WORSHIPING GOD THROUGH IMAGES

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical

conoclasm (opposition to images) is a false tradition of men that was officially condemned by the Church long ago.

Sometimes we miss things in the Bible, though they are right in front of us. Some of our Protestant brethren (mainly Calvinists but some other denominations as well) have an almost obsessive fear of any image associated with worship at all, thinking that all such manifestations are examples of idolatry and undue exaltation of a “graven image”.
In other words, all images whatsoever are collapsed in this wrongheaded mentality into the category of the “graven image” in the Ten Commandments. But the Bible doesn’t take this view at all. Here is one striking example:

Exodus 33:8-10 (RSV) Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Note that the pillar of cloud is:

1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible.

The Bible mentions a pillar of cloud and also a pillar of fire (by night), representing God (see:  Ex 13:21-22; 14:24; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19). It doesn't always state that the people worshiped God through the supernatural image-pillars, but we know from Exodus 33:8-10 that it was entirely permissible to do so; certainly not “idolatry.”
The problem (for certain Christians who don't like images) comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here. The same iconoclasts (opposers of images) have to explain away things like the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably.
An angel is a creation (as are fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” fire as representative of God in the following passage:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4 When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

A related argument, not quite as explicit or direct, but still highly relevant, can be made from use of images in worship that are very closely tied to God, such as the tabernacle, temple, and ark of the covenant. The Bible teaches that Jewish worship was often directed towards these holy and sacred objects; therefore, in a large sense, they represented God Himself.
We know that God made Himself specially present in or near all these material objects. He states repeatedly that He is present above the “mercy seat” on the ark of the covenant, between the two carved cherubim (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kg 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5).
Therefore, we are informed that the Jews would bow before the ark to pray or worship:

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening . . . [proceeds to pray in 7:7-8]

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.

The Jews prayed “toward” Jerusalem and the temple there (more images representing Him or His presence):

1 Kings 8:44 . . . they pray to the LORD toward the city which thou hast chosen and the house which I have built for thy name

Psalm 5:7 But I through the abundance of thy steadfast love will enter thy house, I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee.

Psalm 138:2 I bow down toward thy holy temple
and give thanks to thy name for thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness; . . .

The temple had all sorts of images in it, giving the lie to the notion that houses of worship couldn't possibly have any images. It had “carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers” (1 Kg 6:29). From whence comes this notion, then, of bare white-walled churches? Not from Scripture!
Some of the early Calvinists were so fanatical that they smashed not only statues of saints, but also organs, stained glass, even statues of Jesus Christ and crucifixes. They ignored all the distinctions that the Bible plainly makes. We reject such clear biblical teaching at our peril. Iconoclasm (opposition to images) is a false tradition of men that was officially condemned by the Church long ago. Catholic eucharistic worship and devotion hearkens back to this sense of God present through an image.

View Comments

"SOLA SCRIPTURA" REFUTATION

10-Point Biblical Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The Bible teaches that a “three-legged stool” (Bible, Church and Tradition) is necessary to arrive at the truth.

Dave Armstrong

1. It's Not Taught in the Bible

Scripture certainly is a “standard of truth”, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic tradition and the Church. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient: i.e., every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency). Nor can sola Scriptura be deduced from implicit passages.
2. “Word of God”
“Word” in Holy Scripture quite often refers to a proclaimed, oral word of prophets or apostles. They spoke the word of God, whether or not their utterances were later recorded in Scripture (see, e.g., Jer 25:3, 7-8). The oral “word” had equal authority. This was also true of apostolic preaching (1 Thess 2:13).
3. Tradition is Not a Dirty Word
The Bible condemns corrupt traditions of men (e.g., Matt 15:2-6, Mk 7:8-13, Col 2:8). Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic traditions are also positively endorsed. These traditions are in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is the “final judge” of tradition, but not in the sense that it rules out all binding tradition and Church authority (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; Jude 3).
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on a teaching succession from Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does. Paul refers in 2 Timothy 3:8: to “Jannes and Jambres” who  “opposed Moses”. These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. Jerusalem Council
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30) made an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians (Acts 15:28-29). In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas, traveling around, “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
6. Pharisees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the pharisaical tradition of Judaism (which accepted oral tradition). Christian Pharisees are referred to (Acts 15:5; Phil 3:5), so neither the (orthodox) Old Testament Jews nor the early Church were guided by the principle of sola Scriptura. The Pharisees (despite their corruptions and excesses) were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul (who called himself a Pharisee three times: Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5) acknowledge this.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura / Necessity of Interpretation
Ezra read the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (Neh 8:3). Thirteen Levites assisted him and “helped the people to understand the law” (8:7) and “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (8:8; cf. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26; 2 Chr 17:8-9). The New Testament concurs. Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And the eunuch replied, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” (see Acts 8:27-31). St. Peter states that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20), and refers to parts of Paul's epistles being “hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet 3:15-16). Likewise, Jesus “explained everything” about the parables to His disciples (Mk 4:33-34).

8. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: The Protestant “Proof Text”

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency. In 2 Timothy alone (in context), Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). Also, a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15, would prove (using Protestant reasoning) the sufficiency of “pastors” and “teachers” for the attainment of Christian perfection. The Christian believer is “equipped, built up,” brought into “unity” and “mature manhood, knowledge” of Jesus, the “fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. Yet this Pauline passage doesn’t even mention Scripture.
9. Paul Casually Assumes that His Passed-Down Tradition is Infallible and Binding
Paul says that Christians should  “have nothing to do with” (2 Thess 3:14) and “avoid” (Rom 16:17) those who refuse to follow his authoritative (and not yet formally scriptural) instructions.
10. Sola Scriptura is a Radically Circular Position
When Protestants are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to the “Bible’s clear teaching”. This is similar to people on two sides of a legal, constitutional debate both saying, “well, we go by what is constitutional, whereas you guys don’t.” But judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are binding.  Protestantism lacks this element because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book (which must always be interpreted by human beings). In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned in Scripture. The Bible teaches that a “three-legged stool”: Bible + Church + tradition, is necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg, it collapses.

Vi

MERCY MESSAGES

Out of all the pope's messages during the Jubilee there are three concepts that stand out: forgiveness, optimism, and welcoming.

The pope explained that to receive mercy it is crucial to acknowledge one's own faults.

POPE FRANCIS
"How many times do we accuse others of being sinners. What about you?”

Acknowledging one's own msitakes implies taking responsibility, and above all, assuming one's own past. However, the pope explains that this should not lead to discouragement, but rather to hope because God can save everyone.

POPE FRANCIS
"God does not want the condemnation of anyone, nobody. I once heard a very nice saying: There is no saint without a past and no sinner without a future. How beautiful is this."

The person that acknowledges his own errors does not believe himself to be better than the rest, and is not indifferent to other people's suffering. This, Pope Francis said, is one of the diseases of our time.

POPE FRANCIS
"What does it mean to ignore the suffering of man? It means to ignore God. If I do not approach that man, that woman, that child, that old man, that old woman who suffers, I do not get close to God."

This is why Pope Francis constantly asks that people take in refugees. He called this humanitarian crisis the worst since World War II.

He visited them in Lesbos, and then cleaned their feet during Holy Week in Rome. He appeared with them in public several times and he asked the world for efficient and long-term solutions.

POPE FRANCIS
"The Christian does not exclude anyone; he offers a place for everyone; he has room for everyone. Allow them to come to you."

With his last pastoral letter, the Pope reminds people that, even though the Jubilee is finished, Mercy never runs out. As we would say: those who get tired of forgiving are men, because God never gets tired.

SILENCE IS SO NECESSARY

SILENCE IS SO NECESSARY

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We live in a noisy world. Our towns and cities are full of noise. There is noise in the skies and on the roads. There is noise in our homes, and even in our churches. And most of all there is noise in our minds and hearts.

The Danish philosopher Kierkegaard once wrote: ‘The present state of the world and the whole of life is diseased. If I were a doctor and I were asked for my advice, I should reply: “Create silence! Bring people to silence!” The Word of God cannot be heard in the noisy world of today. And even if it were trumpeted forth with all the panoply of noise so that it could be heard in the midst of all the other noise, then it would no longer be the Word of God. Therefore, create silence!’

‘Create silence!’  There’s a challenge here. Surely speaking is a good and healthy thing? Yes indeed. Surely there are bad kinds of silence? Yes again. But still Kierkegaard is on to something.

There is a simple truth at stake. There can be no real relationship with God, there can be no real meeting with God, without silence. Silence prepares for that meeting and silence follows it. An early Christian wrote, ‘To someone who has experienced Christ himself, silence is more precious than anything else.’ For us God has the first word, and our silence opens our hearts to hear him. Only then will our own words really be words, echoes of God’s, and not just more litter on the rubbish dump of noise.

‘How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given.’ So the carol goes. For all the noise, rush and rowdiness of contemporary Christmases, we all know there is a link between Advent and silence, Christmas and silence. Our cribs are silent places. Who can imagine Mary as a noisy person? In the Gospels, St Joseph never says a word; he simply obeys the words brought him by angels. And when John the Baptist later comes out with words of fire, it is after years of silence in the desert. Add to this the silence of our long northern nights, and the silence that follows the snow. Isn’t all this asking us to still ourselves?

A passage from the Old Testament Book of Wisdom describes the night of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt as a night full of silence. It is used by the liturgy of the night of Jesus’ birth:

‘When a deep silence covered all things and night was in the middle of its course, your all-powerful Word, O Lord, leapt from heaven’s royal throne’ (Wis 18:14-15).

‘Holy night, silent night!’ So we sing. The outward silence of Christmas night invites us to make silence within us. Then the Word can leap into us as well, as a wise man wrote: ‘If deep silence has a hold on what is inside us, then into us too the all-powerful Word will slip quietly from the Father’s throne.’

This is the Word who proceeds from the silence of the Father. He became an infant, and ‘infant’ means literally ‘one who doesn’t speak.’ The child Jesus would have cried – for air and drink and food – but he didn’t speak. ‘Let him who has ears to hear, hear what this loving and mysterious silence of the eternal Word says to us.’ We need to listen to this quietness of Jesus, and allow it to make its home in our minds and hearts.

‘Create silence!’ How much we need this! The world needs places, oases, sanctuaries, of silence.

And here comes a difficult question: what has happened to silence in our churches? Many people ask this. When the late Canon Duncan Stone, as a young priest in the 1940s, visited a parish in the Highlands, he was struck to often find thirty or forty people kneeling there in silent prayer. Now often there is talking up to the very beginning of Mass, and it starts again immediately afterwards. But what is a church for, and why do we go there? We go to meet the Lord and the Lord comes to meet us. ‘The Lord is in his holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before him!’ said the prophet Habakkuk. Surely the silent sacramental presence of the Lord in the tabernacle should lead us to silence? We need to focus ourselves and put aside distractions before the Mass begins. We want to prepare to hear the word of the Lord in the readings and homily. Surely we need a quiet mind to connect to the great Eucharistic Prayer? And when we receive Holy Communion, surely we want to listen to what the Lord God has to say, ‘the voice that speaks of peace’? Being together in this way can make us one – the Body of Christ – quite as effectively as words.

A wise elderly priest of the diocese said recently, ‘Two people talking stop forty people praying.’

‘Create silence!’ I don’t want to be misunderstood. We all understand about babies. Nor are we meant to come and go from church as cold isolated individuals, uninterested in one another. We want our parishes to be warm and welcoming places. We want to meet and greet and speak with one another. There are arrangements to be made, items of news to be shared, messages to be passed. A good word is above the best gift, says the Bible. But it is a question of where and when. Better in the porch than at the back of the church. Better after the Mass in a hall or a room. There is a time and place for speaking and a time and place for silence. In the church itself, so far as possible, silence should prevail. It should be the norm before and after Mass, and at other times as well. When there is a real need to say something, let it be done as quietly as can be. At the very least, such silence is a courtesy towards those who want to pray. It signals our reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. It respects the longing of the Holy Spirit to prepare us to celebrate the sacred mysteries. And then the Mass, with its words and music and movement and its own moments of silence, will become more real. It will unite us at a deeper level, and those who visit our churches will sense the Holy One amongst us.

‘Create silence!’ It is an imperative. May the Word coming forth from silence find our silence waiting for him like a crib! ‘The devil’, said St Ambrose, ‘loves noise; Christ looks for silence.’

                                                            Yours sincerely in Him,
+ Hugh, O. S. B.
Bishop of Aberdeen

POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI REFLECTS ON THE LAST THINGS

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI Reflects on the Last Things

In an extract from his latest book-interview, 'Last Testament', Benedict XVI reflects on death, God's judgment, and the afterlife.

Edward Pentin

As the Church enters the liturgical season of Advent, a time of expectation and anticipation of Christ’s return in glory, it’s perhaps timely to publish here for the first time Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's recent thoughts on the Last Things.
In this extract from the new book, Last Testament – In His Own Words — Pope Benedict XVI With Peter Seewald, the Pope Emeritus discusses his approach to death, judgment and how close he feels to Jesus as he reaches the end of his earthly life.
He also reflects on the “dark night” of the soul, dealing with the problem of evil, and his expectations of the life to come.

PETER SEEWALD: The central point of your reflections was always the personal encounter with Christ. How is that now? How close have you come to Jesus?
BENEDICT XVI: [Deep intake of breath] Well, naturally that is relative to different situations, but in the liturgy, in prayer, in contemplations for Sunday’s sermon, I see him directly before me. He is of course always great and full of mystery I now find many statements from the Gospels more challenging in their greatness and gravity than I did before. Indeed, this recalls an episode from my time as a chaplain. One day Romano Guardini was a guest of the neighboring Protestant parish, and said to the Protestant pastor, ‘in old age it doesn’t get easier, but harder’. That deeply impacted and moved my then priest. But there is something true in it. On the one hand, in old age you are more deeply practiced, so to speak. Life has taken its shape. The fundamental decisions have been made. On the other hand, one feels the difficulty of life’s questions more deeply, one feels the weight of today’s godlessness, the weight of the absence of faith which goes deep into the Church, but then one also feels the greatness of Jesus Christ’s words, which evade interpretation more often than before.

Is this connected to a loss of God’s nearness? Or with doubt?

Not doubt, but one feels how far one is removed from the greatness of the mystery. Of course new insights are opened up again and again. I find this touching and comforting. But one also notices that the depths of the Word are never fully plumbed. And some words of wrath, of rejection, of the threat of judgment, certainly become more mysterious and grave and awesome than before.

One imagines that the Pope, the representative of Christ on earth, must have a particularly close, intimate relationship to the Lord.
Yes, it should be that way, and I did not have the feeling that he was far away. I am always able to speak with him inwardly. But I am nevertheless just a lowly little man who does not always reach all the way up to him.

Do you experience the ‘dark nights’ of which the saints speak?
Not as intensely. Maybe because I am not holy enough to get so deep into the darkness. But when things just happen in the sphere of human events, where one says: ‘How can the loving God permit that?’, the questions are certainly very big questions. Then one must maintain firmly, in faith, that He knows better.

Have these ‘dark nights’ existed in your life at all?
Let’s say they’ve not darkened the whole, but the difficulty so often with God is the question of why there’s so much evil and so forth; how something can be reconciled with His almighty power, with His goodness, and this certainly assails faith in different situations time and again.

How does one deal with such problems of faith?
Primarily by the fact that I do not let go of the foundational certainty of faith, because I stand in it, so to speak, but also because I know if I do not understand something that doesn’t mean that it is wrong, but that I am too small for it. With many things it has been like this: I gradually grew to see it this way. More and more it is a gift; you suddenly see something which was not perceptible before. You realize that you must be humble, you must wait when you can’t enter into a passage of the scriptures, until the Lord opens it up for you.

And does He open it up?
Not always. But the fact that such moments of realization happen signifies something great for me in itself.

Does a Papa emeritus fear death? Or fear dying at least? 
In a certain respect, yes. For one thing there is the fear that one is imposing on people through a long period of disability. I would find that very distressing. My father always had a fear of death too; it has endured with me, but lessened. Another thing is that, despite all the confidence I have that the loving God cannot forsake me, the closer you come to his face, the more intensely you feel how much you have done wrong. In this respect the burden of guilt always weighs on someone, but the basic trust is of course always there.

What bears heavily on you?
Well, that you have not done enough for people, not treated people rightly. Oh, there are so many details, not very significant things – thanks be to God – but just so many things where you have to say that something could and should have been done better.


So when you stand before the Almighty, what will you say to him? 
I will plead with him to show leniency towards my wretchedness.

The believer trusts that ‘eternal life’ is a life fulfilled.
Definitely! Then he is truly at home.

What are you expecting?
There are various dimensions. Some are more theological. St Augustine says something which is a great thought and a great comfort here. He interprets the passage from the Psalms ‘seek his face always’ as saying: this applies ‘for ever’; to all eternity. God is so great that we never finish our searching. He is always new. With God there is perpetual, unending encounter, with new discoveries and new joy. Such things are theological matters. At the same time, in an entirely human perspective, I look forward to being reunited with my parents, my siblings, my friends, and I imagine it will be as lovely as it was at our family home.

Eschatology, the doctrine of the ‘last things’ – death, purgatory, the dawn of a new world – is one of the fundamental themes of your work, what the book you consider your best is about. Are you able to profit from your theology today, when you personally stand immediately before these eschatological questions?
Indeed, especially what I considered about purgatory, about the nature of pain, the meaning it has, and also about the communal character of beatitude. I think about these because it is very important to me to believe that one is immersed in a great ocean of joy and love, so to speak.

Do you consider yourself one of the enlightened?
No I don’t! [Laughs] No.

But is enlightenment, next to holiness, not also a definite goal of the Catholic life in Christ?
Now, the concept ‘enlightened’ has something a little elitist about it. I am an entirely average Christian. Naturally Christianity is about a concern to recognize the truth, which is light. By virtue of faith a simple man is enlightened, because he sees what others, who are so clever, cannot perceive. In this sense, faith is enlightenment. Baptism in Greek means a photism, an enlightenment, a coming into the light, becoming one who sees. My eyes are then opened. I see this dimension which is wholly other, something it is not possible for me to perceive with the eyes of the body alone.

This extract has been published by kind permission of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

REPENTANCE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION ?

Repentance necessary for salvation?"

Many understand the term repentance (from the Greek word metanoia) to mean “turning from sin.” This is not the biblical definition of repentance. In the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” The Bible also tells us that true repentance will result in a change of actions (Luke 3:8-14; Acts 3:19). Acts 26:20 declares, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.” The full biblical definition of repentance is a change of mind that results in a change of action.

What, then, is the connection between repentance and salvation? The Book of Acts seems to especially focus on repentance in regards to salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). To repent, in relation to salvation, is to change your mind in regard to Jesus Christ. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2), he concludes with a call for the people to repent (Acts 2:38). Repent from what? Peter is calling the people who rejected Jesus (Acts 2:36) to change their minds about Him, to recognize that He is indeed “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Peter is calling the people to change their minds from rejection of Christ as the Messiah to faith in Him as both Messiah and Savior.

Repentance and faith can be understood as “two sides of the same coin.” It is impossible to place your faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior without first changing your mind about who He is and what He has done. Whether it is repentance from willful rejection or repentance from ignorance or disinterest, it is a change of mind. Biblical repentance, in relation to salvation, is changing your mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ.

It is crucially important that we understand repentance is not a work we do to earn salvation. No one can repent and come to God unless God pulls that person to Himself (John 6:44). Acts 5:31 and 11:18 indicate that repentance is something God gives—it is only possible because of His grace. No one can repent unless God grants repentance. All of salvation, including repentance and faith, is a result of God drawing us, opening our eyes, and changing our hearts. God's longsuffering leads us to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), as does His kindness (Romans 2:4).

While repentance is not a work that earns salvation, repentance unto salvation does result in works. It is impossible to truly and fully change your mind without that causing a change in action. In the Bible, repentance results in a change in behavior. That is why John the Baptist called people to “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8). A person who has truly repented from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ will give evidence of a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:19-23; James 2:14-26). Repentance, properly defined, is necessary for salvation. Biblical repentance is changing your mind about Jesus Christ and turning to God in faith for salvation (Acts 3:19). Turning from sin is not the definition of repentance, but it is one of the results of genuine, faith-based repentance towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

NURTURING CHARISMS

NURTURING CHARISMS

Fr. Mervyn Carapiet

            Chapter 19 of Luke’s gospel shows the master punishing the servant for not using his freedom and discretion over the one talent given him. Neglecting one’s talents is punishable. Most people it seems restrict their potentialities for some reason or the other. They do learn from their mistakes, though. But what prevents them from learning from their successes? One great talent is education. Apart from its meagre use for earning their salary, many people do not endeavour to put their education to enhance humanity. There is no job that exhausts one’s education completely. We need a variety of jobs to express the facets of our personality. Our dominant talent may be expressed in wage earning, but the auxiliary talents may want to be expressed in other outlets like parish ministry and forms of leisure. If we neglect our secondary talents, they will come back with a vengeance, precipitating a personality imbalance, especially if the environment in which we live and work is not supportive and a strain on the emotions. Other factors such as transport and personal safety, the mentality of the employers and the colleagues make up a healthy environment for exercising one’s talents.

The sweep of our ministry

Talents are nourished by prayer and contemplative Scripture reading. The times for these activities must be hard fought for and strictly set aside as sacred, untouchable and indispensable, not crowded out by job activities and peripheral ministries, and relegated to the category of “catch as catch can.” In today’s world of work and business time is precious, but never so precious as to suppress daily periods of prayer, exercise and play. St. Francis de Sales once said: “The normal prayer time for an ordinary Christian is one hour; unless he is very busy, in which case it should be two!” Pastors and their associates need to ask themselves, “What kind of nurturance do I really need in my ministry and to be successful in it? How do I make my cup of gifts flow over for my ministry and my people without draining it dry?” In taking on the responsibility of being ministers, we should have more control over what helps our ministry. If there are factors that work against us, we must bring the matter to the notice of the superiors. Since there is no point in putting a square plug in a round hole, superiors must act on the data and facts to which the contributions from our side must be total. Broadening one’s shoulders this way enables one to adjust to new burdens and prevents burnout. When key charisms appear, they cannot be swept under the rug; a bulge would form, and they will somehow reappear. Suppressing charisms is tantamount to suppressing the Spirit.

 

The gospel of Mathew 5, 14 – 16 reads as follows: “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hilltop cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp to put it under a tub; they put it on the lamp-stand where it shines for everyone in the house. In the same way your light must shine in people’s sight, so that, seeing your good works, they may give praise to your Father in heaven.”

                                                

NURTURING CHARISMS - 2

                                              

                                                          Fr. Mervyn Carapiet

 We still meet Christians who practise assiduously, but are incapable of contemplation. They take Communion frequently, but cannot give thanks. Their ethic is narrow, turned inward; scrupulosity and detail bedevil their moral performance. Their God is a bookkeeper. They become incapable of opening to the Other, to gratuity. The Jewish priests were wont to shut up the lepers in the temple, because alone had the right to declare the disease healed. Our clergy likewise have tended to train the laity in the narrow limits of legalism that is altogether foreign to true thanksgiving and genuine communion with God. These are the people who today find in themselves a gnawing distaste for charisms.

Keeping a positive frame of mind enables us to learn not only from our failures but also from our successes, which is why we normally consider the positive factors in any analysis. Picking on mistakes only dissipates energy. When we drag out and highlight failures the highest they can go is mediocrity. Nobody blesses mediocrity. In developing the strong points we already have, the instances of success will become paradigmatic. Further, with a view to avoiding imprisonment in the past, ministers and associates must learn transferability skills. Keeping one administrative post all one’s life would be the stereotyping of self and others. It is a misshapen notion that growth must always be upwards. If everybody wants to go upwards the top gets crowded, and so does competition and rivalry. Growth need not be in a straight upward line. Most of us can plateau, extending ourselves by integrating more and more situations, people and experiences, and absorbing charisms manifested by other people.

Achievement Analysis   

The minister must first locate his position in the ministry: he must have no doubt about his job description, extent of competence and the expectation of those he serves. He must not expect success on every count. We are the sum of our talents, which includes the art of harmonising failure and success. Basically, there are two types of talents: functional and personal. Functionally talented is the person who can organise and get things done. This is the talent of leadership and management, which requires knowledge and method. Personally talented is the one who has the internalised qualities that animate his ministry. For example, patience for childcare and for the handicapped; energy for youth apostolate; punctuality for appointments and reliability for commitments. A harsh and abrasive style will not do for ministry.

Personal charism makes work easy without fluster-bluster or the application of “will-power.” Ministry is convertible with enjoyment. A musician may play a piece beautifully but it may well be a torture and exercise, not a free warble of “unpremeditated art.” Personal charisma must be co-natural enough to take one’s strengths and run with them. Coasting along with grace-gifts that flow naturally makes the ministry an enjoyable experience. Besides helping the people, grace-gifts are the spontaneous expressions of what the minister is. It is wrong to think that we must value only those things that we had to work hard and paid heavily for. We must value our natural gifts, look at ourselves and give credit where it is due. A mental snapshot of my talents and me shows me at my best. What does it tell me about my acquired skills and myself? One final question: does my self-portrait clearly reveal my fundamental dynamism for building the Body of Christ?

(concluded)