Even though I call these things I write “inspirational reflections,” I would never claim that what I think and write in these things are directly from God. I don’t sit in my chair, plug my ears into the divine wavelength and start transcribing what God tells me in the moment. In fact, I would not even want that if I could have it. I don’t even want to make fun of that process. Actually I can believe some folks are that immediately in touch with God, they do get something like direct messages. I am ok with God working that way. And I think I have known people who may well be so pure and connected with the Spirit, God does not need to mess around with indirect media to get the divine message across. But I am not one of those folks.
I look for inspiration in all sorts of places. I try to keep my eyes and ears open. I stay as aware as I can. Whatever I read qualifies as a possible divine resource. People with whom I talk may turn out to be angels with a mission to give me a message. I am convinced God often uses means that are not obvious. I guess this is because I so often miss the obvious!
Sometimes it seems I grab onto ideas or interesting tidbits without knowing they will become revelations of God. Sometimes I have things like this way before I come to realize God is somehow at work in the information or in the way I am using certain information. In saying this, I understand how theological all this is. I recognize I am making assumptions about who God is and how God works. Revelation is simply one aspect of how God works to give information to people. Sometimes it is direct, but not for me. This means I have to discern---not a Quaker word I heard while growing up. To discern God’s message or will usually means some time in prayer, waiting, questioning and hoping at some point what you seek will be found---you will know and understand.
I thought about all this when I recently read a short book review. The book reviewed is by the Jesuit, John W. O’Malley, who teaches church history at Georgetown University in DC. I know O’Malley by reputation, but not personally. He is an expert on early modern Europe. It is a book I have to read. I am curious and interested. I want to know the stuff about which he writes. His book is entitled, When Bishops Meet: An Essay Comparing Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. For those who are not Catholic, these are the three major church councils held since the Reformation in the sixteenth century. They chart the heart and history of Roman Catholicism since Martin Luther, John Calvin and all the other so-called Protestant Reformers.
Let me offer the quickest history lesson. The Council of Trent’s dates are 1545-1568. The Pope and bishops did not meet all the time in these twenty-three years, but over that period the Catholic Church decided how to proceed in response to the Reformation, which shook radically the history of all of Europe. This period birthed a kind of denominationalism familiar to most Americans.
Vatican I was in session 1869-1870. Vatican I created the Catholic Church I knew as a boy. It was a Church dominated by the Pope and the priests. Papal infallibility was proclaimed at Vatican I, which means that when the Pope speaks on God’s behalf, the Pope cannot make mistakes. The Catholic Church at this time was a church in some ways on the outside of the culture and political realities of that world.
Vatican II happened in my lifetime. Called by Pope John XXIII, it met 1962-65. This is the time English became the language of the Mass, instead of Latin. Women could become servers and the Council tried to deal with the issues of non-Catholic Christians and other world religions. I have watched the momentous changes which the post-Vatican II Church underwent. For example, I would not be as involved as I now am in the Catholic Church were it not for Vatican II.
The best line in the review of O’Malley’s book is the reviewers’ one-line summary of the book. Frederick J. Parrella, the reviewer, says O’Malley’s intent was “Tradition is not inert but dynamic.” A Roman Catholic understands there are two sources of authority with respect to God. There is scripture and tradition. Scripture is clear---Old and New Testaments completed in the second century after Jesus. Tradition is what the Church teaches to be true after the Bible is closed---cannot have new books added to the New Testament. Clearly, tradition today is different than it was in the fourth century, but it is related to what was true in the fourth century.
In this sense tradition evolves. This is what the reviewer means that tradition is not inert. To be inert means something never changes---it is lifeless. However, tradition also is dynamic. Tradition is alive in this sense. It moves and changes. O’Malley sees this and wants to chart this dynamism of the Catholic Church from the sixteenth century. I would argue this is true not only for Catholics. It is true for all churches.
In effect, it says we have to hold onto our faith and, yet, be willing to allow our faith to grow and change to meet our different lives lived out in different situations. I feel safe to do this because I sense the Spirit is also alive---the Spirit is also dynamic. This fits well in my own Quaker spirituality, but I bet it also fits into yours, too. Life is dynamic and so is tradition.
I look for inspiration in all sorts of places. I try to keep my eyes and ears open. I stay as aware as I can. Whatever I read qualifies as a possible divine resource. People with whom I talk may turn out to be angels with a mission to give me a message. I am convinced God often uses means that are not obvious. I guess this is because I so often miss the obvious!
Sometimes it seems I grab onto ideas or interesting tidbits without knowing they will become revelations of God. Sometimes I have things like this way before I come to realize God is somehow at work in the information or in the way I am using certain information. In saying this, I understand how theological all this is. I recognize I am making assumptions about who God is and how God works. Revelation is simply one aspect of how God works to give information to people. Sometimes it is direct, but not for me. This means I have to discern---not a Quaker word I heard while growing up. To discern God’s message or will usually means some time in prayer, waiting, questioning and hoping at some point what you seek will be found---you will know and understand.
I thought about all this when I recently read a short book review. The book reviewed is by the Jesuit, John W. O’Malley, who teaches church history at Georgetown University in DC. I know O’Malley by reputation, but not personally. He is an expert on early modern Europe. It is a book I have to read. I am curious and interested. I want to know the stuff about which he writes. His book is entitled, When Bishops Meet: An Essay Comparing Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. For those who are not Catholic, these are the three major church councils held since the Reformation in the sixteenth century. They chart the heart and history of Roman Catholicism since Martin Luther, John Calvin and all the other so-called Protestant Reformers.
Let me offer the quickest history lesson. The Council of Trent’s dates are 1545-1568. The Pope and bishops did not meet all the time in these twenty-three years, but over that period the Catholic Church decided how to proceed in response to the Reformation, which shook radically the history of all of Europe. This period birthed a kind of denominationalism familiar to most Americans.
Vatican I was in session 1869-1870. Vatican I created the Catholic Church I knew as a boy. It was a Church dominated by the Pope and the priests. Papal infallibility was proclaimed at Vatican I, which means that when the Pope speaks on God’s behalf, the Pope cannot make mistakes. The Catholic Church at this time was a church in some ways on the outside of the culture and political realities of that world.
Vatican II happened in my lifetime. Called by Pope John XXIII, it met 1962-65. This is the time English became the language of the Mass, instead of Latin. Women could become servers and the Council tried to deal with the issues of non-Catholic Christians and other world religions. I have watched the momentous changes which the post-Vatican II Church underwent. For example, I would not be as involved as I now am in the Catholic Church were it not for Vatican II.
The best line in the review of O’Malley’s book is the reviewers’ one-line summary of the book. Frederick J. Parrella, the reviewer, says O’Malley’s intent was “Tradition is not inert but dynamic.” A Roman Catholic understands there are two sources of authority with respect to God. There is scripture and tradition. Scripture is clear---Old and New Testaments completed in the second century after Jesus. Tradition is what the Church teaches to be true after the Bible is closed---cannot have new books added to the New Testament. Clearly, tradition today is different than it was in the fourth century, but it is related to what was true in the fourth century.
In this sense tradition evolves. This is what the reviewer means that tradition is not inert. To be inert means something never changes---it is lifeless. However, tradition also is dynamic. Tradition is alive in this sense. It moves and changes. O’Malley sees this and wants to chart this dynamism of the Catholic Church from the sixteenth century. I would argue this is true not only for Catholics. It is true for all churches.
In effect, it says we have to hold onto our faith and, yet, be willing to allow our faith to grow and change to meet our different lives lived out in different situations. I feel safe to do this because I sense the Spirit is also alive---the Spirit is also dynamic. This fits well in my own Quaker spirituality, but I bet it also fits into yours, too. Life is dynamic and so is tradition.
Comments
Post a Comment