Ezek22 Lectionary Reflections

Today’s Readings (text):

• Ezekiel 37:1-14 or other
• Ps 104:1-2, 24, 27-30, 35
• Romans 8:22-27
• John 7:37-39

Several alternatives for the First Reading can be found in the lectionary for the Pentecost Vigil, such as the story of the Tower of Babel from Genesis 11, which I retold on this site, here. However, I chose the readings above because of a recent discovery in medicine.

As you may know, the vaccine for tuberculosis, once quite effective, has stopped working, and this terrible lung disease takes the lives of about 1.7 million people every year.

We hear today, if you did the reading from the book of Ezekiel, that elephant bones are brought back to life. Before the bones come back to life, though, the prophet is ordered to walk among them and prophesy to them:

Then [the Lord] said to me: Prophesy over these bones, and say to them: Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord God to these bones: See! I will bring spirit into you, that you may come to life. I will put sinews upon you, make flesh grow over you, cover you with skin, and put spirit in you so that you may come to life and know that I am the Lord.

So, Ezekiel does this and God brings life back into the bones, sending his spirit into them and renewing them, as we hear in the psalm reading. It is one of the most amazing miracle stories in the Old Testament.

Recently, scientists at Vanderbilt University have found what might be a way to revive the tuberculosis vaccine. Douglas Kernodle, M.D., associate professor of medicine (along with colleagues around the world), thought the vaccine had stopped working because it had become too “wimpy,” the online journal ScienceDaily reported.

Scientists hypothesized that the vaccine had evolved, acquiring traits in its genes that made it less potent, no longer causing the same level of immune response when it was given to humans. But whatever the cause, it was not nearly as effective at causing the production of antibodies against the real disease of tuberculosis.

When scientists took away these traits, using genetics, they produced what they thought would be a more effective vaccine, but still, it seemed not to regain its initial effectiveness. This is how things work—in science and in the elephant graveyard. If you have patience and keep at it, though, just as Ezekiel did, the Lord will send out his spirit and bring renewal and new discoveries.

Dr. Kernodle also kept going in his research to discover the underlying mechanism: it wasn’t that the vaccine was weaker, but rather, he said, it had become better at producing antioxidants, chemicals that suppress the normal immune response. If the immune response is suppressed, antibodies against the real disease don’t get produced as much, and the individual may not be immune to the disease.

Now that scientists know what caused the loss of effectiveness, they can reduce the bacterium’s ability to produce these antioxidants using molecular methods. The resulting vaccine bacterium has proven much more effective in mice, and the technique of altering the antioxidant capacity may lead to more effective vaccines against other diseases, such as HIV and malaria, we hope.

Without our training in molecular genetics and medicine, none of these discoveries would be possible. Suffering of millions of people would have no chance of being alleviated. That long-term study on our part is like Ezekiel walking up and down, prophesying to the bones. It doesn’t do any good until God sends his Spirit. God’s Holy Spirit brings to these scientists—and to you and me—certain abilities and gifts, and we continue to work to show love to our fellow human beings, acting as sort of God’s hands and legs (and mind) on Earth.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 22:30, 23:6-11
• Ps 16:1, 2, 5, 7-11
• John 17:20-26

Free speech is the issue in Chicago and other Illinois and Indiana cities this week, as an atheist group has taken out ads on city buses. Money for the advertising comes from the private group, but the buses themselves have the seal of the city on them. You can see coverage of the issue, along with user comments, on one of the blogs run by the Chicago Tribune.

First Amendment cases have generally been decided in ways that preclude government sponsorship of any particular religion over any other. That is, free speech is OK if it doesn’t promote any particular set of beliefs.

Muslims, Roman Catholics, and a total of eight religious organizations ran ads on city buses in 2008, and the ACLU says this is no different: the same rules should apply.

The blog post in the Tribune did not say whether the ads run by religious organizations promoted a particular set of beliefs or simply were intended to reach people of their own faiths, like information about the time and place of a pancake breakfast on the public service cable channel. The ad run by atheists, “In the beginning, Man created God,” promotes a particular set of beliefs about God.

Cases in the past have found it illegal to promote religion over even irreligion. That implies that it would also be illegal to promote irreligion over religion. We must ask: Since the government (the transit authorities in these cities) is running the ad, no matter who’s paying for it, is it legal to run these kinds of ads on city buses?

In my opinion, the question is parallel to asking whether or not it’s legal to display the 10 Commandments on a public courthouse, provided a private person or non-governmental agency paid for the display and is “leasing” the ad space, which the courthouse made available to the public at published rates.

No, I say. For me, all of these cross the line between church and state. I don’t care where the money comes from. A government bus or courthouse, paid for with my tax dollars, should not be able to preach any message about God. Jesus himself commanded us to give the government our taxes, and give to God, our Father, our souls.

People took great exception to a recent case in Ohio, in which an officer (the town’s police chief, I believe) told students at one elementary school that all he needed was the 10 Commandments. Clearly, this promotes one set of beliefs over another by a government official, acting in his official capacity. The truth of his words is irrelevant in America. His uniform was what mattered.

There are exceptions, of course, which exist because of a technicality. Money has the words “In God We Trust” printed on tender issued by the government, but statements concerning God take up a very small proportion of the intent of producing the money. The same is true of the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the words “Under God.” As a proportion of the entirety of the message, the part concerning God is small, and it offends no one to leave those words out as you say the Pledge.

But there’s just no talking to people who cross the line between church and state with a major proportion of their message. In fact, the atheists’ entire message is about a (non)belief in God. However, I will call your attention to today’s gospel reading, in which Jesus prays as follows:

I pray not only for these, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. … I will make it known that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”

For those of us in the world who believe in and follow Jesus in our daily lives, let’s join together as one united voice. What does he mean to you? What does it mean to “believe in him” through the words of his apostles, then and now?

And whatever your personal story is, let it be known for all time, that people who don’t believe the same thing you do can still be happy and live good, loving lives. You were taught love in a different way, but your actions, not your words or advertising slogans, are what define you. For atheists, too, actions matter. A definition of what is “good” and what is “evil” comes from a different place, but I can only hope it is the same definition.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 1:1-11
• Ps 47:2-3, 6-9
• Ephesians 1:17-23 or 4:1-13
• Mark 16:15-20

The readings listed above are for churches that celebrate this Sunday as the Ascension of the Lord. Some churches celebrated the Ascension of the Lord on Thursday, May 21.

Anyway, this is the gospel passage, right before Jesus ascended to his throne at the Father’s right hand, where Jesus tells his followers what they should do: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, and whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

I chose these readings for today because of the critical interest in the Gospel of Mark after 16:8, where it seems to have stopped and then picked up again with this very different-sounding passage known as the “Great Commission.” Let’s muddy the waters a little about this passage: these are the exact words of Mark’s Gospel, at least insofar as whoever wrote them here (they aren’t in any of the great manuscripts) put them in.

Note that there are two things which, if done, guarantee the initial salvation in Christ: believing in the gospel and being baptized. That is, Jesus said you would be “saved” if you believed in the gospel (his story of love and faith in God) and got yourself baptized.

However, let’s consider the counterpart to that: whoever doesn’t believe—presumably in the aforementioned gospel (Christ’s love and faith in God)—is condemned. This is where many people misunderstand Christ’s teachings, as reported to us in scripture.

He never said baptism was necessary for salvation; he only said it is sufficient, along with belief in the gospel.

Would you say Moses and David were condemned? They were never baptized, so if you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, you can only conclude that Moses and David were condemned. That’s just unthinkable.

What about Gandhi? He was never baptized, yet he himself preached a great message of love to a billion people. It is unthinkable that God would have condemned Gandhi. He only condemns those who do not believe in the gospel, which ultimately comes down to Jesus’ teachings about love. Gandhi did believe in that, and he proclaimed it throughout his life.

Thus, if you are a Christian, do not tell people who practice Christ’s law of love that they have to be baptized in order to be saved. It just isn’t true. They will be condemned if they don’t believe in the gospel or in Christ’s message of love, as Jesus taught us. But Christ never said they would be condemned simply for not having been baptized.

Consider Gandhi’s thoughts about Jesus. He called Jesus’ sacrifice (dying, according to God’s will, so your friends could be forgiven of their sins and share eternal life with God) the “perfect act.” Gandhi may have believed that Jesus’ act was ineffective, but he definitely believed the love in the act itself was perfect. That love is the gospel of Jesus Christ, so I’m pretty sure Gandhi believed in it.

So, get baptized or don’t get baptized. It’s the love that matters.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 18:9-18
• Ps 47:2-7
• John 16:20-23

A new book by four reporters from the New York Daily News, entitled American Icon, is about Roger Clemens, the pitcher for the New York Yankees who told Congress he had not used performance-enhancing drugs, although his trainer admits injecting steroids and human growth hormone on numerous occasions between 1998 and 2001.

Now, lawyers are trying to determine whether Mr. Clemens committed perjury, which is defined as knowingly giving false information that is material to a case while under oath.

In today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was taken to a tribunal in Achaia. The judge there, Gallio, said the complaints against Paul were not under his jurisdiction, since they concerned the rules at the synagogue. So when the Jewish leaders took Paul to the synagogue, he was punished, and Gallio essentially washed his hands of it.

Recently, Major League Baseball suspended Manny Ramirez of the Los Angeles Dodgers for 50 games because he had elevated levels in his blood of a hormone (human chorionic gonadotropin) that would mask the elevated levels of steroids. There will be no hearing before Congress about his case, but Roger Clemens, with 354 career victories and 4,672 strikeouts to his credit, arrogantly forced his case on Congress.

One difference between Mr. Clemens and St. Paul, you see, was pride. Paul remained true to his vows (and God) despite earthly punishment, demonstrated by his shaving his head. Clemens, on the other hand, flaunted his career and remained true only to himself, believing that no one would see through his false pride in his game. He was a great pitcher, no doubt, but this lesson is not about talent. It’s about keeping your word and giving praise to God for the gifts he has given you, rather than claiming them as your own doing entirely.

Bragging about our own goodness is phony at best and often leads to worse stuff. That’s why pride is one of the so-called “seven deadly sins.” It never ends there. The taking of steroids will cost Mr. Ramirez 50 games and a bunch of money. That is pretty cheap, compared to what it could have cost him if he had gone down Mr. Clemens’s path (his soul).

Lawyers will decide whether or not the false evidence Mr. Clemens gave Congress under oath was material to any case. If it’s completely irrelevant to the anti-trust exemptions granted by Congress to Major League Baseball (or to any other laws Congress oversees), there can be no perjury, and Mr. Clemens’s shame, which grows worse and worse even today, as the book points out, is of no concern to Congress.

As for us fans, one of the most incredible events in baseball occurred last year, when Yankee Stadium hosted its last game. In the festivities, the name of Roger Clemens was completely omitted, as if he had never pitched for the New York franchise. It’s a shame to make a mockery out of such a nice game, which has provided hours of enjoyment for so many people on summer afternoons and evenings for over a century.

Book info: American Icon: The Fall of Roger Clemens and the Rise of Steroids in America’s Pastime, by Teri Thompson, Nathaniel Vinton, Michael O’Keeffe and Christian Red, 454 pages. Alfred A. Knopf. $26.95.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 16:11-15
• Ps 149:1-6, 9b
• John 15:26–16:4a

Today we hear the psalmist proclaim, “Sing to the LORD a new song.” Certainly among the top 100 quoted sentences from the Bible, it brings back memories for me, every time I hear it, of a March day in 1996.

That was the day I performed Paul Hindemith’s Sonata for Trumpet and Piano with an awesome trumpeter who was attending Indiana University in Bloomington at the time. If you’ve never heard this piece, I recommend either the Wynton Marsalis (on trumpet) or Glenn Gould (on piano) recordings. The work, in three movements, is among the required repertoire for any trumpeter worth mentioning.

If there is a single 10-to-15-minute period in all my life when time stood still, this performance would have to be that moment. Those few minutes have been indelible in my mind and thoughts ever since.

Paul Hindemith was German, but the date of the piece, 1939, should call to mind what was happening in his home country at the time. The Nazis had invaded Chechoslovakia, taken over Austria, and moved into Poland, starting World War II. They were beginning the genocide of Jews, and Hindemith’s wife was Jewish.

The Nazis banned Hindemith’s music, despite his German origin, even though he himself wasn’t Jewish. This forced him into exile, and he was living in Switzerland at the time of composition.

The first movement is restless and marked with outbursts in the piano. The second movement, presumably a march, is also filled with great tension. The final movement, marked “Trauermusik” (sad music), is like a funeral piece. It is based on a chorale, once harmonized by J.S. Bach himself, entitled “Alle Menschen müssen sterben” (All men must die).

Hindemith’s purpose in writing the piece may not have included protesting against the Nazis, but that certainly would have been his politics. He was in the middle of an entire series of writing one sonata for every instrument, in order to provide practical recital music for musicians in the 20th century.

Still, the piece became one of the most profound lamentations about the horrors of war, made abominable by what the Nazis did to the Jews in the Holocaust.

After our brief performance, there was a period of silence that lasted longer than normal before the applause. Several people were emotionally moved, and my own father came backstage afterwards to tell me he was sure God was guiding my hands during the performance.

I was in a zone during the actual performance, so I couldn’t say I was aware of any thoughts directed at or about God. However, when art speaks so clearly and beautifully, certainly there is something more to it than what simple humans could invent. We just aren’t that gifted on our own, but when we put our hands to the keys or our lips to the trumpet, allowing God into our souls couldn’t be a negative thing for the performance.

We strike the keys or blow the horn, but surely, it is God who makes the music.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48
• Ps 98:1-4
• 1 John 4:7-10
• John 15:9-17

Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, was John McCain’s running mate during the 2008 presidential election. Her teenage daughter, Bristol, had a baby, and that became a source of minor scandal. Last week, Bristol came out on TV and advised teens across America not to follow her example. She told them they should not have babies until after they get married.

In today’s gospel, our Lord says he told his disciples about love “so that my joy may be in you and your joy might be complete.” What is this “complete” joy that Jesus talks about? If we’re being purely mathematical about it, what are the various techniques available to us in our world today (i.e., aside from heaven) for maximizing our “joy” function?

He continues, “This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.” Here, let’s focus on the word “as,” in the sense of “in the same way,” and try to understand how it might be applied to unwed teen pregnancy.

Let me first provide a few statistics about unwed teen pregnancy in America.

A thesis published by the College of New Jersey in 2003, here, states that Americans in 1960 pretty much were guaranteed to be married if they had kids, citing the statistic that over 90 percent of all babies were born to married couples.

For whites, the rate of unwed motherhood was 11 percent in 1980 and 17 percent in 1988. By 1997, unwed mothers gave birth to 26 percent of all white babies. For African Americans, the numbers are slightly higher, with out-of-wedlock births accounting for about 69 percent of all births in 1997.

Now, if a woman is defined only as a mother, you might see pregnancy as full self-actualization, a “complete” joy. However, women are more complex: they have many, many dimensions to their personalities, many more gifts given to them by our Creator. Anyone who has ever known and truly loved a woman knows this about all women.

To study a few of these dimensions, we can look at Census data, which shows that unwed mothers have a lower educational attainment, a lower probability of eventually getting married, a higher chance of receiving welfare payments, and a lower family income.

Because studies like this don’t take place in a vacuum, we can’t scientifically say whether the unwed pregnancy causes a lower family income, for example, or a lower family income causes the unwed pregnancy. These paths to a personal joy that is less “complete” simply coincide with unwed pregnancy in a high number of cases.

So it would seem, women who do not have babies out of wedlock as teenagers experience a more complete “joy,” at least as far as scientists can measure. But there are other aspects to human beings that bring happiness that may also be affected by pregnancy, in greater or lesser degrees.

Finally, I want to conclude with a word about sexuality. Intimacy is a closeness or a connection with our minds, in a psychological or sharing sense, but it’s also a physical closeness with our bodies. Both of these are unique and wonderful feelings. If you believe God created you, then he also created these wonderful feelings in you.

Perhaps you’ve heard that “familiarity breeds contempt.” It’s safe to say that “contempt” does not mean the same thing as “joy.” Sometimes when things become familiar, they lose their capacity to bring us joy. To maximize the joy in your sex life rather than having sex get familiar and unexciting before you even get married, you might wait to experience a woman’s or man’s sexuality until you have also given that person the fullest legal commitment two people can make to each other.

That is what I think Jesus meant, as well, when he said “as I love you.” He meant “as completely as humans can do.” Give everything you physically, mentally, emotionally—and legally—can. That is the love of Christ. Because he was the Savior, he could give more: his very life. But for us mere mortals, to love another person, let it be as complete as we humans can possibly accomplish.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 15:22-31
• Ps 57:8-10, 12
• John 15:12-17

This weekend, President Obama will receive an honorary degree from and speak at the graduation ceremony for Notre Dame University, one of the world’s premier Catholic institutions. The honor bestowed upon him has drawn fire from religious leaders who oppose the president’s position on abortion.

In today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles, we see that such debates over the opinions of representatives, elected or otherwise, aren’t unique to our nation.

The “Church” tells believers that it has decided to elect representatives, and it conveys this election in a letter as follows:

Since we have heard that some who went out without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives … who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is [our] decision … not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right.

Opinions among the students at Notre Dame are mixed, and people’s peace of mind has been disturbed (see ND-Response, for instance). Some groups call for prayer, sponsoring a period of adoration followed by a benediction or a million-Rosary drive.

Others are more vocal in opposing the honoring of a man who openly supports a woman’s right to have an abortion. In a statement by the bishop of Ft. Wayne, Ind., the Most Rev. John M. D’Arcy states that the bishop is the “lawgiver” of his local diocese. In his letter, summarized here, he calls the Notre Dame president’s failure to consult the local bishop a “terrible breach” and says it must not continue. In other words, if you don’t understand what you’re supposed to do, call me and I’ll tell you. I’ll give you the law.

To be honest, the “Church” is not complaining about the president’s position; rather, they are complaining about Notre Dame honoring him in a way that might imply endorsement of his policies, especially his support for abortion, which the “Church” believes is an affront to the dignity of the life of the unborn individual. Furthermore, in all the arguments, there is more discussion on the righteousness of the anti-abortion position than there is on ending abortion, which should be the real goal.

At this time, I can’t be sure what President Obama will say as Notre Dame University honors him. As he’s a pretty smart guy, he might stay away from abortion: it won’t affect very many graduates’ lives anyway, and his views would be offensive to most of the people in the audience.

As the representative of the American people, he might just stick to his form—his proven ability to encourage graduates, whether they hold the same or vastly different viewpoints from his own. They are still citizens of this nation, and he is still their president.

However, there’s an opportunity here: the chance to acknowledge—and in some cases, celebrate—our differences. Using a technique right out of the Dark Ages (uncategorical denial that anybody else could be right while you’re wrong), the “Church,” through its local bishop or lawgiver, insults whatever gifts could arise from this presidential visit.

They also turn our focus to one issue, without regard to the rest of our lives or to the whole lives of the graduates of this esteemed university. I agree that abortion is an important issue to discuss, but in that sense, an anology might be made that links the focus here on abortion, raised (so far) only by the “Church,” with the ruling by the representatives in today’s reading that believers should abstain from the meat of animals sacrificed to idols. Surely, we’ve got more pressing issues.

Besides, thinking that Mr. Obama wants to increase the number of abortions doesn’t make much sense. He never said that, and listening to what he says in this controversial scenario could lead to insights into how to reduce the actual number of abortions and eliminate people’s appetite for any abortion at all.

We say, “Only Nixon could go to China,” but because we didn’t realize that when it happened, China is still under Communist rule. And Americans still have abortions, despite the nearly 40-year debate. We need to change the strategy. Go, Mr. President! Maybe Notre Dame is the only university that could extend such an invitation to a pro-choice president. Let’s pray there’s a method to this madness.

Today’s Readings (text):

• Acts 9:26-31
• Ps 22:26a, 27-32
• 1 John 3:18-24
• John 15:1-8

In today’s gospel reading, Jesus tells us that without him, we can do nothing. And that is certainly true, in at least some way, in light of our epistle. We know that our “deeds and truth” would look like digging around for food and defending our young if we didn’t have the “love” Jesus taught us.

In an interesting dissertation on the subject of what motivates us to take action (”perform deeds,” in the words of our epistle writer), here, A.H. Maslow stated in 1943 that we have five basic motivators: (1) physiological well-being, (2) safety, (3) love, (4) esteem, and (5) self-actualization.

There is also an order to these goals that motivate us: we do things to satisfy our most basic need (physiological) first, and only if that goal is achieved do we start to recruit our deeds to achieve the remaining goals in this hierarchy.

John, the great epistle writer, tells us that we ought to love “not in word or speech but in deed and truth.” Christ commanded us to “love” above just about everything else, but bearing in mind Maslow’s work, we understand, of course, that physiological well-being and safety were assumed when Christ made that commandment. And it should make sense that today’s lessons really speak to the hierarchy of needs within each of us, as elaborated by Maslow in his classic work.

Our gospel writer today leads us to a deeper consideration of what happens when these basic needs (or motivational goals) are thwarted in some way. What is it that could thwart these goals? Honestly, almost anything that gets in the way of any of them would be considered a threat, and this thwarting is likely to evoke behavior (deeds) that we would consider abnormal or sick.

This is what is happening as we hear more and more from atheists like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and so on. They do not threaten our physiological well-being or our safety, to be sure (in fact, they are working to defend those goals of ours). But what atheism threatens for believers is the third goal Maslow listed: love. And when love is threatened, don’t be looking for human beings, natural creatures as we are, to recruit any efforts in the name of self-esteem or self-actualization. Those are hopeless if love is threatened, since love is higher than either of those in Maslow’s hierarchy.

Jesus said in today’s gospel passage that the Father (our Creator) will prune every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. This true pruning of our branches (the shaping and forming of our minds) by our Creator is the love shown by Jesus when he came to Earth. He taught us how to love our neighbors and how to worship God. He taught us some pretty good stuff.

And Richard Dawkins has taught us some pretty good stuff as well. We need to keep in mind, though, as we listen with great interest to the many new and wonderful ideas flowing out of every corner of thought, that Christians have been taught that “love” is what Jesus taught us.

Something that threatens those beliefs, given to Christians in childhood lessons, will likely evoke sick or abnormal responses, called up to defend that third basic motivator of all humans, as elucidated by scientists in the 1940s. Do not allow the half-educated flowing of new ideas to threaten the love Jesus taught you: it will only lead to behavior on your part that would not be Christlike. Keep your eye on the prize!