Clear thinking, words, and communication Archives < Page 3 of 5

The Doctrine of Fallibility

I don’t think that there ever has been a solemn, ecclesiastical definition of the doctrine of fallibility. You know why? There’s no need to.
As anyone with even half a grain of common sense knows, human beings are fallible.
That means that they can be deceived or make mistakes or fall into error or do something wrong (in traditional religious terms, they can sin).
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude or offensive, but you are fallible. And, to be perfectly (?) honest, I’m fallible, too. You might say, it’s part of the human condition.
Don’t be unnecessarily ashamed! It’s the way God made us, so to speak. It’s the nature of a created being, It means we all have limitations, we all are less than perfect.
Yes. Even you. Even me.
I remember this being discussed in a Theology class years ago. The teaching was that, except for a special act and provision of God, no human person has been, is, or can be without sin.
Has there ever been a “dispensation from fallibility” for a human person? Yes!
– Mary, the mother of Jesus: By a special dispensation of God, she was born even without “original sin” and by the grace of God never sinned during her whole life. (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.)
– The Bishop of Rome: If and when he speaks ex cathedra, in the fullness of his authority as successor of Peter and head of the church regarding matters of doctrine, he cannot lead the people of God astray. (Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.)
Many people would not agree about such dispensation or even think in such categories. Generally, we accept that human beings, being limited and therefore less than perfect, are fallible.
But, oh how shocked we sometimes can become in denouncing another’s failures!

All throughout human history, because we know about human fallibility, there have been social structures designed to moderate or react to the damage it can cause.
Training, apprenticeships, compulsory schooling, accreditations—rules, regulations, decrees, laws, judicial decisions, edicts, constitutions—legal punishments, classifications, competitions, disputes—they’re all needed in a world of fallible people, no matter how high their ideals and standards may be.
It really is hypocritical when puffed up with “righteous” indignation, we profess shock or surprised dismay by the failings of another. Failings are part of the nature of people.
Rather than entertain ourselves with the failings of others (which we often do), our challenge as fallible persons is how best to react to the manifestations of their fallibility.
All of our training, restraining, and punishing social structures are not enough. We also, each and all, need to have and bring to the table personal understanding (insight into what makes the other person tick), compassion (empathy for a fellow fallible), forgiveness (not forgetting, but remembering that failing is part of “doing what comes naturally”), and love (pardoning, empowering, and revitalizing).
There’s an incident near the end of Jesus’ life that his followers know well yet often forget:
When he was being crucified, so were two others—criminals. One mocked Jesus; the other asked to be remembered when he came into his kingdom. Jesus’ response to this very fallible thief was: “Today you will be with me in paradise.”

21 February 2021

Changing the Name or Renaming the Change?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
In Shakespeare’s play, these words of Juliet referred to the challenge of her love for Romeo even though he bore the name and was a member of an enemy family.
In many countries, the practice has been that upon her wedding the wife changes her family name to that of her husband—and in some places even moves into the dwelling place of her husband’s family. But, name notwithstanding, she’s still the same person.
When it comes to politics, there’s a lot of changing names for the same old same old, although once in a while there really is a real change—whether it gets a new name or not!
And, what do names in politics mean, after all? Does Republican mean a believer in a republic or just a partisan supporter of a particular group? Does Democrat mean a believer in a democracy or just a partisan supporter of a particular group?
Are Liberals advocates of freedom? Are Communists crusaders for the community? Are Radicals trying to get back to the root of things? Are Reactionaries fond of redoing some of the things that worked before? Are Conservatives trying to conserve the best of the past?
In education, when someone has completed a certain amount of studies, he or she gets a new title—which isn’t always used. We don’t call a college graduate “Bachelor” nor someone with a few more post-graduate years of schooling “Master”, but frequently we do refer to someone with even more studies and skills as “Doctor”.
In religion, we call some celibates “Father” even though they’re not one; we call others “Pastor” even without a flock of sheep; and “Bishops” aren’t always good overseers (that’s what the title means). And, why do Catholics call some of them “Monsignor” (meaning “My Lord”)? Good Lord, none of them are Lords, even if some act like they are!

“Clothes make the man.” We often confuse being well-dressed with being successful or wealthy or important—but there’s no necessary connection with any of them
The reverse is true, too. The Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military is the president, but he has no impressive uniform at all. Modern royalty only uses distinctive clothing for special and ceremonial occasions. Most people with academic degrees rarely wear the robes after receiving the degree.
The point is that changing a name, title, form of address, or dress doesn’t necessarily mean a changed person or position or place—although sometimes it really does!
You can’t judge a book by its cover. A new job title doesn’t necessarily mean a raise in salary. Consultation is not the same as agreement. Being legally married doesn’t guarantee love—and vice-versa! “I see” doesn’t necessarily mean I really do.
A song from My Fair Lady is apropos:

Words. Words. Words.
   I’m so sick of words.
   I get words all day through,
   First from him, now from you.
   Is that all you blighters can do?
Don’t talk of stars,
   Burning above!
   If you’re in love;
   Show me!
Tell me no dreams
   Filled with desire!
   If you’re on fire,
   Show me! . . .

People change, for better or worse. Beware of not recognizing the change because the name’s the same!

14 February 2021

Righteous

Basically “righteous” is a good word, but it sometimes has the feel of being pretentious or ostentatious. But it really doesn’t mean anything like that. It’s usually defined as:

– Characterized by uprightness or morality.
– Morally right or justifiable.
– Acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous.
– (Slang) absolutely genuine or wonderful.

It comes from the Middle English rightwos, rightwis, from the Old English rihtwis (cf. right & wise).

The adjective “Right” can mean:

– In accordance with what is good, proper, or just.
– In conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard of principle; correct.
– Correct in judgement, opinion, or action.
– Fitting or appropriate; suitable.
– Most convenient, desirable, or favorable.
– Of, relating to, or located on or near the side of a person or thing that is turned toward the east when the subject is facing north (opposed to left).
– In a satisfactory state; in good order.
– Sound, sane, or normal.
– In good health or spirits.
– Principal, front, or upper.
– Of or relating to political conservatives or their beliefs.
– Socially approved, desirable, or influential.
– Formed by or with reference to a perpendicular.
– Straight.
– (Geometry) having an axis perpendicular to the base.
– Genuine; authentic.

The noun “wise”, as used here, is defined as:

– Way of proceeding or considering; manner; fashion (usually used in combination or in certain phrases): otherwise, in any wise, in no wise.

Okay, now that we more or less know what we’re talking about and know what the words may, can, or do mean, I’d like to recommend being righteous.
We’re desperately in need of more righteous men and women in every sense of the word, including political conservatives!
What’s a conservative really? As the name implies, it’s someone who want to conserve—presumably to conserve something of value in the judgement of that person, many persons of like mind, most persons, or everybody.
If we’re true conservatives, of course we want to conserve what is good—and develop and build on it as well. Naturally if it’s not good, we probably want to correct, improve, and better it, if possible—and if not, even start all over and replace it with something better.
You know, words are like weapons. We must always be careful how we handle and use them; it can be very dangerous and even harmful if we fire them off irresponsibly.
I think it’s a good thing to try to be an upright and moral person, virtuous, genuine, just, correct, truthful, sound, sane, of good spirit, principled, conservative, authentic, and all the rest.
In the best sense of the word, it’s good to be righteous. Righteous people are in short supply. Please help!

17 January 2021

For the New Year

If you’re thinking about resolutions, here are some thoughts about thinking:

THINK (Look before you leap!) Do I think before I react:
– when I read an email or newspaper or magazine or book?
– when I listen to somebody else in person or through the internet or on the radio or TV?
– when I watch a movie or video or play?
– when I chat, gossip, criticize, praise, or advocate?
– when I go to a rally or sporting event or assembly or religious service?

THINK CRITICALLY (Does it make sense?)
– Is what I see or hear fact or fiction?
– Does it make sense based on what I have experienced or know or believe or have been taught?
– Does it stand up to testing? What would happened if it were put into practice?

THINK FREELY (What am I afraid of?)
– Do I just echo or relay other people’s ideas or words?
– Do I trust my own judgements?
– Do I know enough about what I’m talking about?
– Do I have the courage to face the consequences of what I say or do?
– Am I afraid of disagreement or negative reaction or criticism or dismissal?

THINK REALISTICALLY (“Beautiful dreamer, wake unto me”)
– Do I confuse the impossible ideal with the real?
– Do I remember that living in the flawed human situation includes me, too?
– Do I remember that it’s “better to light one candle than to curse the darkness”?
– Does practice make perfect or just make us better or neither?

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
– Do I realize that there never has been, is, or will be a person exactly, 100 percent, like me?
– Do I realize that I may have to face or deal with a situation that in some ways is different from everybody else’s knowledge or experience?
– Do I realize that no one, short of God, knows all the right answers?
– Do I realize that just because something never happened before doesn’t mean it cannot happen now?
– When I come up with a new idea or recommendation or proposal for a solution to a problem, do I carefully explore its consequences and test it out before I decide if it’s right or good?
– Can I live without other people’s recognition or approval or esteem or applause?
– Can I live with other people’s criticism or misunderstanding or rejection or condemnation or ostracization?

THINK HUMBLY
– Do I realize or sometimes forget that I am a creation?
– Do I remember to seek to discern the designs and will of my creator?
– Do I have a fixed set of values? If so, what is their source?
– How do my thoughts, word, and deeds stand up in relation to my fundamental values?
– Do I remember that even those who explain, teach, or preach about the designs and will of God have their limitations and imperfections?
– Is “God help me!” part of my mind set?

3 January 2021

Be Children No Longer

I think St. Paul, were he living in our times, would have appreciated the 1976 film, “Network”, a satirical comedy-drama about the television industry.
The movie received widespread critical acclaim, four Academy Awards, and several other honors. The plot concerned the television industry and how more and more shock, violence, and fantasy improved audience share and ratings.
Television began as a news and entertainment vehicle, originally with only one or a very few channels. Nowadays, with hundreds of channels to choose from, both news and entertainment programs are competing for audience share and ratings—and they seem to be blending.
Often “news” programs seek to impact, titillate, and entertain, and “entertainment” programs, to include critical news.
And, of course, just as there are hundreds of channels, there are hundreds of differing points of view being broadcast in both news and entertainment.
When Paul wrote his letter to the Christian community in Ephesus, probably around the year 62, concerned about divisions and dissensions there, he counseled them:
“…to live a life worthy of the calling you have received, with perfect humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another lovingly. Make every effort to preserve the unity which has the Spirit as its origin and peace as its binding force.” (4:1-3)
He also warned them to think critically and not to be easily swayed by clever and persuasive speakers:
“Let us then, be children no longer, tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine that originates in human trickery and skill in proposing error. Rather, let us profess the truth in love and grow to the full maturity of Christ…” (4:14-15)

The dictionary definition of “doctrine” is: 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government. 2. Something that is taught; teachings collectively. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.
But, by the way the word is used in Ephesians, I think it would include every wind and variation of news, propaganda, interpretation, explanation, opinion, analysis, statistics, and prediction that buffet each of us daily.
In that movie which Paul might have appreciated, the marketers of “news” would have understood what he meant by “human trickery and skill in proposing error”.
However, their defense might well have been that we’re a business; we have to be concerned about the bottom line. We’re not primarily teachers or preachers, we’re promoters. And, we need to be sensitive to the priorities of those who support us, who pay the bills.
If the priorities involve “truth”, then we’re for “truth”. But, of course, they might add, there are varieties and versions of “truth”, and we have a right to promote ours.
And, what would Paul say to that? Well, he already did: “Let us, then, be children no longer, tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine that originates in human trickery and skill in proposing error. Rather, let us profess the truth in love…”
Paul knew that “truth” can’t have varieties and versions, although perceptions of truth can. Because we don’t “know” something doesn’t mean it’s not real or doesn’t exist.
Grow up, Paul urges, “be children no longer…”

18 October 2020

Words, Words, Words . . .

The meaning of words and the use of words are constantly shifting, changing, and evolving, for better or for worse.
Remember the 1939 epic movie, “Gone with the Wind”? There was a controversy whether the censors would approve it for general release and showing in movie theatres.
Why? Well, in a climactic scene toward the end, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gabel) leaves his desperate and distraught wife, Scarlett O’Hara (played by Vivien Leigh), who pleads with him to stay, claiming what will she do without him.
His famous reply was, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!” The use of that last word was prohibited by the 1930 Motion Picture Production Code!
Today the whole issue seems curious. First, because “damn” now is regarded as a fairly common, mild expletive. Second, because censorship of speech or scenes seem archaic—the current practice, in effect, is almost “anything goes.”
One result is that for a modern audience, that final, farewell scene doesn’t have the force, shock, and dramatic impact that it had in 1939. That means that the final impact of the film is substantially different for 2020 viewers.
A similar observation can be made about a lot of our familiar religious language. We use many words that belong to earlier, much earlier, generations and whose original meaning, force, and impact are substantially different—sometimes to the point of being misunderstood or almost unintelligible—for people of our day.
It’s tough to make a lot of our traditional religious language understandable not only because the meaning of the words has shifted but also because the underlying mentality, customs, and values of the people who use these words has changed also.

For example, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274), after the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC)—preserved by Iberian Muslim scholars who had translated his works into Arabic—used some of Aristotle’s ideas and concepts to illuminate Christian beliefs.
Thomas’s philosophy and theology in pre-Vatican II days was at the core of seminary formation, and its vocabulary was still in use (Latin words translated from the Arabic, translated from the Greek).
Take two important concepts derived from Aristotelian philosophy: “substance” and “accident”.
For For Aristotle, “substance” referred to the essence of something, usually what we mean by the word we use to name it—e.g., a car may be of any size, shape, color, make, décor, value, or the like, but it still is a “car”.
For Aristotle, “accident” referred to the non-essential or secondary aspects or properties of something—e.g., human beings may be tall, short, dark, light, male, or female, but all are equally human beings.
St. Thomas is famous for his explanation of “transubstantiation,” using these concepts to try to help us understand the mystery of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) called “transubstantiation” a monstrous word for a monstrous idea. To say the least, for him “transubstantiation” was way out-of-date.
We face similar challenges. By now, Luther’s explanations and language are also somewhat out-of-date and bewildering, along with Thomas’s and Aristotle’s.
We’re still believers, but it’s hard to find the right words, understandable words, to explain our beliefs!

20 September 2020

Traduttore, Traditore

traduttore is Italian for “translator”.
traditore is Italian for “traitor”.

It’s a great expression. It sums up so much so concisely and unforgettably. It calls attention to the tremendous challenges of effectively and correctly translating from one language to another.
Within the same language, it’s possible to mistake one word for a similar other (that’s the play on words in the title above).
Every language has words or phrases without an exact one-word-to-one-word equivalent to another. (That’s most of what we mean by “idioms” — and if you mistranslate idioms are you an “idiot”?)
There also can be a translation problem within the same language, since — like all things — languages change, develop, and evolve with the passage of time.
I have a vague childhood memory of a meaningless lyric, “Flat Foot Floozie (with a Floy Floy)”. Now I know it was the title of a 1938 song. “Floozie” was slang then for a sexually promiscuous woman, and “floy floy”, for a venereal disease.
Sometimes you may have had difficulties understanding Shakespeare — he used a lot of contemporary slang, too!
From the ridiculous to the sublime, how about understanding and translating the Bible and other documents of the Church?
Most of the Jewish scriptures (“Old Testament”) were written in Hebrew, but some parts were in Greek.
The Christian scriptures (“New Testament”), as we have them, are in Greek, although many biblical scholars hold that some may have been translated from an Aramaic original.
The early Church spoke, wrote, and prayed in Greek, the common spoken language of the Greek and eastern Roman empires.

Latin, the common language of the Romans, began to be used instead of Greek for church liturgy, law, and official communications from the fifth century.
From ecclesiastical history, we know that many of the early divisions of the one Church were rooted in ethnic, cultural, and, especially, linguistic misunderstandings.
Translating key theological expressions from the Greek into the Latin was challenging and sometimes inadequate. Thanks be to God, in the ecumenical climate of the latter 20th century, most of these linguistic misunderstandings, inadequate translations, and theological controversies have been resolved.
The Church of Rome took over 400 years to switch finally from Greek to the Latin vernacular language.
It took it over 1,500 years to switch entirely from Latin to the various spoken vernacular languages of the modern world.
“Traduttore, traditore” — translation is always challenging. For example:
– Regarding translating the Bible into English, some still favor familiar Elizabethan English usages (e.g., the King James Bible), even if dated, over contemporary English.
– Regarding translating the Mass into English, some favor fidelity to Latin style and structure (i.e. our current text), even if less intelligible to the majority of present-day speakers of English.
The proud construction of that tower, later known as Babel, was really seriously punished by God: “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that no one will understand the speech of another.” (Ge 11:7).

13 September 2020

Darmok

Growing up, I always was an avid reader of all kinds: fairy tales, fantasy, adventure, classics, murder mysteries, westerns, history. Probably my special favorite was science-fiction.
I was always drawn to science and its discoveries, and I really liked good science-fiction—that is, solid speculative projections based on what we already know. (Not fantasy at all.)
That’s why I loved the science-fiction TV series, Star Trek. It was engaging, realistic, had interesting character development, and was fundamentally optimistic about the future.
Many of its plots were almost parables. It was a very value-rooted show, basically imagining how, in spite of human weaknesses, humanity was gradually growing up and getting better and better.
Among its many successor TV series, Star Trek: The Next Generation really stood out for me. Although with an entirely new cast of characters, it continued in the same spirit and with the same challenging originality of the first series.
An episode in its fifth year was especially original and challenging: Darmok.
The plot line was unique: The crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise encounters an alien civilization and, no matter what, can’t communicate with them.
Their language appears to be unintelligible —it seems to be constructed of historical references to episodes and events of their unknown history and culture.
The two captains meet on a mutually unknown planet, are faced with common deadly threats, and ultimately begin to understand and collaborate with one another, even though the alien captain dies.
The Enterprise Captain Picard discovered why it was so hard to communicate—the aliens spoke entirely with metaphors.

We face a similar challenge in our religious communication. We use metaphors and references to episodes and events in religious history and culture that are becoming less and less familiar to the majority of people of our day. Our religious language can be almost unintelligible.
Here’s an example: St. Paul wrote to the Romans (6:3), “. . . are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” To understand what he means, you need to know that:
– “baptize”, originally a Greek word, means to immerse or bathe.
– John, called the Baptist, preached the need for a spiritual cleansing and renewal in preparation for the coming restoration and establishment of the kingdom of God that was symbolized by a ritual immersion and washing in the Jordan river.
– The early Christians retained a similar symbolic immersion and washing ceremony as part of rite of initiation to celebrate the decision of new recruits who had embraced the teachings of Jesus and wished to become part of the community of his disciples, the church.
– The plunging under water and rising from the immersion anew is also symbolic of Jesus’s having been plunged into death and rising from death anew.
Paul is communicating that a disciple of Jesus symbolically has been washed from and died to a former worldly way of life and now shares in the hope of resurrection to a new and eternal fullness of life.
We’re used to using many such religious metaphors—and we don’t always realize how hard it is for others to understand us!

16 August 2020

Holy Places, Practices, People, and Spirit

Our religious language sometimes may sound very curious to others!
We often say that a “Practicing” Catholic goes to “Church” to “hear Mass” on “Sunday” and to “receive” the “Eucharist”.
Here’s a few of the curious things:
– “Practicing” usually means actively working at something and often implies learning how to do something well. (e.g., “Practice makes perfect.”)
– “Church” originally referred to people, the assembly of the believers in God, rather than to the place where they assembled.
– “hear Mass” is an odd old expression. Like attending a play or a concert, it suggests we’re watching and listening to others—actors, artists, or priests—doing something special and meaningful.
– “Sunday”—meaning the “day of the sun”—is a curious name for what Christians consider to be the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week. (Nowadays it often seems more like the last day of the weekend.)
– “receive” means to get, accept, hold, which is an odd verb to use with words like “Eucharist” or “communion,” which refers to being in union with God and/or others.
– “Eucharist” itself means “thanksgiving” —which makes the expression to “receive” the Eucharist especially curious, since thanksgiving isn’t something you get, but something you do.
Because of the Corona virus pandemic, we haven’t been able to go to Church on Sunday (although we may have been able to hear and see Mass on television), and we haven’t been able to receive the Eucharist.
In effect, right now, according to the definition, we’re not “Practicing Catholics”!
The situation is different for Jews. An “Observant” Jew follows the Torah as faithfully as possible, especially as regards the Sabbath Day—the last day of the week, the day of Rest.

The Sabbath is observed and celebrated at home. After Friday ends at sunset and the Sabbath day begins, a family prays together at home with a certain degree of ritual and preparation. No rabbi is needed—the head of the family leads the prayer and ritual.
Of course, Jews may choose also to gather in prayer with others in a synagogue, but there’s no obligation to do so.
When the Jerusalem Temple still existed, the privileged place of contact with the Lord and the place of sacrifice, a faithful Jew (an “observant’ or “practicing” Jew) was obligated to go there to sacrifice only three times a year, for three major feasts.
A Jew doesn’t have to have a special ordination to lead others in prayer or rituals. The Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony that welcomes a young person into adulthood is enough. A Jewish adult can read and proclaim the word of God in the midst of the community of believers.
Maybe we can learn something important from contemporary Jewish practice. The destruction of the Temple didn’t mean the end of Judaism—but it did change Jewish practice and piety.
At least for now, the pandemic and closures have challenged Catholics to a significant shift in their practice and piety.
We traditionally have had an emphasis on holy places and practices, on assembling in churches for sacred rituals led by priests.
Now we’ve been challenged to remember that faith resides in and is nourished by all God’s holy people, that the holy Spirit always is at work among and in each of us, and that we can gather together to give thanks to God—all this, at home!

24 May 2020

In Seventh Heaven

“In Seventh Heaven” probably doesn’t describe how we feel right now, even though we’re still celebrating Easter.
It usually means a state of perfect happiness, but, when you think about it, it’s literally a curious expression. It dates back a long, long time and refers to the highest level of heaven, the one where God and his highest angels are supposed to dwell.
In ancient times most people imagined the world to be almost endless but flat—its major divisions were the deep waters, the dry land, and the sky above. And, they had their subdivisions. The sky, the heavens above had seven levels, and the seventh level was the highest.
St. Paul the Apostle, presumably referencing a mystical experience he himself once had, wrote, “I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.” (2 Cor 12:2).
The non-canonical Second Book of Enoch imagines the third heaven as a location “between corruptibility and incorruptibility” that contained the Tree of Life and from which two springs flowed down into the Garden of Eden.
This notion of levels of heaven is found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
In 1961, the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human being to journey to outer space and orbit the earth. Allegedly, Nikita Khrushchev commented about his journey, “Gagarin flew into space, but didn’t see any God there.”
That sarcastic statement has a very odd ring to it—it echoes the ancient concept of a flat world. We, too, sometimes still use very old, “directional” religious language:
God is “up” in heaven.
Jesus “ascends” (goes up) to the Father.
We sometimes exclaim, “Saints above!”

“Heaven” or “Hell” in the sense of a place of our ultimate destiny isn’t “up” or “down”; in fact it isn’t quite a “place” in the usual sense of the word at all—even though we imagine it that way.
What is Heaven then?
First of all, we really don’t “know” in the way we know something within our lived experience. Heaven names a state, a condition, a stage of life that is still relatively unknown to us and yet to be experienced.
In theological terms it is a “mystery”, part of the great mystery of God’s love and providence for each of his creatures.
All this is pertinent to how we describe and understand the last of Jesus’ earthly life, what we traditionally call his “Ascension”.
In the Bible, it’s depicted in various ways. For example, in the end of Luke’s Gospel (24:51) it says, “As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.”
However in the beginning of Luke’s Acts of the Apostles (Acts:1:9), there is a subtle but very important difference—it says, “When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.”
The key word here is “cloud”. It’s not a description of the weather; it refers to Jesus’ final appearance before he was gathered into the luminous cloud of the divine presence which our eyes cannot penetrate.
The imagery may vary, but the underlying fact and faith are the same—the last stage of Jesus’ earthly life was to be gathered into the glory of God.
So, don’t worry about the “direction” of your life so long as it’s the same—Godward!

17 May 2020

(Available in
Spanish translation)