118: Lectio Divina, each word is a diamond

From a commentary on the Diatessaron by Saint Ephrem, deacon

(1, 18-19: SC 121, 52-53)

God’s word is an inexhaustible spring of life

Lord, who can comprehend even one of your words? We lose more of it than we grasp, like those who drink from a living spring. For God’s word offers different facets according to the capacity of the listener, and the Lord has portrayed his message in many colors, so that whoever gazes upon it can see in it what suits him. Within it he has buried manifold treasures, so that each of us might grow rich in seeking them out.

The word of God is a tree of life that offers us blessed fruit from each of its branches. It is like that rock which was struck open in the wilderness, from which all were offered spiritual drink. As the Apostle says: They ate spiritual food and they drank spiritual drink.

And so whenever anyone discovers some part of the treasure, he should not think that he has exhausted God’s word. Instead he should feel that this is all that he was able to find of the wealth contained in it. Nor should he say that the word is weak and sterile or look down on it simply because this portion was all that he happened to find. But precisely because he could not capture it all he should give thanks for its riches.

Be glad then that you are overwhelmed, and do not be saddened because he has overcome you. A thirsty man is happy when he is drinking, and he is not depressed because he cannot exhaust the spring. So let this spring quench your thirst, and not your thirst the spring. For if you can satisfy your thirst without exhausting the spring, then when you thirst again you can drink from it once more; but if when your thirst is sated the spring is also dried up, then your victory would turn to your own harm.

Be thankful then for what you have received, and do not be saddened at all that such an abundance still remains. What you have received and attained is your present share, while what is left will be your heritage. For what you could not take at one time because of your weakness, you will be able to grasp at another if you only persevere. So do not foolishly try to drain in one draught what cannot be consumed all at once, and do not cease out of faintheartedness from what you will be able to absorb as time goes on.

100: Prophetical Theology 1

What is theology? Today we would define “Theology” this way: it is how we understand and explain our faith. Theology is important for us, even if we don't study it. Why? Because it shapes our understanding of our faith, our practice and the pastoral mission of the Church at each period in history. In fact, without being a real person (like the Pope), theology bears a great responsibility in the Church.

The Magisterium of the Church (the teaching of the Pope and the Bishops united with him) is in its turn shaped by theology, by a certain historical way of “doing theology”. Of course the Magisterium has the authority to change, modify, improve the way we do theology, but at the same time the Magisterium is the fruit of a certain period in history, a certain place, a certain school or way of doing Theology. So it is as well very influenced by it. That two ways relationship (influencing and being influenced) between the Magisterium and Theology is important and should be noted.

Awareness

In each period of history, the Church practises theology in a different way, but if you ask people and theologians, and even the Magisterium at that time: “are you aware that you could do things differently?”, they would be very surprised and shocked, because each generation thinks that hers is the only way to do things. But of course, it goes without saying that scholars would never question that fact because it is obvious.

Space and Time

Culture is bound by time and space. Culture is like the soil on which the Seed of the Gospel falls. It determines the outcome even if the Seed is the same. Our way of doing theology is specific to a certain time in history. For instance, we do not do theology as we did 200 years ago, or during medieval times, or during the first six centuries. Space as well shapes theology: the Western way of doing theology (Latin Fathers' tradition) is different from the Eastern way of doing it (Greek Fathers' tradition). Within the West and the East we have more differences as well. Some would be surprised by this diversity, but it is important to see it not like a threat but rather as an important source of richness. John Paul II's call to breathe with both lungs (western and eastern traditions) still resonates in our ears as a duty for the theologian, or better said an improvement to his or her methodology and tools.

Prophetical Theology

In the history of the Church, there is another distinction as well in the way of doing theology, which is: Priestly and Prophetical Theology. These words come from the actual two branches of the Church: the Priestly Branch (the Parish, the Diocese) and the Prophetical Branch (the monasteries, religious life,...) and their way of understanding and practising theology. Prophetical Theology is not that of a common expression, in fact we are more used to another one: Monastic Theology.

Today, “monastic theology” is sort of non-existent. It has been swallowed by “Priestly Theology”, to the point that we only have the latter one. If you ask any theologian: what about “monastic theology”?, or better still “prophetical theology”, he/she will take a long time, remaining silent, wondering: “what does he exactly mean by that expression?”

Lead by, or Leading?

As you can see, all these types/ways of doing theology are mainly influenced by the soil, the human side of the Seed-Soil interaction/alchemy; but it is often happening unconsciously. Only few theologians - often saints - would act and influence positively the way we do theology. We end up ninety-nine per cent of the time by being passively lead by the actual way of doing theology, not questioning it, rather than trying to question it and improve it. The branch of theology that is in charge of that one per cent of work is called “Fundamental Theology”.

Today's Needs

What about today's soil and its needs (the human being)? If you analyse the psychology of the human being before the second world war and after the second world war, including the explosion of the sixties and the seventies, you'll notice that people and their needs are different. Let me take an example to get myself across. Before, people would be won by the argument of authority, which means that people would believe or do something that is morally good not firstly because they are convinced of it but firstly because God said so, or the Church said so. On the other hand, today, people would first want to understand in order to get the gist of it and become convinced of it, and then would need to try it and see, by experience, if it is good or not.

I am not addressing right now the characteristics of the actual youth, but just taking an older comparison that people of an older age would relate to. Today we have other problems and other needs. By the way, the above-mentioned “sixties way” (let us call it like this) is not totally new, it is just that a greater stress is put on it. The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan lady in John 4 is very close to this experiential way of doing things.

Coming back to the changes of recent decades and the “new” needs that appear to have priority, these are showing greater depths and therefore requirements in the modern mind. I can compare it with the normal growth of the human being: before adolescence, and during adolescence. Adolescence is a crisis, but a crisis of growth, therefore it is a positive crisis. What happens in the growth/development of the human being? The body develops and with it new dimensions in the faculties of the soul, the mind, the will. The adolescent is set to start to explore the world, his needs are growing. You can't treat a fifteen-year-old as you treated him when he was ten years old. You need to meet the need of the new development of his faculties, of this new depth that is appearing in him. The development in the West that occurred after World War II generated a similar “crisis of growth”. People's mind, culture, way of doing things before WWII and after it, especially after the 60s-70s crisis of growth are different. Phislosophy and Theology (the way of doing them) are consequently influenced by that cultural change. The Soil changes, the outcome changes.

If you have to explain faith to a ten-year-old, you'd do it one way, but to a twenty-one-year-old, you'll need different arguments, ways, content. Has the theology you are using changed? No, it has not, however it just has to be more detailed, appealing to a wider mind and culture, new challenges, new threats. For instance, the introduction of Psychology, modern Philosophies for instance has been a serious challenge for Philosophy and Theology in the past decades. Many questions rose. Let us just take an emblematic one: “what about Christ's consciousness: was He, in his human nature, aware that he was God? Did his perception/consciousness grow along with his age?” This is one of the most challenging questions theology has to face. If you look deep in it you'll find that his question has repercussions on many other questions, like for instance: once we get closer to the union with God, how does it feel? Well this question and many others appeared just recently (60s-70s), because of the changes, the needs, the developments of new sciences,... Again, the “adolescent” mind is not like the “ten-year-old”.

Asymmetrical education

We need as well to notice the asymmetrical development today in the Christian adult: he or she usually has had some higher level education, he or she has read many books, and is constantly bombarded by tens of new thoughts every day, coming from the multiple media we have. It is true as well that the actual “culture” (I put it in quotations on purpose) is as well, in many ways rather superficial, favouring more the rapid, summarised, saleable information than the deep, transformative, time/energy consuming formation. Today, this of course is narrowing the windows of any serious/deep input in Christian Adult Formation. In this sense we are going (lead by our culture) through the creation of a very dangerous gap that could prevent us from having any connection with the rich past. We are getting more and more isolated from the past. And there is no Christianity without a past, without relating to the Living Stream of the Spiritual Tradition. We are not meant to redefine or reinvent Christianity at each generation, but rather we are invited to receive a living Gift, develop it and hand it to the following generation. Breaking the momentum as we have been doing in these last decades is too dangerous, because it will cost us 50 to 100 years to rebuild, rediscover, and reconnect with the Living Stream.

Urgent Need for a Prophetical Theology

Prophetical Theology, or formerly “Monastic Theology” is a theology that has specific characteristics: it is focused on the experience of the Risen Lord in the Holy Spirit, driven by the “call for holiness” (or so called “second conversion”). It offers the traditional and proven tools/means that help us grow in the experience of Jesus, in order to reach the fullness of Love. It is the “theology of the saints”, the “theology of holiness”. Of course it is rather a contemplative theology, where experience, science and discernment are not dislocated but work together, harmoniously. This theology is an introduction to the Mystery of God, and not only a distant reflection on it. It is a theology that is touched by God, by the Holy Spirit and is therefore humbled and guided by Him.

It is not the basic theology (that would be the Priestly Theology, which is the common one we have in the west) but is rather a more developed one, focused on Jesus' personal call to each one of us, at a certain point in our life. This theology is urgently needed.

Contemplative Theology

Prophetical Theology is Contemplative Theology, in the sense that it forms the student, and introduces him/her into a contemplative state where Theology is not just a mere intellectual object/concept but a living Being (God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit) with whom one enters in a personal relationship, a Being that becomes an experience and an experience that has stages, development, until it reaches its fullness.

For the Fathers of the Church in the early centuries, “Theology” meant: to be in the Son, Contemplating the Father and Loving Him through the Holy Spirit. It was the full experience of God, and not a discourse on God, or an intellectual knowledge. The office of the Theologian was to contemplate God, Loving Him. The office of Theology was to teach how to reach that contemplation of God, how to have this experience of the Risen Lord.

St John The Theologian

Very few were named “Theologians”, actually only one initially: St John. Not that St Paul wasn't a Theologian, but St John the Evangelist embodied the Theologian. In his Gospel one could see the height of his contemplation of Jesus. One could say that St John's Gospel was considered the archetype of the book of any Theologian. His School taught us what is to be a Theologian and how to become one.

(to be continued...)

Reforming Theology, the way to go #1

Some young people, having a general intuitive idea of what Theology might entail, decide to learn Theology. They join a Theology Faculty, or just try some elective courses. After a semester or a year of experience, are their expectations met? Is it a life changing experience for them? Are they bored? Disappointed? What happens in their lives? Or Is there any change to their lives? To their faith? Or to their future career?

What is theology? What is its function in the Church's life? Is it supposed to make any difference in the life of a younger man, younger woman, studying at university? Is it supposed to make any difference in the life of the plain, lay person?

What happened to Theology and its practice through the ages? Is it alive today and in good shape?

Dame Theology is obviously in need of deep-seated reform.

You would be amazed: theology commands and controls many things in the Catholic Church. It commands even the Pope – unconsciously at least. So we need to be very attentive about the way we choose to do theology (or if you prefer: to Theologise). Because if it lacks certain important aspects/ingredients, the orientation, quality, and efficiency of what we do will be compromised?

Vatican II was able to change the things that were ready to be changed. There is no magic in the life of the Church. You reap what you sow. During the decades preceding 1962, serious rifts were developing in different areas of the Church's life: Liturgy, Literal exegesis, Ecclesiology, Fathers of the Church,...

Some areas failed to be renewed: Canon Law, Spiritual Theology,... Yes, even if there had been mammoth attempts during the 1920s-1940s, Spiritual Theology failed to achieve the long awaited renewal.

Theology wasn't in itself a subject of interest. What it is and the way we do it, emphasise the need for reform. Certainly the way we do theology in the Catholic Church today, compared to the 1930’s is very different, but it doesn't mean that we were really aiming directly for a change. It happened spontaneously. But still, central issues in the way we do theology remain blocked. I will name only one: theology is alienated from Spiritual life. (of course the recent Magisterium (Benedict XVI) tried to fill that gap)

In the early centuries, for the Greek Fathers, Theology meant: contemplating God, being in God (you may contemplate God from afar, from outside of Him, but this is not what they meant). It infers that one is first on a journey that will take one, through purification and illumination, and lead one finally to the Port: to the Trinity. He is placed in and united to the Son, facing the Father, and contemplating and loving Him, through the Holy Spirit.

This is why, from early times, only one person initially had the title of “Theologian” and it was St. John. How often have you heard of a Church called: “John the Divine”? This is it. The Divine is an English translation of an early expression “The Theologian”. Not a perfect translation though, but this is it.

Why John was called “THE Theologian”? Why was only John called “The Theologian”? (only later did some others receive that privilege)

Through intuitive perception from early times, Christians perceived in this Gospel, in St. John himself, author of this Gospel, that he was writing as a real witness, as somebody placed already in the depth of the Side of Jesus, and writing from that perspective. You intuitively know, when you read John's Gospel, that "he knows that whole thing", that before writing "he went (and remained) very high" (God himself: “In the Beginning was/is the Word”). His symbol is the Eagle. He is able to fly high. He is able to reach the height of God, his width, his depth...

Don't ask me why only John had that privilege. Maybe we should just remain intuitive and say exactly what we feel when we come across his Gospel: oh this Gospel is the most beautiful, the most spiritual, I love it. Does it mean that the great St. Paul didn't reach these heights? Certainly not. The same applies to all the others writers of the New Testament and to all the others who only wrote the Gospel with their Blood. So let us keep it there if you don't mind, and focus on “what is Theology” according to St. John The Theologian.

John writes his Gospel for a clear purpose: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have Life in his Name.” (John 20:30-31) Please do go to that post where I studied the structure of St. John's Gospel (please click here). But now, please, re-read it and meditate it whilst thinking: this is the way to go for Theology, this is the original way of doing Theology.

I will summarise your reading and meditation of this previous post in a few words: The goal of St. John's Gospel (at least the first goal, since we have another conclusion at the end of chapter 21), is to help his reader be united with Jesus, reach the deepest part of Jesus (his Divinity) and, by doing that, his reader receives the fullness of the Holy Spirit (Life), so that the stream of this Holy “Water” will flow out of his belly to the world.

Now, concluding this post I have a serious question for the whole Church: Are we today able to accept a return to that definition of Theology and of its function? Theology is not there to speak about God (the best bet we would have today). Theology, as practised by John The Theologian, is there to lead you and me to Union with Jesus (to believe fully in Him as John says), through a path of 6 signs (see John 1-11 and the post I mentioned earlier on). Theology leads you and me to the Open Side of Jesus on the Cross, so that we can finally access it with no obstacles and draw from it the New Wine, and go and give it to the World (that is "becoming a Theologian"). Theology is initially a journey of Purification, through 6 steps. Because, for John, we can't see Jesus if we are not transformed in Him, if we haven't become similar to Him: "In your light we can see your light." So we need to be “in Him” in order to see Him, and be witnesses (seers) of Him.

Would you ever get bored if Theology was like that today?

(To be continued...)