a lawless blog

Luke 2:22-40  (in part)

When the days were completed for their purification
according to the law of Moses,
Mary and Joseph took Jesus up to Jerusalem
to present him to the Lord,
just as it is written in the law of the Lord,
Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,
and to offer the sacrifice of
a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,
in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.

Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon.
This man was righteous and devout,
awaiting the consolation of Israel,
and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit
that he should not see death
before he had seen the Christ of the Lord.
He came in the Spirit into the temple;
and when the parents brought in the child Jesus
to perform the custom of the law in regard to him,
he took him into his arms and blessed God, saying:

“Now, Master, you may let your servant go
in peace, according to your word,
for my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you prepared in the sight of all the peoples:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and glory for your people Israel.”

The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him;
and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother,
“Behold, this child is destined
for the fall and rise of many in Israel,
and to be a sign that will be contradicted
and you yourself a sword will pierce
so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

...

When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions
of the law of the Lord,
they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.
The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom;
and the favor of God was upon him.

There are two things to look at today, the feast of the Presentation, and the gospel that would otherwise have been read on the 4th Sunday, Matthew Ch 3, with the important list of Beatitudes. I think the two themes are closely linked.

Part I. The Presentation of the child Jesus in the temple.

The presenting of the first-born male child was an ancient rite, and an important one. Offering the first fruits, the best of the best, to God is a very basic thing to do. It is a statement of gratitude, and also an expression of dependence.

The idea appears in many forms in Jewish and Christian traditions. It may be seen in the great medieval cathedrals, built at a time when craftsmen felt honoured to work on 'god's house', so it is said. Something of a corruption of the ideal might be seen in the custom of recent memory that a good Catholic family would hope to have a priest and a nun from among the children - but not the eldest son! For him to carry on the family business or take over the farm. Let 'little John the sickly one' go off to be a priest, and he can 'say the mass in black' when the time comes to commit the parents to their graves.

Everything we have comes from God, and there is nothing more fitting than to offer the best of it back as a token declaring that we willingly acknowledge our dependence on the Lord.

It is a great shame that our baptismal rite does not emphasise this above everything else. Perhaps we need to walk away from the idea of our babies being born subject to 'original sin', and simply dedicate them to the Father from whom all blessings flow, with joy and gratitude and hope, willing them to take their place in the created cosmos. Let the bath, that symbolises a metanoia of dying to an old life and rising to a new, come at a later time, perhaps in adulthood.

Part II. The Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor in spirit...

Mathew opens his account of the teaching of Jesus in Galilee with a unique composition. There are eight blessings, or perhaps eight types of people are declared blessed, or perhaps we can say there are eight attitudes that we are invited to develop if we would think of ourselves as being endowed with life's blessings.

I like to think of them as attitudes – but we have to admit these are not attitudes we can easily adopt. Even the wording of these eight is enigmatic, puzzling. Let's restrict our reflection to the first: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I had some thoughts on this ready to publish on Thursday, when our editor decided to bring us a chapter from a book of Eugene Stockton's dealing with this very topic, and Brian followed up with his own take on the matter, quite at odds with Eugene's – and both of them are miles away from what I had intended to say. So it becomes necessary to briefly make my point, always with the intention of offering something to those who would reflect on the Sunday Readings for their spiritual nourishment.

The fact that Matthew places the beatitudes virtually on the title page of his compilation of Jesus' teaching seems to mean that he considered them a summary of all that follows. I would take this one step further, and say that the first beatitude, blessed are the poor in spirit, is the KEY to understanding EVERYTHING.

Unfortunately (or should we say, predictably) 'poor in spirit' is the subject of endless confusion as to its meaning. Luke's gospel, written before Matthew's, has simply, 'blessed are the poor' – which leads us to wonder why did Matthew feel the need to add the rider: 'in spirit'. Was it precisely to take the emphasis off those in economic poverty and social inequity. It would seem a very strange opening to the message of the saviour Jesus if it began with money!

At this point of the gospel according to Matthew, we are not talking about a social condition, actual poverty as opposed to actual wealth. This would hardly be a valid as a key or foundational declaration underpinning the rest of the gospel. At best it would make the gospel a charter of social reform, an idea which in fact is never without its advocates but one which has never satisfied the whole community of followers of Jesus. The endless tug-'o-war between interpretations shows that we have not yet touched the heart of the matter.

The only valid meaning of the gospel is in it being a charter and a teaching manual for the journey of the spirit. Sign of the desolate condition of the Western world at present is its total rejection of the spiritual.

So let's leave aside all practical matters, like how can poor people possibly feel blessed in their circumstances, whether rich people are forever damned, whether there is some contradiction in helping the poor to rise out of their poverty or some noble side to helping the rich put their money to good causes. In brief, nobody wants to be poor; for some it is hell here and now; and yet if all the wealth of the world were poured out to solve poverty there would still be poor people around. None of this is at issue in the beatitudes.

What then? What is at issue?

I think Jesus is pointing to an attitude that is fundamental to everyone's life if we are to be 'happy', or shall we say successful at living a good life. There's an attitude that has to be the foundation on which everything is built, the concrete slab we construct our house on. A basic point of view, a way of looking at ourselves, the world around us, life, death, God and the whole of reality. What we must have is an attitude of dependence.

This is the opposite to the attitude of being self-sufficient, content and proud in being a 'self-made man'. Be we ever so rich, accomplished, comfortable and secure, we are still in fact as dependent as the poorest one alive.

And how is all this contained in that enigmatic 'Blessed are the poor in spirit'. Well, think of it this way: while some of us might forget how dependent we really are, while paying our insurance premiums or working the stock exchange, the poor never forget it. For them it is second nature, being aware they have no reserves, no security, nothing but themselves and the hope of something turning up for the next meal.

They are not blessed for being poor, but in being poor they know how dependent they are, and this is the blessing.

Life does not trick them with grandiose schemes or empty promises. They live day by day. If they can come to terms with their actual circumstances (which may be neither more nor less difficult to do for them than for anyone else) they will find it makes sense to say that they are dependent for everything, for food, clothes, shelter, life itself.

Blessed because they know this and it's a part of all their thinking. They understand the first rule: Not to make a god of your ambitions or your dreams. Not to force your way upon others. Not to be tricked by the conceit of your own self-admiration. Not to make yourself the end and purpose of your being. Not to take undue pride in your achievements.

Rather, in acknowledging the gift of life they will offer themselves in service. Caring for your mates, for the one next door, offering an open door to the wayfarers and the strangers who cross your path, these things are characteristic of the very poor. And this will be the same whether you respond in terms of Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or Confucian or Aboriginal wisdom. For Muslims it is the beginning and the end, for the very word, Islam, means voluntary submission to God LINK  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam.

In the 'secular' world respect for justice and objective truth amounts to the same thing.

We worry the bones of dogma and creed to find a succinct meaning at the heart of christian faith. I would suggest that this is surely it: that Jesus found himself sent to lay down and teach the foundation for a healthy life, a healthy world, and that foundation consists in our acknowledging that everything comes to us from beyond. We are dependent.

So is the ground cut from under the boots of pride. We are reminded of the old saying: The glory of God is 'man' fully alive.

***

Struggling over recent weeks to grasp whatever is contained in the word 'archetype', I came to wonder whether the Beatitudes might be pointers to certain basic values, identifiable in certain social 'types', which may then be called 'archetypes'.

So this week I ask myself, what if Matthew's 'poor in spirit' refers to an archetypal value, a value that is sensed deep within, a value that is not readily described, that is manifest in many different ways, that is so 'archaic', so elementary, that one cannot put one's finger on it with a simple example.

If this is the case we would have at last an explanation of the conundrum contained in this first of all beatitudes: Why are the poor blessed? What is blessed about being poor? Why should the poor be blessed instead of the rich, the lazy instead of the industrious, the simple ones instead of those who work hard in getting a good education, and so on? And are the rich forever damned? We would see that these are the wrong questions because the beatitude is not about the things they are concerned with.

'Poor in spirit' is something more basic. It harks back to that primitive instinct that led Abraham to raise a knife, ready to make a holocaust of his first-born as a sign of his submission to his god. A messenger intervened to stay the knife, to declare a stop to child sacrifice. You will keep the gift but be always mindful it is given, never quite your own. In your maturity you will know that your very self is given, to be given back.

The poor are not blessed because they are poor; there is nothing blessed about poverty, except for the attitude it engenders. Losing sight of the basic reality of our dependence is the price we pay for achieving wealth and the security it seems to promise - but we can wake up to it, and by reflection keep ourselves grounded on this solid foundation, as many do.

Blessed are those who willingly acknowledge their dependence.

Blessed are those who willingly live in submission to God.

For of them is God's people made.

********************************************************************************

It depends on what you're looking for.

If you're expecting a Messiah to fix our problems and by taking over the world put an end to cruel oppression, the lust for power, and greed, you might see Jesus presenting himself to the Father, ready at his service. This was perhaps the expectation reflected in the first reading from the prophet Malachi.

But if you're looking for a 'saviour' who will very gently show us how to re-align our thinking, transform our thoughts on life's meaning, solve problems deriving from our blindness, our small mindedness, our petty jealousies, our fear and our addiction to this comfortable life, then you may see the presentation of this baby in the temple as a statement by the parents, in line with law and tradition, that all they have comes from god, and they give of their best in return in gratitude for the enormous gift of life, of well-being, of friendship and of love.

This, I think, is the point Luke is making when he quotes the old-time Law that every first-born is to be consecrated, declared holy and set apart for the service of god. Nothing but the best. The tradition harks back to that dark moment in the beginning when Abraham felt obliged to offer his first-born to god in sacrifice, as a holocaust. A messenger intervened, forbidding Abraham to lay a finger on the boy, ending forever that primitive compulsion not merely to give the gift, but by destroying remove it totally from human use. For that, a sheep will be slaughtered to satisfy the human need of shedding blood to demonstrate our fearful subservience.

The idea of offering the first fruits to god is basic to religion and appears in many other forms in Jewish and Christian traditions. It may be seen in the great medieval cathedrals, built at a time when craftsmen felt honoured to work on 'god's house', so it is said. Something of a corruption of the ideal might be seen in the custom in recent memory that a good catholic family would hope to have a priest and a nun from among the children - but not the eldest son! For him to carry on the family business or take over the farm. Let 'little John the sickly one' go off to be a priest, and he can 'say the mass in black' when the time comes to commit the parents to their graves.


So much for the Presentation in the Temple. If we were not commemorating this event, this year we would read the scriptures set down for the 4th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Matthew 5:1-12.

I believe that what Matthew gives us as the introduction to the teaching of Jesus is so important it makes no sense to pass it over for any reason.

In the Beatitudes we have a formulation of the mission and purpose of this boy to whom they gave the name Jesus which means saviour.

Thirty or so years later he would be standing on a hill overlooking the lake of Genesareth, addressing a crowd of local people curious to hear what he was about. As Matthew coyly writes: He opened his mouth and this is what he taught them:

    "Blessed are the poor in spirit..."


I have come to the conviction that these six words are the KEY to everything that follows - everything - and they even explain what that presentation of the baby in the temple was about.


By curious coincidence editor Brian posted a chapter from Eugene Stockton's recently re-released book Landmarks: A Spiritual Search in a Southern Land, in which he deals with this very topic, the first Beatitude: Blessed are the poor in spirit... http://www.catholica.com.au/gc0/eds/011_eds_300114.php , Brian's response at http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=148621 leaves us in no doubt that the meaning of this saying is as far from resolution as it ever was. Even Luke's parallel text famously determines that it is the poor who are blessed - avoiding the suggestion that it is not the actually poor but the spiritually poor who are blessed.

I found about 15 translations, mostly quite recent ones, that expand on the 'poor in spirit', starting with one of the earliest, J. B. Phillips (1962) “How happy are the humble-minded", through the CEV (1995): "God blesses those people who depend only on him", to the ERV (2006): "those who know they are spiritually in need". Readers may wish to check out the rest at http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%205:3.
 
Following on from some of the recent discussions on Catholica, particularly about archetypes, I found myself wondering whether we might have here something much deeper than either material poverty or being humble-minded. It would be something that is exemplified in some way in 'the poor'.

First, to spell out what I think those six words contain, as a statement in current English:

The ones who get it,
the people who understand life and its purpose,
and know how to navigate through its tortuous paths,
are those who have as the foundation of their thinking an attitude
that is very similar to one that is commonly found in the poor, in the very poor.

I would like to say that there is an attitude found universally in 'the poor' that typifies the attitude anyone ought to have towards God, to be blessed by him. But it is important not to digress into comparisons of material poverty and wealth, and whether those who are really poor ever feel themselves blessed. What is it?

In a word - dependence. The reality of life for them is that they are totally dependent. Having no resources other than their own resourcefulness, they depend on their small plot of land to grow food enough for a family, or on what they can catch from the shore since they have no boat to go out to where the fish are feeding, or in the modern welfare state they depend absolutely on the fortnightly payment from the Department, or perhaps working in some foreign country doing the hard or dirty or boring things that locals feel are beneath them.

Seen from the other side, the poor do not have the attitude that prides itself in being self-made and successful, strong, self-reliant, proud and satisfied, even sometimes disdainful of others who have achieved less.

The attitude of dependence is the foundation of respect, gratitude, trust, hope and even love. Without it not one of these is possible.

Knowing you are dependent:  recognising that dependence on nature or chance or other people is the only reality. It is knowing that when all hopes and dreams are spent you're still depending on something turning up for the next meal.

Is this what Jesus was talking about?

Does he mean that this dependency is the basic reality of all life, the concrete slab on which our house stands? Be we ever so rich, accomplished, comfortable and secure, we are still in fact as dependent as the poorest one alive. While some of us might forget this while paying our insurance premiums or working the stock exchange, the poor never forget it. That's why they are blessed.

Blessed because they know this and incorporate it into all their thinking. They understand the first rule: Not to make a god of your ambitions or your dreams. Not to force your way upon others. Not to be tricked by the conceit of your own self admiration. Not to make yourself the end and purpose of your being. Not to take undue pride in your achievements.

Rather in acknowledging the gift of life they will offer themselves in service. Caring for your mates, for the one next door, offering an open door to the wayfarer and the stranger who cross your path, is characteristic of the very poor. And this will be the same whether you respond in terms of Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or Confucian or Aboriginal wisdom. For Muslims it is the beginning and the end for the very word, Islam, means voluntary submission to God LINK  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam. Respect for justice and objective truth in the 'secular' world is the same thing.

We worry the bones of dogma and creed to find a succinct meaning at the heart of christian faith. I would suggest that this is surely it: that Jesus found himself sent to lay down the foundation for a healthy life, a healthy world, and that foundation consists in our acknowledging that everything comes to us from beyond. We are dependent. So is the ground cut from under the boots of pride. We are reminded of the old saying:



Struggling over recent weeks to grasp whatever is contained in the word 'archetype', I came to wonder whether  the Beatitudes might be pointers to certain basic values, identifiable in certain social 'types', which may then be called 'archetypes'.

When we look at the first beatitude we know it can refer to those living in relative poverty in any given community, and in this it provides some foundation for the current 'preferential option for the poor'. However Matthew's text has 'poor in spirit' which seems intended to suggest a different perspective. Much has been written to explain what 'poor in spirit' means, not always convincingly. So this week I ask myself, what if it refers to an archetypal value, a value that is sensed deep within, a value that is not readily described, that is manifest in many different ways, that is so 'archaic', so elementary, that one cannot put one's finger on it with a simple example.

If this is the case we would have at last an explanation of the conundrum contained in this first of all beatitudes: Why are the poor blessed? What is blessed about being poor? Why should the poor be blessed instead of the rich, the lazy instead of the industrious, the simple ones instead of those who work hard in getting a good education, and so on? These are the wrong questions because the beatitude is not about the things they are concerned with.

It is something more basic. The poor are not blessed because they are poor; there is nothing blessed about poverty, except for the attitude it engenders. Losing sight of the basic reality of our dependence is the price we pay for achieving security and wealth - but we can wake up to it, and by reflection keep ourselves grounded on this solid foundation, as many do.








*****
*****
EARLY IDEAS

Luke puts the meaning for christians on the lips of an old man and an old woman, Simeon and
Anna who represent those who were on the lookout for a restoration of the reign of god in Israel.
"My eyes have seen your salvation, which you prepared in the sight of all peoples, a light of
revelation to the gentiles and glory to your people Israel.”

We will find a little more to say about this.


If we were to ask ourselves what did Jesus make of his presentation, later on when he grew up,
we would find the answer very clearly in the gospel passage set for the 4th Sunday which is
unfortunately overshadowed by this celebration of the presentation. Matthew makes a point of
presenting the charter of this new preacher at the start of his account of his teaching. The
'Beatitudes' are unfortunately little understood and their importance hardly recognised. In fact
they contain the whole message of the new reign of god. I want to confine myself to just the first
of the eight: Blessed are the poor in spirit! This says it all.

Matthew is not concerned with poverty in the economic sense; we can find that application in
Luke. Matthew opens the lesson with the most fundamental of all principles of the spiritual life
to which everyone is called in the reign of god: to be poor in spirit.

Undoubtedly the meaning is not immediately obvious, especially to the young who are naturally
full of ambition and pride and self-importance. For many this will be a distant goal, although we
see examples of this necessary attitude in those who are awarded for their achievements and
show that they recognise they owe their success to others, and to god.

Perhaps for most it takes parenthood to bring us to our first real experience of humility, in which
we recognise that our newborn is a marvel beyond anything we could claim credit for.

When we have gone through all the possible interpretations of the meaning of the gospel I think
we must eventually come to the end of our searching. The only valid meaning of the gospel is in
it being a charter and a teaching manual for the journey of the spirit. Sign of the desolate
condition of the Western world at present is its total rejection of the spiritual.

Edward Farrell got it right in his small volume, 'The Father is very fond of me" (1975) pp. 81 et
seq.:  

When Jesus speaks of himself as Son, he is not speaking of himself as child, but as one who isall that the Father is. The mystery of Jesus lies in the fact that we know nothing about himbecause he never acted out of himself. There is no indication  that he ever did his "own thing";Christ was obedient, which means that he listened deeply, radically. The root word for"obedience" is the same as it is for the word "pray"; it means to listen. Christ prayed deeply, he listened deeply to the reality of the Father. Jesus reveled not himself, but the Father. He is all thatthe Father is, and what he is, he has called us to become. Jesus has racidalized our prayer because prayer is not a burden to be done, but the task of becoming not only who we are but who we areall together. The  consequence of Christ's prayer was "all that I have learned from the Father, Ihave made known to you. Because of this, you are my friend."

The way is to listen and to learn. It requires that we empty ourselves of the self to create a space
which may be filled with god.

It's going to take a bit of writing and re-writing to get this into shape and sharp enough to cut.


Blessed are the poor...


This is the key; that is why is it the very first statement in Matthews account of Jeshua's teaching.


I've been working on this reflection since the year began. That's how subtle the idea is, or how
simple. Just too simple for words. Just too subtle for analysis. And yet there are examples
cropping up every day, of people who know exactly what the first beatitude means. One was
posted back in early January on this forum:
http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=147293. If I were to list all the examples that
are like this one I would have my reflection written for me many times over, from the life
experience that is shared here. I only make the point because I suspect that in the confusion of
poor teaching and preaching and dogmatic attitudes in the church, some who live the first
beatitude don't recognise that this is the key to everything, as declared by Matthew when he set it
up as the foundation in the teaching of Jesus - the one that encompasses everything.

*****

These ideas are very familiar to many who contribute to the conversations on this website as this Australia Day reflection illustrates (http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=148429) :

Proud of our heritage is one thing while 'Patriotism' has been known to go off the rails if you add some selfish.

we used have a heritage of 'how can I help?' ....seems to have changed to 'not in my backyard' which I think is a shame.

I look back and wonder if this attitude of 'build your family a mini empire' ...'2 and half kids and an investment property' .....'send your kids to that better school' hasn't driven us into little groups who guard their little empires at all costs.

I think this present 'aussie' generation need tidy up their game a bit on the world stage or we'll be seen as the new nazis into the future.

I myself was in that comfort zone for many years and thought it impossible to survive outside it ...but once you get used to 'no security' it actually has pluses.

Is the first time I've watched from the outside ....certainly an education, and for the first time; while the parents are raving about their exploits and empires I tend to look at the kids to see what they are getting out of it ...usually sitting quietly over there chatting on their IPads ......with their imaginary friends.