Category: Harmonizing our lives with our maker’s designs

Torments of Abstraction

Abstract (as adjective):
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances;
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance;
3. theoretical; not applied or practical;
4. difficult to understand; abstruse.

The traditional proverb, “The perfect is the enemy of the good,”—although it uses three abstractions (perfect, enemy, good)—is a warning about the danger, the possible tyranny, and the “unreality” of abstractions.
With due respect to Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and other great philosophers, theologians, and scientists, sometimes they build elaborate abstract constructs that challenge our thinking about reality but which by themselves aren’t precisely real.
For instance, we used to describe the life of male and female religious as a “state of perfection”. Now we say a “state of seeking perfection”. But no matter how it’s called, there’s no such thing as perfect people.
Perfection, the carrot on the stick dangling before us, may lure us to strive to become ever better—but perfection is unattainable.
Looking forward is a continual frustration, since we are always measuring how much we fall short of the mark. Only looking backward can we find satisfaction in seeing our progress and attainments.
There are many other scales or ranges we use to measure our and other’s lives besides Imperfection/Perfection. For example:
Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, Dumb/Smart, Weak/Strong, Ugly/Beautiful, Rich/Poor, True/False, Heresy/Orthodoxy, Light/Dark, Liberal/Conservative, Success/Failure, Black/White—and even some contemporary categories like Male/Female, Gay/Straight, and Republican/Democrat.

Common to all these scales or ranges is that their two extremes are abstract categories.
No one is or can be 100% one or the other of them; such “purity” doesn’t exist in the real world. Everyone falls somewhere between the two extremes, a blend of both, ranging from 99-1% to 1-99%.
Sometimes these categories are a torment, for we are disappointed by what or where we are or by how little progress we have made in moving towards one or avoiding the other of the two extremes.
Some of us are at peace with what and where we are. Others strive, sometimes relentlessly, to come closer to one extreme than to the other. Some are outstanding, even record-breakers—at least for a while, until someone breaks their record, too.
A consoling thought is to remember that each of us is a unique creation of God, and so, for better or worse, “I gotta be me.”
It’s encouraging to remember that there never has been, is, or will be a person exactly, completely, and 100% like you.
It’s encouraging to remember that there never was, is, or will be a person who has to face a situation that is exactly, completely, and in every way like the situations you may have, are, or will be facing.
It’s encouraging to remember that there are things to be achieved and lives to be touched that never will be achieved and touched unless you achieve and touch them
This oft-quoted prayer may help us keep a balanced perspective: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”


30 June 2019

What Is God Made of?

“What are little boys made of?” goes the nursery rhyme, “Frogs and snails, and puppy-dogs’ tails.” While, “What are little girls made of?” gets answered by “Sugar and spice, and all that’s nice.”
What is it made of? What makes it tick? Questions like these are asked by everyone, from little kids to research scientists.
However, just knowing the component parts of something doesn’t entirely explain what it is, what it does or how it came to be.
To make a cake, you need more than flour, eggs, yeast and sugar; you need to know how much of each ingredient to use, how they affect each other, and how to put them together in the baking process. The finished cake is much more than its ingredients.
Knowing details about arms and legs, head and torso, fingers and toes and their interconnections doesn’t explain a human person. The study of the constitutive parts of chromosomes, genes and DNA doesn’t adequately explain the growth and development of a living being.
Physicists are on a never-ending quest to find out what matter is made of, constantly discovering more and more minute subatomic particles. Even so, learning about the nature and behavior of individual particles doesn’t adequately add up to explaining the characteristics of an atom, much less of a compound.
The whole is always more than its parts. We know that intuitively, but it’s hard to explain precisely in what sense it is more. At least it has to do with the pattern of the arrangement of the parts, what holds them together, and their dynamic interaction.
The best explanation physical science gives—since it is primarily concerned with what is tangible and measurable—is the concept of force. Physicists study large and small forces, strong and weak forces, how they affect matter, how they hold it together —or how they blast it apart.

Philosophers and religious thinkers offer an explanation as well, but use different language. Their word is “relations.”
Everything and everybody can be described by their relations with everything and everybody else. Relations are an intangible, key “ingredient” of everything from subatomic particles to human society
The notion of relations doesn’t exclude the concept of force but goes beyond it. Relations include the forces of gravity, electricity and magnetism; they also involve the forces of conventions, customs and friendship
What builds and holds families, tribes, organizations and cultures together are relationships, the more spiritual the better. Blood ties, physical closeness, control and dominance are trumped by collaboration, teamwork, marriage and parenthood.
Some of our better modern developments involve establishing relations—for example, the World-Wide Web and internet, the use of mobile communication devices, greater opportunities for international travel, increased trade and globalization, the United Nations, the ecumenical movement and peacemaking.
Each of us grows and matures by building better and better relations and constantly improving their quality and depth — and so does each nation, country, church and organization.
The most important and strongest kinds of relations involve the most important and strongest force in the universe—love.
We are known and defined by our relations—and so is God. That’s why the answer to the question, “What is God made of?” is, simply, “Love.”




(Published as “Relations”
in one, 37:3, May 2011)

Duodecimal Relations

Sometimes I wonder if people learned to count on 6-fingered hands; so many things presume a number system based on 12.
    Consider time. Almost everyone in the whole world divides the day into 24 hours; some divide it further into 12 a.m. (before noon) and 12 p.m. (after noon). Also, each hour has 60 minutes — that’s 5 times 12 — and each minute, 60 seconds.
Special measurements are similar. A circle is divided into 360 degrees — 6 times 60. Mapmakers and navigators count 180 degrees east and west from a prime meridian — an imaginary north-south line passing through the Royal Observatory in Greenwich. Each of these degrees of longitude is subdivided into 60 minutes and each minute, into 60 seconds.
There are 12 inches to a foot, 12 months in a year, 12 signs of the Zodiac and 12 days of Christmas. We may shop for a dozen (12) rolls in a bakery and we may get one more as a bonus, a “baker’s dozen.” Maybe that’s why the week has 7 days — 6 days of work plus a bonus day of rest from God — and why 7 is considered a lucky number.
In the Jewish Scripture, 12 is an important number. Ishmael had 12 chieftains. Jacob had 12 sons. Israel had 12 tribes. The Law of Moses called for 12 holy breads in the sanctuary. The great basin there rested on 12 bronze oxen. Joshua set up 12 memorial stones after crossing the Jordan. Many armies had 12 thousand men and 12 thousand chariots. The number 12 came to signify completeness — a good round number.
It’s no coincidence that 12 is an important number in Christian Scripture, too. Jesus taught in the temple when he was 12. After the miracle of the multiplication, there were 12 baskets of leftovers. Jesus trusted that the Father could provide him with 12 legions of angels. John’s vision of the saved was 12 thousand from each of the tribes of Israel. Above all else, Jesus chose 12 apostles — referred to by all as “the Twelve.”

How many people knew Jesus during his lifetime? Sometimes he preached to 5,000, but his inner circle was relatively small. He sent out 72 disciples (6 times 12) to prepare his way, evoking the 72 elders that assisted Moses. Jacob’s 12 sons were the foundation of ancient Israel; Jesus’ choice of the Twelve symbolized the foundation of the new.
Jesus was very close to the Twelve plus a few others and lavished most of his time and attention on them. His pastoral methodology was not so much to seek maximum exposure for himself as to form in depth a core group of leaders who, guided by his Spirit, would carry on his work.
How many people get to know you during your lifetime? Some professionals — doctors, nurses, teachers, counselors, clergy, actors or political leaders — may deal with thousands. Movies, radio, TV and the internet expose celebrities to millions. But, how big is your inner circle? How many people can you get really close to, and how many people can get really close to you?
As Jesus did, maybe you should lavish your time and attention on your “Twelve” — your immediate family, your closest friends or your key collaborators — giving them all you can and trusting that, guided by the Spirit, they in turn will reach out to others.
Twelve is a good round number. It signifies completeness. It may also be, more or less, a practical measure of how many close relationships we can support and sustain at any given time.
Maybe 12 times 12 is the way to change the world: 12 to 144 to 1,728 to 20,736 to 248,832 to 2,985,984 to 35,831,808 to 429,981,696 to 5,159,780,352 — that’s almost everybody.
Hey, and it’s only 129!


(Published in
one, 36:3, May 2010)

Disoriented

Where I live, “uptown” means northward and “downtown” means southward. Maybe it’s because of the nearby river that flows from north to south — or maybe it has to do with looking at a map, where north is at the top and south at the bottom.
In Egypt, “up” definitely relates to a river. Since the Nile flows south to north, upper Egypt is south and lower Egypt, north.
In many ancient maps, east was at the top and west was at the bottom. To get one’s bearings was described as getting oriented — i.e., figuring which way was east.
Whichever way maps are “oriented” they tend to deceive. They always distort reality one way or another. Generally, maps are two-dimensional — but the world isn’t.
Remember the traditional Mercator projection used in mapmaking? The further north or south, the larger everything became; Greenland always seemed enormous.
And, if you saw a polar-type projection, what a surprise! Northern Norway is a lot closer to northern Alaska than you might have thought.
Airplane travelers are used to watching flight maps, where long routes always seem curved. That’s because the world is spherical and the shortest distance on the surface of a sphere can’t be a straight line. The moment you look at a world globe, it’s perfectly clear and obvious.
We take all this for granted, but, it seems this was pretty innovative stuff at the time of Columbus — although the ancient Greeks knew it well.
The moral of the story is you’re not in touch with reality if you’re thinking in terms of only two dimensions — the world is three-dimensional.
But, is it? Ever since Einstein challenged scholarship and science with his theories of relativity, we speak about the space-time continuum. You need a fourth-dimension, time, to be truly in touch with reality.

Can you really understand a person if you have only a momentary glimpse of his or her life? Does a moment frozen in a snapshot give a true picture of someone else?
Video recordings seem more lifelike because they show movement, change and progression. A true picture of another person is impossible without the dimension of time — the pattern of growth and development through infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood.
Just as individuals grow, change and evolve, so do peoples and nations, institutions and political systems, religions and churches. None of them can be adequately understood without factoring in the dimension of time.
Knowledge of history, unfortunately, is often sadly lacking. Mass media give us a daily slice of life, a snapshot, whatever the topic, but no comprehensive perspective.
How well can you understand the tensions within Iraq without knowing about the centuries-long hostility between Sunnis and Shiites, or about the sense of superiority of Iranians, heirs of an ancient empire, to Arabs?
Don’t the roots of a divided Palestine go back to Britain’s century-old divided Middle East policy: support for a Jewish homeland along with support for an Arab nation-state?
Ecumenical apprehensions are less baffling if you know that Latin crusaders invaded Constantinople and displaced the Orthodox patriarch and that Catholic Teutonic Knights fought to conquer Orthodox Russia.
In our rootless, snapshot modern societies, it’s easy to lose one’s bearings — to become “disoriented” — about life and history.
Hopefully we’ll face where the light rises and know the difference between going up and going down.




(Published in
one, 36:2, March 2010

False Witness

Witness. [from Old English witnes knowledge, testimony] 1. A person who has seen or knows something, and is therefore competent to give evidence concerning it. 2. An attestation to a fact or an event; testimony: usually in the phrase to bear witness…

Throughout history, in most times and places, bearing witness is something very, very important — and bearing false witness is something very, very bad. So much so, that it ranks right up there with idolatry, murder, adultery and theft.
One of the ten commandments revealed by God to Moses, is; “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
Proverbs calls “the false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers” abominations to the Lord.
That’s why taking an oath has always been such a solemn and serious thing to do. Sworn testimony is the basis for legal judgment. The testimony of two witnesses is enough to establish the truth of a controversial fact. An honorable person’s word is as good as his or her bond.
Most cultures shun an oath breaker. A perjurer is liable to punishment. We have no use for a person who is not good to his or her word.
There is more than one way to bear witness. We bear witness not only with words, whether casually spoken or solemnly sworn — we bear witness also by our deeds. “Actions speak louder than words.” We bear witness by what we do and what kind of persons we are.
A special form of bearing false witness is hypocrisy — the pretense of having feelings or characteristics one does not possess, especially the deceitful assumption of praiseworthy qualities.
Sailing one’s life under false colors is bearing false witness.

In his final words to his followers, Jesus Christ said, “you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
What kind of a job of witnessing do Christians — those who bear his name and claim to be his followers — do, when their actions contradict his teachings?
What about: “This is my commandment: Love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
What about: “I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he make his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.”
What about: “Each of you forgive his brother from his heart” and “forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions.”
How do Indian Christians deal with lower castes? How do Palestinian Christians deal with Israelis? How do Eritrean Christians deal with Ethiopians? How do Armenian Christians deal with Azeris? How do French Christians deal with Muslims?
How do “white” Christians treat “blacks”? — and vice versa. How do affluent Christians treat the poor? How do “straight” Christians treat “gays”? How do Christian husbands treat their wives? — and vice versa. How do Christian clergy treat their people?
Practicing what you preach is not only a challenge for preachers — it’s a challenge for each of us. Don’t forget, right up there with the really big sins is bearing false witness.



(Published in
one, 36:1, January 2010)

Nationality, Culture, and Religion

A priest friend of mine who was born in Israel and raised Jewish identifies himself in a very unusual way — he says by nationality I’m an Israeli, by culture I’m a Jew, and by religion I’m a Roman Catholic.
Before reacting to this startling statement of identity, it’s important to define the three key words. It’s a tricky business, because they frequently overlap.
– “Nationality” is becoming another word for citizenship — the country to which you legally belong. But, its root meaning has to do with the land of one’s birth; this implies ethnic identity.
– “Culture” can be used to refer to the customs, traditions, and values shared by a group of people at a certain point in time. There can also be subcultures within a dominant culture.
– “Religion” is the trickiest word. It may refer to belief as such; to a system of beliefs, worship and ethics; or to an organization or group which holds them in common.
In the southwestern Indian state of Kerala, you may meet ladies going to pray in gold-trimmed white saris, with ear lobes stretched by heavy golden bangles. A foreigner may think them Hindus, but they are Christians. It is their culture that appears Hindu.
For years in Germany, children born of Turkish immigrant parents were considered foreigners; now they can be German citizens. German identity is no longer limited to people with Nordic features or a common Germanic culture; now it also means those with the same citizenship.
Canadians describe themselves as “English” or “French.” This is a matter not just of language but of culture — and for separatists, of nationality. Paradoxically, immigrants from the world over are welcomed into both English and French Canada. Chinese-Canadians in Quebec or Ukrainian-Canadians in Alberta share the same citizenship, but not the same culture.

Historically, nationality, culture and religion tend to be mixed together. Many countries that label themselves by religion are really asserting the distinctive qualities of their cultural or national identity.
In the example of my friend, he lives in a “Jewish” state. Yet, one can hold Israeli nationality without professing the Jewish religion or being born of an ethnically Jewish family — some Israeli citizens are Muslim, Druze or Christian by religion, and one-fifth are born of ethnically Arab families.
Israel’s dominant culture is Western and Jewish. Although many Jewish Israelis are more culturally than religiously Jewish, most would object to anyone identifying himself as a Jew who professes another religion.
Israel’s Arab neighbors are similar. Except Lebanon, Arab countries identify themselves as Islamic, even though some are very secular. The dominant culture may be Arab and Islamic, but not all citizens are Muslim by religion. Also, many Muslim citizens are more culturally than religiously Muslim.
Traditionally, Western countries have been considered Christian — and similarly mixing religion with culture and nationality. Now, many embrace civic religious neutrality — the idea of separation of “church” and “state.”
Canada and the United States, for example, have pluralistic societies that consider cultural and religious diversity and freedom as desirable within the framework of a common citizenship and national identity.
This ideal is profoundly religious — not that all be the same, but that all may be one, united in diversity.
May we someday get beyond national differences too, and really join together the whole human family.



(Published in
one, 35:6, November 2009)

Mindful of the Poor

About twenty years after the resurrection of Jesus, a controversy arose in the Christian community of Antioch about requirements for new members. Some Christians of Jewish background insisted observance of the Mosaic law was required for salvation; the Christians of pagan background disagreed.
The community decided to send Paul, Barnabas and some others to Jerusalem to talk to the apostles and elders about the issue. Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles tells us they set only a few minimums for new Christians, not the whole Mosaic law.
But, Paul’s report on the meeting, in his letter to the Galatians, mentions an important requirement for all Christians, not referred to in Acts, “. . . to be mindful of the poor.”
This mandate drove Paul for the rest of his life. He spoke of it in his letter to the Romans; in his first letter to the Corinthians, he urged, “each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford” for the poor.
His second letter to the Corinthians praised the Macedonians, “for in a severe test of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their profound poverty overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part.
“For according to their means, I can testify, and beyond their means, spontaneously, they begged us insistently for the favor of taking part in the service to the holy ones, and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and to us through the will of God.”
Paul urged the Corinthians also to excel in charity, “…not by way of command, but to test the genuineness of your love by your concern for others.”
He spelt it out for the Corinthians — and for us — giving reason after reason to be generous:

• “For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake he became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich.
• “. . . not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality.
• “Consider this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
• “. . . God loves a cheerful giver.
• “The one who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed and increase the harvest of your righteousness.
• “. . . you are glorifying God for your obedient confession of the gospel of Christ and the generosity of your contribution to them and all the others . . .”
Pope Benedict described Paul’s collection for the poor of Jerusalem as “a completely new initiative in the area of religious activities: it was not obligatory, but free and spontaneous; all the churches that were founded by Paul in the West took part.”
Almost two thousand years later, we still have desperately poor people with us — and “to be mindful of the poor” still ought to be a defining characteristic of the followers of Jesus.
But, daily we hear about tragedy after tragedy. The temptation is, “What can I do about it? Does the little I can do make a significant difference?” Because we can’t solve the problem, we often decide to do nothing about it.
Remember,“Better to light one candle then to curse the darkness.”

(An early version was
published in
one, 35:5, September 2009 )

Respect

Respect vt. [from the Latin respectus, past participle of respicere, to look at, look back on, respect] 1. a) to feel or show honor or esteem for; hold in high regard. b) to consider or treat with deference or dutiful regard. 2. to show consideration for; avoid intruding upon or interfering with. 3. to concern; relate to.

As a young priest, I spent two summers on the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico, learning conversational Spanish and Puerto Rican and Hispanic culture. Weekends, I would help out in various parishes on the island, including the hearing of confessions.
At home, in New York, I was used to children confessing, for example, that “I disobeyed my mother ten times. I disobeyed my father five times. I disobeyed my teacher three times.”
However, in Puerto Rico, the children — in Spanish of course — often confessed, “I didn’t respect my mother ten times. I didn’t respect my father five times. I didn’t respect my teacher three times.
What a difference! In Puerto Rican culture, respect is a basic and important value — and the lack of respect or, worse, disrespect is a serious offense.
Respect is a value throughout the entire Hispanic and Latin worlds. Not surprisingly, in view of the long Moorish presence in Spain that helped mold that country’s culture, it is an equally important value throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Even American Rap music offered a backhanded endorsement of the value when it popularized the slang term “dis.”
Upon careful analysis, there is a theological basis for respect. It is rooted in the innate dignity of every human person as a creature made in the image and likeness of God and endowed with certain inalienable rights.
That is why to seriously disrespect another person can even be a sin.

For a large percentage of the human race, respect is such an important value that often death is preferable to dishonor. Shame can be unendurable, whether the shame falls upon an individual person or upon his or her family, clan, tribe, caste, nation or culture.
In many languages, before addressing another person, one has to be aware of the degree of respect that is due — for, unlike in modern English, the speaker has to choose from more than one form for “you.”
Long-lasting feuds have been triggered by disrespectful words. Wars have started over real or perceived insults. The demands of honor often lead to death and destruction.
According to the nursery rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Maybe they should not, but, as a matter of fact, they often do.
An important part of the art of diplomacy is skill in choosing the words that are spoken and the deportment that is displayed.
Every culture has it norms of politeness and its unwritten rules governing social interactions and personal behavior. A stranger who does not know and understand them can never effectively communicate, even if he speaks the language well.
It is not hypocrisy to be concerned about things like “saving face” or “bella figura.” Although they can be exaggerated, they stem from respect for the other’s dignity.
Minimally, it is pragmatic and practical to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And, if we truly are followers of Jesus who teaches us to love our enemies, the least we can do is respect them.
Perhaps St. Francis would have prayed, “O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be respected as to respect.”


(Published in
one, 35:4, July 2009)

I’m Sincerely Yours

Have you ever been in a situation where someone else has mistaken your identity? For example:
“Nice to see you again.”
“Excuse me, who are you?”
“Don’t you remember? We met at Tom and Amelia’s house a few months ago.”
“I’m sorry, I don’t know them. You must be mixing me up with somebody else.”
It’s somewhat awkward if you are mistaken for someone else, but it’s a much more serious matter if you mistake your own identity, if you don’t know really who and what you are.
The mores of modern society tend to confuse the best of us, especially those that put such an emphasis on self-fulfillment. An old, popular song sums up this point of view: “Whether I’m right, or whether I’m wrong, I gotta be me, I gotta be me.”
But, am I the be-all and the end-all of my existence? Is all that really matters me? Is my life just for me?
In a few short and beautiful words, St. Paul wrote to the Romans about their fundamental identity: “None of us lives for oneself, and no one dies for oneself. For if we live, we live for the Lord, and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.”
If we really know ourselves, we know that we are creatures, yearning to fulfill the designs of our creator. For St. Augustine, this realization was the turning point of his life. In the beginning of his autobiography, he cries to the Lord, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee.”
Our challenge, then, is to be who we really are and are meant to be. Shakespeare expressed it well in Hamlet, “This above all: to thine own self be true…” St. John the Evangelist spelt out the implications of it, “. . . we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed.”

Notice St. John says “we”. We are the Lord’s. We are his sons and daughters, and so brother and sisters — one family.
Larger families — clans, ethnic groups, and nations — also need to know who they truly are. They, too, can suffer from mistaken identity. Sometimes others mistake their identity and worth, and sometimes they mistake their identity themselves. They, too, may live confused, with a similar song, “Whether we’re right, or whether we’re wrong, we gotta be us.”
But, each of them is the Lord’s and a part of his entire human family.
It’s painful to see people who speak as though they know who they really are, who talk of God, and yet who are contradicted by their actions. Jesus named such people “hypocrites,” describing them with Isaiah’s words, “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”
It is even more painful to witness families, clans, ethnic groups, and nations who claim to know who they are, who invoke God, and yet whose actions speak the opposite.
Paradoxically, in that region of the world where God uniquely intervened in human history, where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam began, this hypocrisy is blatant.
How profoundly and evilly mistaken are those who randomly kill innocents in the name of God, sacrifice others for their own interests and advancement, and clothe themselves with righteousness as they violate the rights of their neighbors.
How dangerous are they who do not know who and what they are.
Thanks to you, Lord, I know who I am. In you “we live and move and have our being.” I’m sincerely yours.


(Published as
“Sincerely Yours” in
one, 35:1, January 2009)

Religious Taxonomy

As scientists study the tremendous diversity of living things, they classify them into large families and various smaller groupings based on the similarities and relationships they discover among them. This system of classification is called taxonomy — from the Greek words taxis or arrangement and nomos or law.
With the passing of time and growth in scientific knowledge, the classifications become more sophisticated and less obvious.
For example, once dolphins, along with large fish, were classified as sea creatures based on the obvious similarity of living in the sea. Now, even school children know the difference between sea creatures that breathe with lungs and those that breath with gills. Dolphins are mammals, not fish.
Classifying dolphins — and seals, whales and walruses — as mammals is based on more than how they breathe. They also share a similar internal structure. That’s why bats are mammals and birds are not — even though they both have lungs and both fly.
Recently I took some visitors to the natural history museum. In the halls with enormous, towering skeletons of dinosaurs, an exhibit showing their relationships pointed out that their nearest living relatives are, surprisingly, birds.
Uncovering relationships like those between dinosaurs and birds means going much deeper in the search for similarities and commonalities, even to the level of DNA and genes.
Relationships at the genetic level upset a lot of common notions. For example, human beings are often classified into “races,” based on a superficial difference, the degree of skin coloration. At the deeper level, there are no basic differences among people at all. Also, surprisingly to some, present scholarship suggests East Africa as the likely place for human origins.

It is challenging to apply some of the same types of analysis to the classification of religions.
For example, Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism seem very different. Yet, the crucified Christ who has such a prominent place in Catholic piety and theology can only be fully understood in terms of the various sacrifices — Passover, atonement, sin offering, and thanksgiving — of the law of Moses, or the Torah, the heart of Judaism.
The origins of all forms of Christianity lie in Judaism. Early Christians were devout Jews who recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the hoped-for Messiah — in fact the very name Christian means “Messianist.” As time passed, they accepted non-Jews into their company. For Christians, this was a positive development. For Jews, this was a radical break and an abandonment of critically important values.
In this sense, a commonality among almost all Jews today is that they have not gone the way of the early Messianic Jews and those affiliated with them over the centuries — the Christians.
A solid religious taxonomy classifies Jews and Christians — and Muslims — into one large family, sometimes called the Abrahamic faiths. But often the appearance and behavior of contemporary Jews, Christians, and Muslims make it very hard to see the common roots and similarities.
There is a deep relationship among all believers in spite of their diverse religions. God is one, so all who seek him have much in common, no matter how strange they may seem, one to the other.
Taxonomy can be taxing.


(Published in
one, 34:6, November 2008)