Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.







Your Comments

Syndicate (Full Text) XML

Syndicate (Excerpt) XML




WWW Mere Comments





« Fast Food Feminism | Main | All Addictions Equal, So Pay Up »

March 03, 2008

Surprised by the Good Shepherd

Chances are you won't hear much of this kind of thing in  church, even during Lent. So, because it's Lent and because this is what Scripture contains, in essence, here are a few lines from the Sunday of the Last Judgement (second Sunday before Lent, Orthodox Church) hymns:

Thy judgement is without respect of persons; no cunning argument or skill in eloquence can deceive Thy judgement-seat; false witnesses cannot pervert Thy sentence. For in Thy sight, O God, every secret stands revealed.

Alas, black soul! How long wilt thou continue in evil? How long wilt thou lie in idleness? Why dost thou not think of the fearful hour of death? Why dost thou not tremble at the dread judgement-seat of the Saviour? What defence wilt thou make, or what wilt thou answer? Thy works will be there to accuse thee; thine actions will reproach thee and condemn thee. O my soul, the time is near at hand; make haste before it is too late, and cry aloud in faith: I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned against Thee; but I know Thy love for man and Thy compassion. O Good Shepherd, deprive me not of a place at Thy right hand in Thy great mercy.

The Gospel text was from Matthew 25, the parable of the sheep and the goats, which is why the supplicant in the liturgical texts for this Sunday asks in faith for a place at "Thy right hand," that is, with the sheep, and not with the goats.

The teaching in that parable is pretty clear, its application obvious. Feed the poor, clothe the naked.....we are surrounded by opportunities to serve the Lord Himself, as He puts it. It's something about which we have to deliberately remind ourselves, for the element of surprise runs throughout the teaching. As Fr. Patrick Reardon put it, there's Final Exam coming, but we've been given the answers ahead of time!

Posted by James M. Kushiner at 09:49 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e55092f1638833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Surprised by the Good Shepherd:

Comments

Also a vivid reminder that today's contemporary "worship" music is full of grace and love (mushy or otherwise), but sorta thin on truth.

Posted by: Don Bosch (evaneco.com) | Mar 3, 2008 11:51:47 AM

>>The teaching in that parable is pretty clear, its application obvious.

I have my reservations about this. I think Matthew 25 is at once far less pelagian, far more demanding, and far more consoling than the supposedly obvious meaning most folks impute to it.

That being said, the Judgment Day reflection is spot on, and fitting also for the RCC's most recent Sunday, the 4th of Lent: "For Judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."

Posted by: DGP | Mar 3, 2008 2:40:10 PM

I demur

First of all, that passage is not a parable; it's a simile. The "nations" that are gathered and divded are divided "as" sheep and goats, but are never treated like them. Jesus didn't say that His coming would be "like" this (as He typically does with a parable); He said that this is how it's going to be.

Secondly, comparing scripture to scripture, it can be shown that: (1) the "nations" that are gathered here and divided are not the Christians; (2) the "brothers of Jesus" are His disciples; and (3) every other place that Jesus identifies with someone, it is with His church, not sinners, not the poor, not those in need.

Put it all together, it would appear that Jesus is rewarding - or not rewarding - unbelievers who have helped his disciples in their time of need - or didn't. It's not directed at Christians at all, which is why neither the "sheep" nor the "goats" recognized the importance of what they did or failed to do, not having known what Jesus said on this subject.

Jeff Sawtelle

Posted by: Jeff Sawtelle | Mar 5, 2008 4:20:49 PM

Mr. Sawtelle,

I agree with your exegesis. (That was precisely the point of my reservation aboive.) It's especially worthwhile to point out this foundational meaning of the text wherever the supposedly "obvious" meaning might lead to a Pelagian or similarly heretical construal of the Lord's Judgment.

However, Mr. Kushiner doesn't seem to be in any such danger; moreover, your correct interpretation remains consistent with the exhortation, "Love thy neighbor." Indeed, the latter follows naturally from the former, for if the Lord expects the pagans to care for needy Christians and renders judgment accordingly, how much more should Christians do the same? This is the thrust of Matthew 5-7, that whatever lax rules may apply to those apart from Christ, his disciples must be perfect in love as the Father is perfect in love.

One may legitmately explore the fact that the Lord values kindness to Christians more than kindness to others. The relationship between the two commands, "Love thy neighbor," and "Love one another," is worth the spillage of some ink. However, in the context of Mr. Kushiner's post, it suffices to observe that (1) the Lord can and will Judge; (2) his Judgment is decisive; (3) Christians fall under his Lordship; (4) the demands of love for (at least) our fellow Christians are obvious, and we will not escape the consequences should we try to evade our obligations.

Posted by: DGP | Mar 5, 2008 5:21:54 PM

"Put it all together, it would appear that Jesus is rewarding - or not rewarding - unbelievers who have helped his disciples in their time of need - or didn't. It's not directed at Christians at all..."

I wonder about this interpretation. As I'm not at home, I don't have any Patristic sources at hand, but I wonder what the Fathers say about this passage. Seems to me that any fear of Pelagianism arising from the 'obvious' interpretation could be the result of an extreme Augustinianism (or Reformed or Lutheran influence, which amounts to the same thing), being read into the passage.

Posted by: Rob G | Mar 6, 2008 6:32:36 AM

>>As I'm not at home, I don't have any Patristic sources at hand, but I wonder what the Fathers say about this passage.

The Fathers generally take some version of the "obvious," in the sense that they identify themselves with those being judged, rather than with "the least of the brethren." Once again, this broader interpretation is not inconsistent with what seems likely to be the literal meaning of the text, but in our day of wildly anti-ecclesial "spiritual" interpretations, it is usually helpful to be well-anchored in the literal.

In any case, the Fathers' identification of Christians with those being judged would never have been intended as moderns do, as an exemption from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7. It is precisely the laxity of the modern interpretation that makes it possible for the "obvious" interpretation to be Pelagian: "I deserve to go to Heaven because I've achieved these (low) standards." I would never have accused the Fathers of Pelagianism simply because of the reversed identifications.

Posted by: DGP | Mar 6, 2008 8:50:53 AM

'It is precisely the laxity of the modern interpretation that makes it possible for the "obvious" interpretation to be Pelagian: "I deserve to go to Heaven because I've achieved these (low) standards."'

I understand this, although I personally have never heard the passage interpreted that way. Still, I don't see how both Jeff's interpretation above (which you say you agree with) and the Patristic 'obvious' interpretation can be harmonized: the text is either directed at believers or it isn't. It can't be directed at both at the same time and in the same way.

My concern is that such a 'literal' interpretation of the passage which redirects it completely away from believers is based on an inordinate fear of "works righteousness," or of the idea that our good works or lack thereof play any part in our final judgment. That's the way that I've heard it interpreted by Protestant pastors and teachers. It becomes so anti-Pelagian that it veers into the opposite error, the same one that caused Luther to declare the Epistle of St. James an epistle of straw.

Posted by: Rob G | Mar 6, 2008 9:09:39 AM

>>I understand this, although I personally have never heard the passage interpreted that way.

Well, of course not. I was describing the net religious effect on folks. And trust me, this happens.

>>Still, I don't see how both Jeff's interpretation above (which you say you agree with) and the Patristic 'obvious' interpretation can be harmonized: the text is either directed at believers or it isn't. It can't be directed at both at the same time and in the same way.

Yes and no. The literal interpretation, that which was foremost in the mind of the human author, is necessarily restricted by the human author's finite intellect and personal circumstances. The divine Author, however, can intend many meanings in many ways all at the same time.

In this particular case, the literal meaning is part of the grand trajectory of the New Testament according to which Jesus closely identifies himself with his disciples -- so closely that the Judgment of the nations depends on their treatment of Christians. This is not at all inconsistent with the notion that Christians themselves are subject to Judgment, albeit a stricter one, and that Judgment calls them to account for how well (or poorly) they treat their fellow Christians, and the needy more generally. If a pastor construes this as the spiritual interpretation, fully coherent with other apsects of Scripture and Tradition, who is to say that the Spirit did not intend it?

>>My concern is that such a 'literal' interpretation of the passage which redirects it completely away from believers is based on an inordinate fear of "works righteousness," or of the idea that our good works or lack thereof play any part in our final judgment.

This is a legitimate concern, but not in my case.

>>That's the way that I've heard it interpreted by Protestant pastors and teachers.

I'm delighted to learn they're paying such close attention to Scripture, even if they're filtering the interpretation through a false theological tradition.

>>It becomes so anti-Pelagian that it veers into the opposite error, the same one that caused Luther to declare the Epistle of St. James an epistle of straw.

That is a problem with Protestantism we're not likely to fix at MC. And the Lutherans might point out that your anti-anti-Pelagianism is probably just a knee-jerk EO objection to anything that smacks of Augustine. :)

Posted by: DGP | Mar 6, 2008 10:09:15 AM

"Well, of course not. I was describing the net religious effect on folks. And trust me, this happens."

I've not seen it myself, but I can believe that.

"The literal interpretation, that which was foremost in the mind of the human author, is necessarily restricted by the human author's finite intellect and personal circumstances. The divine Author, however, can intend many meanings in many ways all at the same time."

True, to a certain extent, but the resultant interpretations can't be contradictory.

"That is a problem with Protestantism we're not likely to fix at MC."

Didn't intend to try to fix it; it was simply an observation.

"the Lutherans might point out that your anti-anti-Pelagianism is probably just a knee-jerk EO objection to anything that smacks of Augustine."

Rumors of EO anti-Augustinianism are often greatly exaggerated, at least in the circles I'm associated with.

Posted by: Rob G | Mar 6, 2008 10:28:19 AM

>>True, to a certain extent, but the resultant interpretations can't be contradictory.

In this case, I think they're merely askew, so that some degree of harmonization is possible.

>>Rumors of EO anti-Augustinianism are often greatly exaggerated, at least in the circles I'm associated with.

No doubt. I was just teasing, in part as riposte for bringing up one of Luther's old hang-ups. For me, a light-hearted venerator of Augustine, it seemed poetic justice.

Posted by: DGP | Mar 6, 2008 1:56:17 PM

Post a comment