
"For the dream of finding our end, the thing we were made for, in a Heaven of purely human love could not be true unless our whole Faith were wrong. We were made for God. Only by being in some respect like Him, only by being a manifestation of His beauty, loving-kindness, wisdom or goodness, has any earthy Beloved excited our love. It is not that we have loved them [other people] too much, but that we did not quite understand what we were loving. It is not that we shall be asked to turn from them, so dearly familiar, to a Stranger. When we see the face of God we shall know that we have always known it. He has been a party to, has made, sustained and moved moment by moment within, all our earthly experiences of innocent love. All that was true love in them was, even on earth, far more His than ours, and ours only because we shall have turned already; from the portraits to the Original, from the rivulets to the Fountain, from the creatures He made lovable to Love Himself. But secondly, because we shall find them all in Him. By loving Him more than them we shall love them more than we now do." From
The Four Loves* * *
Today, I am mindful of how lucky I am to be studying theology. My head has been swimming in a sea of theories all about God, the world, and the purpose of it all. These are the very things that, when humans are lucky enough to slow down and have leisure to study, they find to be the heart of everything. The beautiful quote above, on love, is a good example. It's taken from C.S. Lewis's very readable treatise on the subject of love. He looks at Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Agape, discussing what they are and how they work. Love, in the end, has to be rooted in, and centered on, God. Indeed, even if we love Mr. Right or Ms. Perfect, [Mom, Dad, Sis, Brother, or Grandma, for that matter], we would love them more, if we loved God properly. This is the key to what I think Lewis is saying.
* * *
In another class, we discussed the nature of God's knowing. We looked specifically at St. Boethius's
Consolation of Theology. In the chapter in question, the character Boethius and Lady Philosophy discuss questions like: Is there really such a thing as chance? and If God foreknows things, and what he knows must come to pass, can humans be understood to have free will? Lady Philosophy's answer to the first is to affirm that all things have causes, even things that happen by "chance". Chance ought to be understood as "unexpected outcome[s] of a conjunction of causes in actions carried out for some purpose." The answer to the more important question is much more complicated. Lady Philosophy has to show Boethius that God doesn't know things in the same way that you and I know them. That is, it's not correct to say that God "foreknows" things, as if God were a being "in time". God, being eternal, is outside of time, and thus knows things [everything] in an eternal present. So, just as a person watching someone ride past them on a bike "knows" that this is what that person is doing, so God knows us and our actions. This relationship of God's knowing to our acting in no way interferes with our free will (necessarily). This is a fascinating idea, and key to St. Boethius's contribution to theology/philosophy. His thought helped Christians to understand more fully what it means for God to be "outside" our concept of time. We may speak of "past, present, and future", but these terms don't really apply to God. For God, there is only now. After all, when the holy prophet Moses asked God for his name, God answered: "I Am Who Am". [This is just a summary. Check out Boethius's
Consolation, Book V for more.]
* * *
In my third class, we discussed George Weigel's
Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism. It's a very interesting book, filled with food for thought about the steps needed to be taken to really address the root causes of terrorism and Jihadism. Personally, I think Weigel has a lot of good things to say about why things are the way they are, including some hard questions for Muslims about the future of their faith and culture in the global community. The class really debated back and forth, but one question that we looked at [that I've heard before] was: Is Islam where Christianity was during the bloodier and chaotic/fanatical years of the Crusades? or: Are we just waiting for Islam to "come to terms with" modernity and the Enlightenment? At the heart of these questions is the fundamental question: Can Muslims peacefully live in/accept a pluralistic world [a world of Muslims, but also Jews, Christians, etc.]? Christianity has already had to come to terms with pluralism [during the Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, etc.], where the Church's power wasn't absolute in regards to law making and social regulation. We see in America that same give and take, or tug-of-war, between Christians and the secular American society that they live in. For Weigel, until Muslims in the Middle East are able to accept pluralism, and respect freedoms like the freedom of religion, the dangers of Jihadism and terrorism will continue---and everyone will lose. After all, he argues, how do you fight an enemy that's willing to commit suicide? Arms are not enough to fight against terrorist, but reason informing faith just might do the trick (think of John Paul II's
Fides et Ratio.)
* * *
My personal meditation today has focused on the question: How is the Jesus of my prayers/meditation/experience, etc. related to the Jesus of Nazareth who lived and walked the earth 2000 years ago? This may seem a silly question, but I find that it's extremely important to recall Jesus's concrete human incarnation.
* * *
Anyway, I'm off to take a break,
Peace,
Br. Paul, OP~