator secretly wants to be one of these con-artists portrayed in the film--of course, with the exception of being caught (which is why must of us don't do it.) These movies feed the so called 'American-Dream,' only with the twist of being able to do it at all cost, even if this means doing it illegally and immorally. These movies not only feed our dirty desires to become wealthy and powerful at all cost but of course first they sell the idea that it is possible by telling us that some people have done so even through wrong means.

The American culture is not only doped with the idea of being successful, wealthy and powerful as part of the American dream, but Hollywood is gushing the idea down our throats. This is no longer an ideal that is no longer possible as class mobility is disappearing in the the United States and the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger. The American dream is becoming an unreal and unattainable fantasy, but our sense of entertainment still speaks of a culture that is somewhat fixed on that dream.

For many the bottom line is that Hollywood sells movies that people want to watch. If the spectators want to praise characters like Jordan Belfort or couples like Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser the story will go on. Of course, there is a clear line between entertainment and reality. Hollywood is an entertainment industry. To take it as anything more than that would be to give it too much credit and importance and too little accountability and responsibility to the watcher. But is this so? After all, entertainment is an essential part of culture and films describe society. For the industry, it is in its best interest to sell people the idea of being able to become successful and rich. If they don't, not only do they detach themselves from American culture but become counter-cultural and as a product of this-- movies will not sell. In other words, if people crave a dream that no longer exists, you can still sell it. Ironically, the theme of both of these films is to create profit no matter what. In this case, Hollywood has embraced the philosophy perfectly.