Once Again, On God's Permissive will

[[Sister Laurel, when people refer to the permissive will of God what do they mean? Thanks!]]

When folks speak of God's permissive will, I often find the term to be a bit misleading and very frequently misused. It is truly or accurately used to refer to those things God does not necessarily will or approve of, but which he also does not prevent. This can include all kinds of things we clearly see God does not will (human sin, for instance), but that God does not intervene in to stop. There is a sense that these might have been allowed so that indirectly God's will can be brought to bear or accomplished, and this can, in some limited ways, be a sound analysis of how things eventually work out. The main problem with this way of viewing things is that one can disregard the limited usefulness of this view and come to see almost anything God eventually redeems as directly contributing to the doing of God's will. Thus, in such an interpretation, Judas' betrayal of Jesus can be said to contribute to the doing of God's will and (though we don't mention this) Judas should be congratulated. Likewise, with Peter's denials or the murderous mob mentality that contributed to Jesus' crucifixion and death. It was this kind of reasoning that led Paul to ask rhetorically, "Does this mean we should sin all the more freely so that God's grace may abound all the more?? God forbid!!"

Another way this notion of God's permissive will leads to the sense that so long as God does not prevent something he must approve it is in questions of human choice, vocation, etc. Some will live their lives in a particular way and conclude that because God did not stop them from doing so, he must approve and even call them to live this way. They might even conclude this way of living is a divine vocation! Almost anything can be justified in this way, no matter how destructive, inhuman, or badly conceived it is. The problem is with the assumption that if God does not intervene and prevent something, then that must mean God approves of this thing or that it contributes in some way to God's will eventually being accomplished. But this caricature is not what permissive will means.

There is, however, a better way of conceiving and stating the truth of what it means to refer to God's permissive will. Dietrich Bonhoeffer says it best I think: [[Not everything that happens is the will of God, but inevitably, nothing that happens does so outside the will of God.]] What this means is that God is sovereign (or potentially sovereign over everything); God is greater than even the worst evil that can happen and both can and will bring good out of everything including the horrendous evil and stupidity that human beings commit. In Christ, God's love embraces the whole of reality, including sin and godless death, and will redeem whatever falls short of its true nature and calling. However, this does not imply that God approves of these things. Neither, of course, does it mean that God will step in and prevent anything that does not comport with his will. 

Our God is not a micromanager; at the same time, his sovereignty does not conflict with our genuine freedom. Instead, authentic freedom is the counterpart of divine sovereignty. Where human beings live something other than God's will, they live in bondage to sin and estrangement from God, no matter how often they call out "Lord! Lord!!" or wrap their inauthenticity in pious rhetoric. When we discern and do the will of God, we are truly free; where we are truly free God is truly sovereign. Many appeals to the permissive will of God are really justifications for everyday idolatry. I have found this to be particularly true when the supposed permissive will of God is linked to notions of suffering "sent" or "willed" by God. At the heart of these notions, one will always find a punitive and even sadistic God who is insensitive and coercive of persons' lives.

I have written similarly about this just recently (Dec 2024). You might check out God's Permissive Will, and other posts with the label "permissive will" or "Dietrich Bonhoeffer". The bottom line in all of this is that where we can speak of God permitting or failing to intervene and stop something from happening as God's "permissive will", we cannot and absolutely must not assume this means God approves of it!

Does God Will or Need Our Suffering?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, does God will our suffering? Does he need it? Does he even send it?? I have been thinking about what it means to unite our sufferings with those of Christ. I can understand that as being about uniting ourselves with the God you write about --- the One who wants to dwell with us in everything, but I can't get my head around God needing me to suffer for some reason. Hasn't there been enough suffering? Isn't Jesus'  death supposed to have destroyed death and overcome sin"? One person I talk with occasionally has told me that we must suffer to make up for what was lacking in Christ's own sufferings but were his sufferings really inadequate?

I was recently diagnosed with a degenerative neurological disorder that has changed my life. The diagnosis was a relief in some ways (at least this has a name and is not about it being psychogenic or something like that!) but on the other hand, it has begun to hit me that this is going to get worse, not better. I know you have a disability and live with chronic pain as well so I wondered how you manage it all? How do you make sense of your illness? Is it about uniting your suffering with Christ's? Do you use medications for pain or seizures and if so, why do you do that if it's really all about uniting your sufferings to Christ? As you can tell, my mind is racing, I am angry and frightened, and I am thinking about things I have never thought about before. Can you help me?]]

Thank you for your questions and for the way you poured them out! Let me say that God, as I understand the question, does not will our suffering any more than he willed Jesus' torture and death by crucifixion. What God did will in that case was that Jesus continued living his life with integrity and faithfulness even in the face of serious threats and terrible danger. Jesus was to continue proclaiming the Kingdom of God in communion with the One he called Abba, but the actual torture and death perpetrated in the supposed name of God by idolatrous leaders was not the will of God. For most situations involving suffering that I can think of, the truth is the same. What God wills for us is that we live with integrity and faithfulness, in freedom and truth, empowered by God's love and that we do this sure of the value of our lives no matter the degree of our suffering, disability, illness, etc. We are to be people who live and thus proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the reality of the Kingdom (sovereignty) of God that gives our lives meaning despite and even in and through our suffering.

God does not need our suffering. What is true, however,  is that we need God's grace and must come to depend completely upon that grace. This requires a serious learning curve, including an inner conversion process if our dependence is to occur with the necessary depth, fullness,  and maturity. Suffering can help us grow in the various ways we must grow to truly depend on God to the extent Jesus demonstrates (reveals) is proper to authentic humanity. Even so, while suffering can assist in this necessary growth by helping to wean us from an overweening self-dependence or individualism, this does not translate into God sending or needing our suffering. God needs human beings to "let him in," if he is to be Emmanuel, God With Us. He does not, however, force himself on us in any way; God uses circumstances to find and create openings to our hearts and minds. While we can say that godless death has been destroyed and Jesus has won the decisive victory over sin, we still live in a world where sin and death have some power. We look ahead to the day when heaven and earth completely interpenetrate one another and are one. On that day there will be no death or sin, and no suffering because we will enjoy fullness of life and communion with (life in) God.

The idea of making up what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ is not about Jesus' suffering or death being objectively inadequate to redeem creation, but about the need for us to allow the fruits of Jesus' objective victory to become the subjective truth of our own lives. Sin and godless death have been overcome and transformed by the presence of God. Jesus' openness to God and the depth of his "taking on" sin and death for our sake opened these realities to God's presence more profoundly than we ever could, but at the same time, God does not force his way into our lives. Only we, empowered by the Holy Spirit can allow that. When we open ourselves to Jesus and all he accomplished objectively, then subjectively speaking, we are "making up for" what was lacking in Christ's suffering and death.

You ask how I manage the suffering in my life, or how I make sense of my illness, and so forth. First of all, I do not manage by assuring myself that any of this (illness, suffering) is the will of God. It is not and believing it was would distort my theology and prevent me from believing in God at all. What I know is that while suffering is real, it is not the only, much less the deepest or most meaningful reality of my life. There IS what God truly wills as well, and it is that I believe we each must hold fast to in faith, hope, love, and real joy! 

Our God is the One who wills to live with us, to walk beside us in every situation, to accompany, love, and strengthen us in any way we need. This is the God who wills fullness of life for every person and the abundance of love, meaning, and fruitfulness that characterizes such a life. Through and very much in spite of my suffering, this is the person God calls me to be. Jesus' story is the same. He was called to allow God to be Emmanuel and he did this openly and exhaustively --- even in the presence of and despite his sufferings. Do I unite myself to Christ's sufferings? Yes, but not only and not even primarily to those. I also unite myself with Jesus' mission, with his abiding will to be the One in whom God is truly revealed (made known and made real) as Emmanuel. I unite myself with his compassion and amazing thirst for life. I unite myself with his courage and faithfulness in the power of the Holy Spirit, not with just his sufferings.

While suffering is difficult (and sometimes it is especially so!), I try to keep this second constellation of things in mind. I try to remember who God calls me to be, who God has made me, and the mission in which I share. Suffering will inevitably come, but in the way I live my life, it must be secondary to the vocation and mission that God has entrusted to me in Christ. My suffering is thus contextualized within this larger and more powerfully sustaining reality. It becomes meaningful only in light of this larger context. Spiritual direction reminds me of who I am and my director encourages me to stay in touch with the deep truth and potential of that identity. To be frank, it is either that or it is to allow myself to be swallowed up by the suffering. I must not let that happen! 

When I have written about a vocation to chronic illness it is a way of maintaining the same perspective I have been outlining here. I have stressed, even in the work on chronic illness as vocation, that God does not call anyone to be chronically ill. Instead, he calls us to be ill within the church and Gospel so that we witness to Christ's love and compassion, and the possibility of essential wholeness even in the presence of various forms of brokenness or illness. Especially, I remind myself that we are all pilgrims on a journey to a time and place where God will be all in all and there will be none of the struggle or suffering that exists today.

Yes, I take meds for medically and surgically intractable seizures, chronic pain (CRPS), and several other things as well! (I am getting older, after all!) I do it because, as I said above, my own calling as a Christian (not to mention as a Catholic Hermit) is the witness to the truth of a larger reality and context than my own suffering per se. Medications help me in this and I honestly couldn't function, much less be or become fully human without them. Instead, the suffering would have swallowed up my life and any larger vision of its meaning or mission I might have had. This larger context doesn't make it impossible for me to suffer with Christ, but it does help me to live with and in him. It also allows even the suffering I experience to be transfigured into a source of grace. For me, it is critical that, as much as possible, one not focus on the suffering per se, but instead on the larger mission and vocation, both ours and Jesus' as well. Of course, it is important that we not deny or diminish our suffering either; still, we must not allow it to become the whole or even the predominant story of our life. Unfortunately, I have seen some people do this with their own suffering; they have no story to tell apart from their own conversations about their suffering. It is my sense that we are each called to much much more than our sufferings, even when these sufferings predominate. (Certainly, this is what is revealed in Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension!!)  I believe that keeping suffering contextualized in this way is the very best way to suffer well!

What you are looking at in your Dx is both a terrible uncertainty and an equally terrible certainty. I will certainly pray for you and I ask that you pray for me as well. At the same time, I encourage you to do all you can to refuse to allow your diagnosis to take over your identity. This would be the worst kind of betrayal of either yourself or of God. God has made you much more than your illness and he has called you to witness to the power of his creative love. I think that is the only way to really manage serious chronic illnesses. We must find and witness to the larger hope to which we are called --- the larger life, meaning, and purpose that allows even suffering to be transfigured in Christ. At least, that is what I try to do myself.

I sincerely hope this is helpful!!

On the Homily From Post Inauguration Prayer Service by Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde

Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde gave a tremendous and tremendously courageous homily yesterday. My Scripture class is beginning the book of Acts tomorrow and something we will see again and again is the need for this kind of courage by those who understand that Jesus is NOW the Lord of this world in light of his resurrection and ascension. Acts reminded early Christians and us as well of the question, "What happens when the gospel comes to Rome with their deified emperors and announces a new king, Jesus?" What we have seen in the last two days is this same question worked out in the homily of an Episcopal Bishop and the responses of many who were offended by that homily.

Bishop Budde did this gently, and clearly. She reminded us about the foundations of Christian (and authentically human) unity, including, 1) honoring the inherent dignity of every person, 2) costly honesty both in private and in public, and 3) humility -- an approach to self and reality motivated by love and honesty. And then she made a direct plea for mercy for so many who were now frightened for their lives in one way and another --- a mercy every person who aspires to image Christ is called to live and offer to those they meet. All of this helps us to build on rock rather than sand, Budde reminded us.  And, as the Acts of the Apostles proclaims, Jesus' rule can look very different from that of the rulers of this world and his gospel is often a scandal to them.

Thus, as a believer and theologian, what I heard was a really excellent (and essentially non-politicized) homily of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that our Nation and certainly, our new President (or anyone exercising power in this world!) needed to hear at this point in time.

 

This is what it means to be a contemporary prophet in our often leaderless and uninspired world; it is the kind of thing that got Jesus crucified and still gets authentic Apostles martyred. In Acts of the Apostles (and other NT writings as well) this is the fruit of Jesus' ascension and Pentecost that goes by the word parrhesia, a particularly powerful and spirit-grounded boldness of speech. As I told my sister, "Cindy, In my world, Bishop Mariann Budde is a rockstar!!" Though not particularly religious in any formal way, she listened to the entire homily and later replied, "Laurel, in my world she is also a rockstar!!" Deo Gratias!!

I extend my thanks and prayerful support to Bishop Budde most especially for revealing the place of authentic Christian leadership in this world on behalf of the Kingdom of God. She knows what it means for politicians to use her church as a backdrop for power plays, photo ops, and false appeals to the Bible. Yesterday she showed us what it means for the Church to truly represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ without empty Bible Thumping or political (or pious!) posturing! Again, thanks be to God!! 

*Diocese of Washington DC

A Brief Look at Cornelius Wencel's Writing on Work

 Dear Sister Laurel, you have written about Fr Cornelius Wencel before, and you know and like his writing. I can't give you the entire quote or the context but are you aware of a text that includes, [[there is nothing more foreign to the hermit than the clownery of a glittery career, success and all these vulgar illusions that tempt the modern world]]? I was wondering what the context of that statement is since [a vlogger I watch] posted about him denigrating other vocations, the pursuit of success in any vocation, and essentially being elitist about eremitical life. Do you know the passage or it's larger context?

Interesting question. Yes, I recognize the passage and know the context. It is from the section on "Work", pp119-125. What you describe represents a significant misreading of this passage because Wencel is speaking about the misguided drive to power, prestige, fame, and wealth so typical of worldliness --- a position I believe most hermits truly agree with. To read it properly, it is especially important to quote the rest of the paragraph (cf paragraph below in italics) and its immediate textual context as well as outlining a bit more of the larger context in which this passage occurs. Here that is.

Not in order to achieve his own perfection does the hermit set out on his solitary voyage. On the contrary,  he considers his way and mission to be part of a great and common effort to change and renew the cultural and spiritual life of humanity. . . .The hermit strongly opposes misdirected work, which aspires only to achieve success, domination, prestige, and fame, and which can easily destroy other people's good.

There is nothing more foreign to the hermit than the clownery of a glittering career, success, and all those vulgar illusions that tempt the modern world. For the hermit, his work is one of elementary and daily activities, necessary for his own sanctification as well as for the sanctification of the world. It is not a mere object, money-maker, and article of trade, but it is rather a way of realizing his life's calling and approaching his life's fulfillment. Thus the hermit becomes a sign of protest against all the vulgar tendencies of modern civilization, which view work only in terms of productivity and money. Such a way of thinking, and consequently of acting, testifies to how much worldly affairs have degenerated and have gone far astray from what would have been a humanitarian and harmonious course of events.

If human work is to use human abilities and talents in a wise and proper way, and if it is going to build up the good of the person and society, it should be performed in an atmosphere of love. . .Only when we see work in such a manner can we get satisfaction, joy, and a sense of personal fulfillment from our activity. Work, when performed wisely and seen as an expression of human, love-motivated solidarity and service, turns out to be out to be a very concrete way of liberation. . . Cornelous Wencel, Er Cam, The Eremitic Life, pp 119-121 

In this section on work in eremitic life, Wencel is discussing not only the work hermits do but also why they do it. He wants to indicate the vast distinction between why a hermit works as s/he does as opposed to the reasons many folks in the world work and what motivates them. It is not that Wencel denies the importance of success, but he does recognize there are vulgar notions of success that are unworthy of human beings. We can see it today when billionaires act politically and in every other way possible to secure themselves and their own wealth and reputation at the expense of everyone else and thus, without appropriate concern for humanizing the world for everyone. When the rich and powerful act in this way as though the world is their playground flaunting their wealth, ambition, and self-centeredness, while disregarding the bodies of starved and otherwise impoverished children and the situations of the truly and desperately needy, I think it could rightly be described as vulgar clownery.

Work in the eremitical life is both much more modest and also more elevated in import, meaning, and motivation. We follow our daily routine, take on the projects our life opens to us for our own sanctification and the sanctification of the rest of God's creation, and work in this way for the whole of our lives. We trust that the modest work and efforts we put forth every day fit into God's plan for the whole of reality even when we have no real concrete sense of where this leads. When I was first consecrated (c 603) a journalist asked me what it meant for me to "be successful"; how did I measure success as a diocesan hermit? Her question surprised me, but I came to see it shouldn't have. "Success" is a significant norm in our culture; eremitical life is hard to place within usual notions of what it means to be successful. I answered in terms of personal integrity and faithfulness. At the end of each day could I say I had lived this life humbly, faithfully, in a way that was true to myself and God's call? This is still the definition of success I would use in answering the question today, almost 20 years later. It is not the definition of success "the world" glorifies. 

We, hermits, are not about building the world's largest real estate empire, getting our pictures on the cover of Forbes or Fortune 500, gilding our living accommodations in gold and marble, dressing in designer clothes, or measuring success in terms of status, power, or material wealth. I believe Cornelius Wencel is correct when he refers to all of this in terms of glittering. . .vulgar illusions. These things are misguided. They are rooted in a falseness promising an ultimate happiness and satisfaction they can never provide; they cannot humanize or sanctify us. Instead, they demean and empty us of authentic humanity; they divide rather than unify and ensure the ongoing suffering of the least and the lost while adding even more persons to these ranks every day. They are precisely antithetical to what it means to be concerned with theosis or working towards the Kingdom of God.

 Eremitical life (cf c 603) embraces and is partly defined in terms of "stricter separation from the world". In the passage you quoted, Wencel is talking about "the world" with which eremitical life (and all genuine Christian life) is in conflict. It is "the world" with no room at all for the Evangelical Counsels or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount with its Beatitudes. The plutocrats and kleptocrats of this "world" tend to laugh or scoff at such Christian values and vision. They ridicule those who embrace religious poverty, chastity, and obedience to image Christ and serve others. These are some of the folks Wencel has in mind when he draws two very different notions of success and work, the eremitical or radically Christian and the "worldly". In speaking as he does of hermits, Wencel also underscores that our work is rooted in concern for the world outside the hermitage. We do what we do for God's sake and the sake of all that is precious to God. 

I hope this is helpful.

Feast of St Jaime Hilario, FSC

 In honor of St Jaime Hilario, FSC, (1898-1937), I wanted to put up the following short video. Some of my own education happened at a Brothers of the Christian Schools institution and today I attend Mass regularly at St Mary's College of California. So today's feast day (on the Christian Brothers' Calendar) is poignant to me. I especially resonate with Jaime's story of having to leave the minor seminary because of a developing hearing loss and yet, remaining convinced that God was calling him to a vocation to consecrated life. Similarly, I resonate with his inability to teach in the classroom because of his disability and his responsiveness to a different way of living his call.

In his determination and despite his growing disability, he was admitted to the Christian Brothers and, in time, was professed and consecrated. He died as a martyr during the Spanish Civil War when, among others, Catholic teachers were executed. Martyrdom means witness and every Christian is called to witness to who God calls them to be and to the Gospel that empowers this call, even to the point of death (red martyrdom) and beyond. Brother Jaime, whose hearing loss had made classroom teaching impossible and thus, could have saved his life, was an amazing witness. He gave his life to honor both his vocation as a religious of the Brothers of Christian Schools (FSC), and the God who called him to follow Christ in this way.

Questions Pointing to a Hermit's Fundamental Experience and Vision of c 603 Life

Dear Sister Laurel, [[How many spiritual direction clients in a day are prudent or wise? Is a diocesan hermit bound to all of the Offices [Liturgy of Hours or Divine Office] or how does one know what is prudent for the amount of Offices in a day. Are hermits allowed to have a pet (a diocesan hermit), because how does this relate to the vow of poverty? Is it best to have Certain times to check email and messages? Family visits? Yes? No? If so how long? Outings with close friends from time to time? Yes or no? Friends or benefactors to do grocery pickup? Should hermits go to stores?]]

In the main, these sound to me like the kinds of questions those just beginning to consider eremitical life might ask. They are good questions because, for the most part, they point to deeper and more fundamental issues an aspiring diocesan hermit is likely to need to implement and even struggle with. These questions might be an important part of that process, but they are less important than the underlying eremitical foundation that needs to be established. They are not questions to which I can give an answer that is carved in stone because each one must be worked out by the hermit over time with the assistance of a spiritual director or mentor as the hermit candidate begins to think about their Rule of Life. (And actually, these look like exactly the questions one might ask if one was creating a Rule of Life that was composed of "do's and don'ts" or "how often and how much" kinds of points rather than a Rule rooted in a lived experience of some years reflecting a vision of eremitical life under c 603.) Because these questions remind me of the questions asked by those who are new to eremitical life, especially if they have never been aided in writing a liveable Rule of Life (or who also may never have lived one before), I am going to approach them this way. I think that will be most helpful, particularly since the questioner agreed to my posting them here in the hope they could help others.

So, as I begin to respond to these questions, let me suggest that other posts I have put up here on writing a liveable Rule or writing a Rule of Life are important as background and should be referred to. The most important caveat I can reiterate is that if one is writing a Rule of Life that is truly liveable, it must be rooted in the candidate's lived experience. Expect that the process of preparing to write and writing such a Rule with the help of a mentor will, on average, take approximately two to four years depending on the degree of preparation one has in this. This process is important for candidates and their dioceses in discerning and providing the appropriate formation needed to live c 603 eremitical life well. A liveable Rule can never be just a list of things I do and things I avoid doing (though it will likely include some of these). Each of the questions above needs to fit organically and integrally into a sound vision of eremitical life that is edifying to the Church and world! They must demonstrate a sense of c 603 and what living the terms of that canon means and requires of the individual hermit!! All of my responses to these questions presuppose this fundamental truth.

How many spiritual direction clients in a day are prudent or wise? First of all, it must always be remembered that hermits who do spiritual direction are primarily hermits. We are called to live the silence of solitude and stricter separation from the world (i.e., that which is resistant to Christ), and only thereafter or within this foundational context are we involved in limited ministry.  So, for instance, I don't see clients every day (or even every week) and I rarely see more than two or three on the days I do see clients. The same is true of mentoring other hermits or hermit candidates. To do more than this demands more time and energy than I have to give to this, and it begins to be destructive of my eremitical life itself. Others will have different circumstances than I do and may be able to see more clients.  Even so, every c 603 hermit must remember that active ministry is always a part-time and significantly limited part of our lives. If we do this kind of work, it must spill over from our lives in the silence of solitude and draw us back into this context as well. Especially, it must not be a relief from our silence of solitude or something we do to give our lives meaning. Instead, it must be a limited activity we offer to others because our lives already have a fullness of meaning, the meaning that comes from being called to be a solitary hermit who witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our ministry to others is an expression of this meaning spilling over beyond the hermitage walls.

Unless the hermit is also a priest, or writes this requirement into his/her Rule, the c 603 hermit is not required (in Law) to say any hours of the Liturgy of the Hours. That said, it is really difficult for me to understand how a hermit living in and as part of the beating the heart of the Church could live a day without praying the official Prayer of the Church in some significant way. Some hermits pray 2 or 3 of the hours (Lauds, Vespers, Compline, and Vigils or the Office of Readings are the major ones included here) while others pray at least some of the minor hours as well.  We each need to find out the number of Hours necessary as an aid to praying our day, in fact, in praying our very lives day in and day out. For some, the LOH is really helpful in this and especially, it allows us to be true to an ecclesial vocation reflecting belonging to and representing the long Judeo-Christian tradition of prayer. For many of us praying the Hours also reminds us of our standing as religious under c 603. Personally, I understand the LOH to be a striking symbol of this (c 603) vocation's ecclesial nature and a significant way to ensure our lives are steeped in Scripture.

Diocesan hermits are allowed to have pets, of course. (Anchorites are often known for having a cat, for instance!) Your question is really about evangelical or religious poverty though. Some hermits would see the cost of caring adequately for a pet (food, medical care, time for adequate exercise and play, and training (not for cats, of course!)) as making such a pet an extravagance or a distraction. Others of us find the pets necessary as part of our vocation both to be fully human and to care for God's creation as we can. Poverty has never been defined in only one way in the history of religious life or the Gospel Counsels. So, for instance, Franciscan poverty is different from Benedictine poverty is different from Carmelite poverty, and so on. 

Myself with Merton the Tom (RIP)

Similarly, the poverty enjoined on laypersons by the Gospel differs significantly from religious poverty because laypersons tend to have to care for their families, provide for the education of children, and sometimes care for elderly parents or other relatives as well, yet every Christian is called to this Evangelical Counsel in some sense. In my own approach to the religious poverty of the consecrated vocation, I stress complete dependence on God. Finances are a secondary part of that, but they are a real part of it nonetheless. My own income is very limited (about $1200 a month). I do have a cat and that expense is offset by sacrifices I make so that I may care for him. "Sneezy", however, is a literal gift of God to me (he showed up one Winter with a bad cold and took up residence) and provides me with things money cannot buy; I have determined it is important to my own health and wholeness to make these accommodations, at least at the present time.

I do think it is important to have times (morning, afternoon, and evening for example) to check and respond to email, yes. This is especially important when one has clients, one might need to get back to quickly. Still, it is not something one usually schedules unless one has difficulty staying away from the computer!!). Instead, it is something one's schedule allows for when one is free from other activities/periods. For instance, I may check email and messages before breakfast or supper and again before Compline and bed. If I am writing for several hours, I may break from that and check email then because I am already working at my computer. (If I am journaling, that is a different matter and while I may break for a cup of tea or a snack, I will not check email or messages then.) In this small matter too it is up to the individual to reflect on what their lived experience has taught them and work out a solution that allows them to live the terms of c 603 and their own Rule with integrity.

Home visits or visits with relatives and friends should be worked out in the same way as appointments with clients, and access to email and messaging. What is truly healthy for the individual hermit and her way of life? What is truly loving? What can she manage financially or in terms of her schedule? When does contact with others begin to detract from the silence of solitude and stricter separation, for instance? For some people time with family will be brief because we really do need to get back to our ordinary schedule and activities (families can be demanding in many ways!); frequency and duration are something a hermit must determine for themselves. I will make one caveat though; namely, a hermit should be able to lay aside a lot of (the details of) her hermit life for the relatively brief time she is with her family. She should be present to these others as the person they (each) know and love. She must not "play hermit" or (within reason, of course) refuse to participate in the activities they enjoy and want to share with her. I once read a hermit write about "only talking about spiritual things" when with her loved ones. One can always ask what, when looked at in the way God does, is NOT a spiritual thing, but the way to approach this matter, I sincerely believe, is for the hermit to simply be entirely present in all she is and does with family and, in this way, bring God's love to bear (but also discover and contemplate this same love as it is present) within the family.

Generally speaking, there is no reason a hermit should not go to stores to pick up what is needed. It has all kinds of benefits both for the hermit and for those she might meet and talk with during such trips! Hermits are not recluses, at least the vast majority are not. I have my groceries delivered and began that because of the pandemic. I continue it because it is very helpful and convenient for getting everything I need (I don't drive so carrying things home is difficult). And sometimes I simply need to get out of my hermitage and, if needed, to run errands. At those times, I meet people, converse, maybe stop to have a brief coffee with someone who would like to talk, etc. Again, generally speaking, all of that is fine. The thing we need to be aware of is who we are in these times and what we truly need. If our eremitical life is sound, we will want to get back home as soon as is practicable and we should be able to settle into our usual routine when we return. 

Again, it is up to each hermit, her vision of the life, and her Rule of Life to determine how she answers these and other questions. Circumstances change and things that would be permissible at one time might be something one needs to skip at another. In all situations, our lives are lived in dialogue with God in the silence of solitude, and whatever choices we make need to continue that dialogue.

What Does it Mean to be a Hermit in an Essential Sense? (Reprised from 2018)

[[Dear Sister when you have spoken of readiness for discernment with a diocese and even temporary profession as a solitary hermit you have said a person must be a hermit in some essential sense. Could you say more about what you mean by this phrase? I think maybe I know what you are talking about but I also find the phrase difficult to define. Thanks!]]

Introduction:

That's such a great and important question! For me personally, articulating the definition of this phrase or the description of what I mean by it has been a bit difficult. It is a positive phrase but in some ways, I found my own senses of what I meant by this come to real clarity by paying attention to examples of inauthentic eremitical life, individuals who call themselves hermits, for instance, but who, while nominally Catholic, are isolated and/or subscribe to a spirituality which is essentially unhealthy while embracing a theology which has nothing really to do with the God of Jesus Christ.  To paraphrase Jesus, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" actually has come to know the sovereignty of the Lord intimately. In other words, it was by looking at what canonical hermits were not and could or should never be that gave me a way of articulating what I meant by "being a hermit in some essential sense." Since God is the one who makes a person a hermit, it should not surprise you to hear I will be describing the "essential hermit" first of all in terms of God's activity.

Related to this then is the fact that the hermit's life is a gift to both the Church and the world at large. Moreover, it is a gift of a particular kind. Specifically, it proclaims the Gospel of God in word and deed but does so in the silence of solitude. When speaking of being a hermit in some essential way it will be important to describe the qualities of mission and charism that are developing (or have developed) in the person's life. These are about more than having a purpose in life and reflect the simple fact that the eremitical vocation belongs to the Church. Additionally, they are a reflection of the fact that the hermit precisely as hermit reflects the good news of salvation in Christ which comes to her in eremitical solitude. If it primarily came to her in another way (in community or family life for instance) it would not reflect the redemptive character of Christ in eremitical solitude and therefore her life could not witness to or reveal this to others in and through eremitical life. Such witness is the very essence of the eremitical life.

The Experience at the Heart of Authentic Eremitism:

Whenever I have written about becoming a hermit in some essential sense I have contrasted it with being a lone individual, even a lone pious person who prays each day. The point of that contrast was to indicate that each of us is called to be covenantal partners of God, dialogical realities who, to the extent we are truly human, are never really alone. The contrast was first of all meant to point to the fact that eremitical life involved something more, namely, a desert spirituality. It was also meant to indicate that something must occur in solitude which transforms the individual from simply being a lone individual. That transformation involves healing and sanctification. It changes the person from someone who may be individualistic to someone who belongs to and depends radically on God and the church which mediates God in word and sacrament. Such a person lives her life in the heart of the Church in very conscious and deliberate ways. Her solitude is a communal reality in this sense even though she is a solitary hermit. Moreover, the shift I am thinking of that occurs in the silence of solitude transforms the person into a compassionate person whose entire life is in tune with the pain and anguish of a world yearning for God and the fulfillment God brings to all creation; moreover, it does so because paradoxically, it is in the silence of solitude that one comes to hear the cry of all in union with God.

If the individual is dealing with chronic illness, for instance, then they are apt to have been marginalized by their illness. What tends to occur to such a person in the silence of solitude if they are called to this as a life vocation is the shift to a life that marginalizes by choice and simultaneously relates more profoundly or centrally. Because it is in this liminal space that one meets God and comes to union with God, a couple of things happen: 1) one comes to know one has infinite value because one is infinitely loved by God, not in terms of one's productivity, one's academic or other success, one's material wealth, and so forth, 2) one comes to understand that all people are loved and valued in the same way which allows one to see themselves as "the same" as others rather than as different and potentially inferior (or, narcissistically, superior), 3) thus one comes to know oneself as profoundly related to these others in God rather than as disconnected or unrelated and as a result, 4) chronic illness ceases to have the power it once had to isolate and alienate or to define one's entire identity in terms of separation, pain, suffering, and incapacity, and 5) one is freed to be the person God calls one to be in spite of chronic illness. The capacity to truly love others, to be compassionate, and to love oneself in God are central pieces of this.

The Critical Question in Discernment of Eremitical Vocations:

 What is critical for the question at hand is that the person finds themselves in a transformative relationship with God in solitude and thus, eremitical solitude becomes the context for a truly redemptive experience and a genuinely holy life. When I speak of someone being a hermit in some essential sense I am pointing to being a person who has experienced the salvific gift the hermit's life is meant to be for hermits and for those they witness to. It may be that they have begun a transformation that reshapes them from the heart of their being, a kind of transfiguration that heals and summons into being an authentic humanity that is convincing in its faith, hope, love, and essential joy. Only God can work in the person in this way and if God does so in eremitical solitude --- which means more than a transitional solitude, but an extended solitude of desert spirituality --- then one may well have thus become a hermit in an essential sense and may be on the way to becoming a hermit in the proper sense of the term as well.

If God saves in solitude (or in abject weakness and emptiness!), if authentic humanity implies being a covenant partner of God capable of mediating that same redemption to others in Christ, then a canonical hermit (or a person being seriously considered for admission to canonical standing and consecration MUST show signs of these as well as of having come to know them to a significant degree in eremitical solitude.  It is the redemptive capacity of solitude (meaning God in solitude) experienced by the hermit or candidate as  "the silence of solitude"  which is the real criterion of a vocation to eremitical solitude. (See other posts on this term but also Eremitism, the Epitome of Selfishness?) It is the redemptive capacity of God in the silence of solitude that the hermit must reflect and witness to if her eremitical life is to be credible.

Those Putative "Hermits" not Called to Eremitical Solitude:

For some who seek to live as hermits but are unsuccessful, eremitical solitude is not redemptive. As I have written before the destructive power of solitude overtakes and overwhelms the entire process of growth and sanctification which the authentic hermit comes to know in the silence of solitude. What is most striking to me as I have considered this question of being a hermit in some essential sense is the way some persons' solitude and the label "hermit" are euphemisms for alienation, estrangement, and isolation. Of course, there is nothing new in this and historically stereotypes and counterfeits have often hijacked the title "hermit".  The spiritualities involved in such cases are sometimes nothing more than validations of the brokenness of sin or celebrations of self-centeredness and social failure; the God believed in is often a tyrant or a cruel judge who is delighted by our suffering -- which he is supposed to cause directly -- and who defines justice in terms of an arbitrary "reparation for the offenses" done to him even by others, a strange kind of quid pro quo which might have given even St Anselm qualms.

These "hermits" themselves seem unhappy, often bitter, depressed, and sometimes despairing. They live in physical solitude but their relationship with God is apparently neither life-giving nor redemptive -- whether of the so-called hermit or those they touch. Neither are their lives ecclesial in any evident sense and some are as estranged from the Church as they are from their local communities and (often) families. Because there is no clear sense that solitude is a redemptive reality for these persons, neither is there any sense that God is really calling them to eremitical life and the wholeness represented by union with God and characterized by the silence of solitude. Sometimes solitude itself seems entirely destructive, silence is a torturous muteness or fruitlessness; in such cases, there is no question the person is not called to eremitical solitude.

Others who are not so extreme as these "hermits" never actually embrace the silence of solitude or put God at the center of their lives in the way desert spirituality requires and witnesses to. They may even be admitted to profession and consecration but then live a relatively isolated and mediocre life filled with distractions, failed commitments (vows, Rule), and rejected grace. Instead, some replace solitude with active ministry so that they simply cannot witness to the transformative capacity of the God who comes in silence and solitude. Their lives thus do not show evidence of the incredibly creative and dynamic love of God who redeems in this way but it is harder to recognize these counterfeits. In such cases, the silence of solitude is not only not the context of their lives but it is neither their goal nor the charism they bring to church and world. Whatever the picture they have never been hermits in the essential sense.

Even so, all of these lives do help us to see what is necessary for the discernment of authentic eremitical vocations and too what it means to say that someone is a hermit in some essential sense. Especially they underscore the critical importance that one experiences God's redemptive intimacy in the silence of solitude and that one's life is made profoundly meaningful, compassionate, and hope-filled in this way.

Does God Love Us Because We are Pathetic?

[[Does God love us because we are pathetic? Would that even be love? I think it might be pity, but it's not love. Someone said they asked God why he loved them and the answer God gave was because they are so pathetic. I can't see that as love, myself. Thanks!]]

Thanks for the question! It reminds me of a question from the NT we will hear this week, namely, "What is man that you are mindful of him?"* I tend to agree with you on this, but I think the statement you are reflecting on raises more questions besides. I don't think God regards anyone in this particular way. My sense is that God sees us as we are, of course, and that means he sees us with all of our potentialities, struggles, accomplishments, failures, etc. He knows us intimately, better than we know ourselves, and he does not see us as pathetic (which is a human judgment) but rather as precious (a function of Divine love and delight). I think that is true whether we have sinned seriously, made terrible mistakes, or whatever. That does not mean that God sugarcoats things, or engages in some sort of denial about us. Rather, he sees the truth of who we are, the entire truth and of course, the deepest truth, and he loves us because we are his own and are made for him. Besides, love is the only thing that can truly call us to become the persons we are made to be.

God, after all, is Love-in-act. That is what and who God is as well as what it means for God to do what God does. I remember once being bothered by this thought because it seemed to me that perhaps God could not do anything BUT love me if he was Love-in-Act. I thought of this as some sort of coercive situation or as though God was limited and unfree in some important sense. It seemed to me that I could not trust such a God or his love if he could do nothing else. Eventually, I worked through the theology of it and realized that this was truly the fullness of Divine Freedom, not a limitation of it. I came to some of this realization because of the narrative in Genesis where human beings choose to know good and evil, that knowing good and evil does not represent knowing more than only knowing good does. 

In this story, the satan suggests that God knows more than these innocents because he "knows" both good and evil, but knowing in the intimate, almost sexual, sense the Scripture uses the term makes knowing both good AND evil a reference to knowing less, and more importantly, it means knowing good less well, less fully and intimately. That is, it implies a divided heart and mind, a heart and mind given over to both good and evil. But God ONLY knows the good in the intimate OT sense of the verb "knows". And God, precisely as God, loves what God knows in such a profound way. This is not a limitation in God; it is the fullness of Divinity and of authentic Freedom. It is the rest of reality that "knows" (not just knows about) both good and evil that is limited and limiting because such reality is always less than it is meant and created to be; it knows God and the whole of God's creation less well than it was made to do.

I would suggest that whatever this person heard about being pathetic, they were not hearing the voice of God. The voice of their own self-understanding, their own lack of self-esteem perhaps, their own woundedness and shame, yes, but not the voice of God.  While I don't think God is blind to evil, I do believe that he does not know it in the way we do --- at least not apart from the Christ Event. He is profoundly aware of the choices we make and the reasons and circumstances driving those choices. Again he knows us far better than we know ourselves. God knows us and that we know evil and God loves us in a way that redeems and frees us from that knowledge. He, quite literally, loves us beyond any evil. The notion that God judges us only in light of our sin or weakness and limitations is a serious theological mistake I believe. 

The Old Testament shows us God renouncing such a way of judging us or our world when it speaks of God's decision never to destroy the world as occurred in the narrative of the great flood. The OT tells the story of God changing his mind, but as in other stories in the OT, this is really a way of revealing a very different God to the hearers of this story than they could have imagined. (It is simpler to reveal a God who supposedly changes his mind than it is to develop the theology of a completely different God out of whole cloth; it is simpler for people to accept as well!)  In the New Testament, the central image of God's judgment seems to me to be that of harvest and this develops OT images like that of gleaning in the book of Ruth, for instance. God sees and summons the good, the true, and the holy out of the ambiguity of sinful existence and calls these to abundant life in himself. Moreover, he does so clearly and inevitably. That is the way of Divine judgment, the way of God's love and mercy.  It demonstrates the way God sees us, precious, full of potential and fruitfulness.

It is also a sacramental way of seeing reality. We Catholic Christians look at ordinary limited and even flawed matter and, because we are part of a highly sacramental and incarnational faith, are capable of seeing the extraordinary nature of the most ordinary reality. We can imagine wheat and grapes becoming bread and wine which in turn can become the very Body and Blood of our Lord. Oil can be used to consecrate, strengthen, and heal us; water can become a means of washing away brokenness and godlessness while initiating us into the very life of God, and a few simple words in absolution or blessing, or a brief Scriptural passage** can raise us to greater wholeness and holiness as they feed some of our very deepest needs. God, in Christ, teaches us to see in this way, and I believe he especially asks us, in the power of the Spirit, to see ourselves this way, as both ordinary and extraordinary and at least potential incarnations of God. Again, we are precious, full of potential and fruitfulness --- or, in the words of Scripture, we are imago dei, the very image of God.

Recently I was told a story about someone concerned about disappointing God. It's a common belief and I have heard (or entertained) the same concern many times. My immediate thought in response was that God could never be disappointed in us, though I thought he could be disappointed FOR us. When I reflected on my experience of that I realized it is because my own experience of God (especially in prayer and in the people who represent God to me) always has God seeing me in terms of deep truth, essential beauty, and indestructible potential. God is not naive. God, like others in my life, "sees everything" but God loves me beyond all of that (which means he both sees me more deeply and loves me into more abundant life). Even more, God continues to love in that way as I come more and more to allow my life to be defined in terms of this love! I continue to believe that God can be disappointed for me, but not in me; I especially can never believe the God I know loves me or any of us because we are pathetic.

*  Hebrews 2:5 

** I am thinking of Rom 8:31-37, but there are innumerable others --- ordinary words made extraordinary in God.

When Concern for the Temporal is also Engagement with the Eternal (reprise from 2015)

[[Dear Sister, you write a lot about temporal things, laws, requirements, the contents of a lay hermit's prayer space, habits, titles, and things like that. One blogger has opined that hermits grow beyond such concerns as they become more spiritual. She wrote recently: "How long did this hermit remain more or less in place, discussing or thinking about--or maybe thinking it had the responsibility to write about temporal matters such as what does a hermit wear, or eat, or daily routine, or title, or rule of life or what prayers, or what degree of solitude, and what does its hermitage look like? . . .Do we outgrow, or should we outgrow, the temporal aspects of our lives as we progress in life, and spiral more upward--or deeper in--and seek the spiritual aspects that our souls truly desire and actually need?"

Before I ask my questions I wanted to say I am grateful to you for your blog. I think it is probably helpful to people considering becoming hermits and for those of us with questions about spirituality generally. I also love that you share things like what gives you pleasure or post videos of your orchestra. Those posts reveal a lot about yourself and I personally enjoy that. My question is whether you see yourself growing out of a concern with temporal things or writing about these things? The other blogger thought these reflected a newly-wed stage of life; she also suggested that the concern with the temporal had a link with the US as opposed to other countries. I guess her blog readers come more from other countries and are not as interested in some of the questions you deal with. I don't see how she could know what countries your questions come from though.]]

Thanks very much for your comments and questions. No one ever asked me about what gives me pleasure before; I am sure at least some think there is nothing edifying about the experience of pleasure! As though the mere experience of pleasure implies one is a hedonist! Others have asked me to say more about my everyday life but I have not been able to do that; these questions seemed sort of invasive and also were a little hard to imagine what to say. Anyway, I enjoyed that question and I hope one of the things it indicates is the profound happiness associated with this vocation. Every aspect of it can be a source of real joy and yes, "pleasure" or gratification because it all reflects life with God and the quality of that. To some extent that anticipates your questions!.

I may have told this story before, but I was once working with a hermit candidate in another diocese and he asked me how I balanced "hermit things" and "worldly things" in my life. When I asked him what he meant by worldly things he listed things like grocery shopping, doing the dishes and laundry, scrubbing floors, cleaning the bathroom and things like that. When I asked about "hermit things" he referred to prayer, lectio divina, Office, Mass, and things like that. In other words, he had divided the world neatly into two classes of things, one having to do with what most folks call "worldly" or "temporal" and those most folks refer to as "spiritual" or "eternal." What I had to try and make clear to this candidate was that to the extent he really was a hermit, everything he did every day were hermit things, everything he did or was called to do was to be an expression of the eternal life he shared in by virtue of his baptism and new life in Christ.  A neat division into spiritual and temporal simply doesn't work with our God. The incarnation rules that out.

Instead we belong to a Sacramental world in which the most ordinary and ephemeral can become the mediator of the divinely extraordinary and eternal. We see this every day in our own worship as wine wheat, water, oil, and wax among other things mediate the life and light of God to us. Even more, we belong to a world which heaven has begun to interpenetrate completely. It is a world in which God is meant to be all in all, a world which itself is meant to exist in and through God alone. This involves God revealing (Him)self in the unexpected and even the unacceptable place --- transforming (hallowing) them utterly with his presence. The descent and self emptying of God in creation and the incarnation is balanced or  (one stage of it anyway) completed by the Ascension of the Risen Jesus into the very life of God. As we heard earlier this week, Christ goes to God to prepare a place for us, a place for the human and "temporal" in the very life of God (Him)self. And of course, we look forward, at some point to a life in/on a new heaven and earth where God is all in all.

It is the place of disciples of Christ to proclaim the way the event of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection has changed our world and our destiny. Christians recognize that every part of our world and our lives can glorify God. That is, every part of our world and lives can reveal God to others. So, you see, I think the simplistic division of reality into temporal and spiritual is actually anti-Christian and I have said this in the past. Therefore, I don't think we outgrow our concern with the temporal dimensions of our lives. Instead, unless we refuse to allow this to occur through our all-too-human ways of seeing and thinking, they come more and more to reflect the presence of God and are consecrated or made holy (hallowed) by that presence and our awareness of it.  Because my own vocation is a public one I feel a responsibility to share about elements of that vocation about which people raise questions. Moreover, many of the questions I have dealt with recently are related to becoming a hermit, discerning the distinction between legitimate hermits and counterfeits, fielding concerns about distortions in spirituality which can be harmful to people, etc. I think these are important.

Especially these questions lead to or are part of important discussions of truthfulness, personal integrity, pretense, shame, the dialogical and ecclesial nature of the eremitical vocation, the capacity of one's relationship with God to transform the deficiencies of her life into actual gifts, the nature of symbols, our faith as essentially Sacramental, the universal call to holiness and the sanctity of ALL vocations, the importance of lay eremitical life as well as of canonical or consecrated eremitical life, ministerial vs contemplative vocations, and any number of other topics. What may seem to be superficial matters,  or matters far removed from the "spiritual" or "eternal" tend from my perspective as a theologian, a contemplative, and a Benedictine, to open unto far deeper issues. This is because they are part of an organic whole where the whole is essentially sacramental.

However, there is another perspective that I should mention. The blogger you are citing is a privately dedicated lay hermit. She is certainly called to be responsible for her vocation but not in quite the same way I am for mine. She does not share the same rights (title, habit, publicly ecclesial eremitical life) nor is she publicly responsible for things like the quality of her rule, the importance and nature of a horarium, the place of legitimate superiors and the nature of obedience, the degrees and types of solitude one is called to embrace, degrees and kinds of work allowed, forms of prayer advised, approaches to penance, the charism of the life, etc. Because of this, she may not see these things or their depth and significance in the same way I do. That is hardly surprising.

Of course, this blogger has every right to disagree, to weigh in on issues and give her own perspective on them, especially if she does so honestly as a woman living a privately dedicated lay eremitical life rather than a "consecrated Catholic Hermit" or "professed religious". If she so chooses she is completely free to speak only of the things she considers spiritual matters and leave all those other things up to those for whom they are more meaningful and part of a deeply incarnational spiritual life and perspective. What she is less free to do is speak with impunity about canon 603, its nature and associated rights and obligations as though she is as knowledgeable about such things as someone living them. When she does this she opens herself to discussion, debate and even correction by those (canonists, hermits, historians, theologians) who are both more experienced and more knowledgeable than she is. Granted, some of what she seems to be dismissing as "temporal" rather than "eternal," for instance are certainly things an experienced hermit does not worry about and she is correct that some of them (like habits and titles) are usually of more concern to beginners or "wannabes".

However, they are also matters that point beyond themselves to the ecclesial nature and dimension of the vocation; thus some canonical hermits honor these with their lives. Other matters are never superficial. The hermit's Rule, will help the Church hierarchy to discern vocations to the eremitical life under canon 603 while the task of writing one can aid in a hermit's formation as well as her diocese's discernment of her readiness for temporary or perpetual profession. Beyond profession, it will be part of governing and inspiring her life day in and day out for the remainder of her life. She will live in dialogue with it and with God through it so long as she lives. My own Rule is something I make notes in, reflect on, and revise as my own understanding grows and life circumstances change. Among other things, it helps me to discern the wisdom of increased active ministry or greater reclusion, review the overall shape of my life, it also reflects the nature of my prayer and growth in this, and can even reflect the quality of my physical health and call attention to problems I might not be aware of otherwise.

Another matter that is never merely superficial is the way a hermitage or one's prayer space looks. Here appearance and function are profoundly related. Canonical hermits are publicly responsible for simple lives of religious poverty, obedience and celibate love in the silence of solitude. God is the center of their lives and their living space should reflect all of these things. What is as important --- since few people will actually come into hermit's living or prayer space --- is that a hermitage with too much "stuff" can be an obstacle to the life a hermit is called to live. I have been doing Spring cleaning off and on these past two weeks or so and that means getting rid of the accumulation of a year and more. This accumulation occurs partly because I don't drive and cannot simply take stuff to used book stores, thrift stores, the salvation Army, etc. Papers and books especially accumulate. Once the "stuff" is gone, even though the place was neat anyway, the feeling is simply much different. I personally feel lighter, happier, more able to "breathe", work and pray.

Further, the way my hermitage looks tends to be a good barometer of how well I am living my life. For me the richness and vitality of one's inner life is reflected in simplicity, beauty, light, and order. The opposite of these things can say that I am struggling --- sometimes spiritually, sometimes physically, and sometimes both; they may also cause me to struggle. On the other hand some specific forms of clutter and accumulation are associated with productive work and are a sign of the vitality of my inner life. In any case these "superficial" or "temporal" matters are a clue and key to attending to the state of my inner life with God and with others. I think a lot of people experience something similar. Again, we are talking about an organic whole in which inner and outer are intimately related and mutually influential.

The simple fact is that in our incarnational faith concern for and engagement with the temporal is how we are engaged with the Eternal and the ordinary way the Eternal is mediated to us. Resurrected life is Bodily existence and though we can hardly imagine what this means we must continue to hold these two things together in our understanding just as we hold the temporal and the spiritual together in our appreciation of reality as sacramental.

Feast of the Baptism of Jesus (reprise)

   Of all the feasts we celebrate, Sunday's feast of the baptism of Jesus is one of the most difficult for us to understand. We are used to thinking of baptism as a solution to original sin instead of the means of our initiation into the death and resurrection of Jesus, or our adoption as daughters and sons of God and heirs to his Kingdom, or again, as a consecration to God's very life and service. When viewed this way, and especially when we recall that John's baptism was one of repentance for sin, how do we make sense of a sinless Jesus submitting to it?

I think two points need to be made here. First, Jesus grew into his vocation. His Sonship was real and completely unique but not completely developed or historically embodied from the moment of his conception; rather it was something he embraced more and more fully over his lifetime. Secondly, his Sonship was the expression of solidarity with us and his fulfillment of the will of his Father to be God-with-us. Jesus will incarnate the Logos of God definitively in space and time, but this event we call the incarnation encompasses and is only realized fully in his life, death, and resurrection -- not in his nativity. Only in allowing himself to be completely transparent to this Word, only in "dying to self," and definitively setting aside all other possible destinies does Jesus come to fully embody and express the Logos of God in a way which expresses his solidarity with us as well.

It is probably the image of Baptism-as-consecration and commissioning then which is most helpful to us in understanding Jesus' submission to John's baptism. Here the man Jesus is set apart as the one in whom God will truly "hallow his name." (That is, in Jesus' weakness and self-emptying God's powerful presence (Name) will make all things Holy and a sacrament of God's presence.) Here, in an act of manifest commitment, Jesus' humanity is placed completely at the service of the living God and of those to whom God is committed. Here his experience as one set apart or consecrated by and for God establishes God as completely united with us and our human condition. This solidarity is reflected in his statement to John that together they must fulfill the will of God. And here too Jesus anticipates the death and resurrection he will suffer for the sake of both human and Divine destinies which, in him, will be reconciled and inextricably wed to one another. His baptism establishes the pattern not only of his humanity, but that of all authentic humanity. So too does it reveal the nature of true Divinity, for ours is a God who becomes completely subject to our sinful reality in order to free us for his own entirely holy one.

I suspect that even at the end of the Christmas season we are still scandalized by the incarnation. (Recent conversations on CV's and secularity make me even surer of this!) We still stumble over the intelligibility of this baptism, and the propriety of it especially. Our inability to fathom Jesus' own baptism, and our tendency to be shocked by it because of Jesus' identity,  just as JohnBp was probably shocked, says we are not comfortable, even now, with a God who enters exhaustively into our reality. We remain uncomfortable with a Jesus who is tempted like us in ALL THINGS and matures into his identity as the incarnation of God's only begotten Son.

We are puzzled by one who is holy as God is holy and, as the creed affirms, "true God from true God" and who, evenso, is consecrated to and by the one he calls Abba --- and commissioned to the service of this Abba's Kingdom and people. A God who wholly identifies with us, takes on our sinfulness (our estrangement from God and from our deepest selves), and comes to us in smallness, weakness, submission and self-emptying is really not a God we are comfortable with --- despite three weeks of Christmas celebrations and reflections, and a prior four weeks of preparation -- is it? In fact, none of this was comfortable for Jews or early Christians either. The Jewish leadership was upset by JnBp's baptisms generally because they took place outside the Temple precincts and structures (that is, in the realm we literally call profane). Early Christians (Jewish and otherwise) were embarrassed by Jesus' baptism by John --- as Matt's added explanation of the reasons for it in vv 14-15 indicate. They were concerned that perhaps it indicated Jesus' inferiority to John the Baptist and they wondered if maybe it meant that Jesus had sinned prior to his baptism. And perhaps this embarrassment is as it should be. Perhaps the scandal attached to this baptism signals to us we are beginning to get things right theologically.

After all, Sunday's feast tells us that Jesus' public ministry begins with a ritual washing, consecration, and commissioning by God which is similar to our own baptismal consecration. The difference is that Jesus freely accepts life in a world under the sway of sin in his baptism just as he wholeheartedly embraces a public vocation to proclaim God's sovereignty. The story of the desert temptation or testing that follows this underscores this acceptance. His public life begins with an event that prefigures his end as well. There is a real dying-to-self involved here, not because Jesus has a false self that must die -- as each of us has --- but because in these events his life is placed completely at the disposal of his God, his Abba, in profoundest solidarity with us. Loving another, affirming the being of another in a way that subordinates one's own being to theirs --- putting one's own life at their disposal and surrendering all other life possibilities always entails a death of sorts -- and a kind of rising to new life as well. The dynamics present on the cross are present here too; here we see only somewhat less clearly a complete and obedient (that is open and responsive) submission to the will of God, and an unfathomable subjection to that which human sinfulness makes necessary precisely so that God's love may be exhaustively present and genuinely sovereign here as well.