Misunderstandings Archives < Page 4 of 6

Role Models

Growing up, usually we’ve had some role models for various aspects of our lives. That is to say, we’ve tried to be like someone who, as best we understood it, was exemplary in some or many ways.
   Our role models included people distinguished by, for example, looks, strength, popularity, sex appeal, power, money, insight, academic achievement, heroism, skill, artistry, generosity, leadership, holiness, or beauty.
   We’re all somewhat familiar with Halls of Fame—that is, places that call attention to and commemorate people distinguished by a particular kind of achievement—for example, pro football or baseball.
   Although not necessarily commemorated in a Hall of Fame, many people are selected as exemplars in their chosen field. Just think of the Academy Awards for different successes in motion pictures, or medals awarded for valor in the military.
   In Washington, DC., there are monument erected to distinguished Americans—e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King.
   All over, there are monuments, pictures, busts, and statutes of special people held up for us as models and achievers for better or for worse, from beauty contests to elections!
   Sometimes people are honored during their life, although that can become disappointing since people tend to improve or decline with the passage of time.
   That’s why so many people are not completely held up as exemplars or role models until they have died—and even so, they are not held up as models in every single aspect of their lives; except for a special dispensation of God, no human person is perfect in every way.
   Many years ago I was at the funeral for Pope John Paul II. Towards the end of the ceremony in St. Peter’s Square, many people began to cry out, “Santo subito!”

   “Saint right away!” was what they wanted, that he be honored as a saint.
   Canonization of a saint is a solemn declaration that the person was so distinguished by their quality of life that they now must be in heaven—and may be called upon as our intercessor before God.
   Of course, it doesn’t mean that the person was 100% perfect in every way, but it does hold up the person as a model to be imitated, as an example of faith and goodness for each of us.
   We’re all called upon and challenged to live lives as nearly perfect and as exemplary we can—but it doesn’t necessarily mean that we will be singled out for any award or Hall of Fame.
   Life is filled with unsung heroes/heroines known only to a few people or maybe only to God. Very few are publicly recognized, acclaimed, remembered, and held up as role models.
   Those held up as exemplars in one time and place may not be esteemed the same way in another; values change, and few people stand the test of time and continue to stand as role models through the ages.
   Each of us may have had role models known only to ourselves—and, conversely, we may have become a role model for another in some ways without realizing it.
   As children we learned by imitating and taking after others. Sometimes we realized that our choice of role models was a mistake—and sometime it was a mistake and we never realized it.
   You’re a role model, each of us is a role model, whether we know it or not. Of course, we’re not and never will be perfect models. But, we try to do the best we can!

23 January 2022

Outdated Language

The language we speak is changing all the time. That’s why we need dictionaries. They tell us where each word comes from, what it originally meant, how it used to be used, what it means now.
   Geoffrey Chaucer, born around 1340 in London, is called the father of English literature. His famous work is The Canterbury Tales. You think you know English? Try reading it exactly as he wrote it.
   You may more or less understand it, but you’ll find yourself often stumped by unfamiliar words or words spelt differently and/or that have a different meaning now than they did when Chaucer wrote them.
   You think you know English? Try visiting different English speaking countries and different neighborhoods within them. I once was in a train to Liverpool near a group of teenagers returning home. I couldn’t understand their conversation at all!
   You think you know English? Spoken Indian English is rapid and can be hard to understand for an American. Once in India, I asked a friend if he had a similar difficulty with my (New York style, American) English. Yes, he said, you speak with such a drawl!
   You know where and when we still use a lot of old, outdated English words? In our religious language and traditional prayers.
   For example, the Our Father. We still use some outdated words, but, hopefully, not with their outdated meanings.
   We refer to God as in the sky (heaven). We pray that his name be hallowed (made, be regarded as holy), but the main way we use that word now-a-days is for Halloween.
   We ask that his kingdom be established, but how familiar are we really with ancient Middle East kings and kingdoms?
   Do we really want to be led away from all temptation? If we avoid every place and situation of temptation, we’d be rather shut in. But, we do want the strength to resist the daily temptations in our lives.

   When we ask for forgiveness of trespasses, we don’t mean unlawfully entering upon someone else’s private property.
   Another obvious example, the Hail Mary. We know about hailstorms, we may hail a cab, and we know about ship to ship encounters, but now to attract someone’s attention we’re more likely to “hey”.
   We say she is full of grace, but we don’t mean elegance or beauty, rather that she was favored by God or in a state of holiness.
   When we say she is blessed, we don’t mean that she’s lucky or a winner; we mean she bespeaks God, that the love and mercy of God shows forth through her life.
   “Mother of God” doesn’t mean that she has begotten the creator of the universe nor that God’s genetic makeup is from her. It refers to the divinity of Jesus, her son.
   I’m not knocking anything, just reminding that in religious talk we comfortably use many words whose meaning has shifted.
   A few more examples:
   Church—do we mean a consecrated building or an assembly of believers?
   Altar—do we mean a place where offerings are burnt or a dining table?
   Mass—do we mean a holy sacrifice or a remembrance of Jesus’ life and death and a communal act of thanksgiving (eucharist)?
   Priest—do we mean an ordained official or an elder (presbyter) in a community of believers?
   Confess—do we mean to plead guilty to a sin or crime or to proclaim one’s belief or allegiance?
   Communion—do we mean the consecrated host or a shared fellowship?
   It’s okay to use outdated language, but it’s important to be clear about what we mean!

14 November 2021

It’s Tradition

tradition 1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc. from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or practice 2. something that is handed down 3. a long established or inherited way of thinking or acting 4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices 5. a customary or characteristic method or manner 6. in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, unwritten codes, laws, doctrines, teachings, sayings, acts, etc. regarded as handed down from Moses, Jesus, Muhammad.

With respect for all our traditions, please notice that a tradition can and may be correct or mistaken, right or wrong, good or bad.
   Usually when a law or regulation is changed, we get used to the change and obey it, even though we may not think that the change was a good idea and personally liked the old one better.
   But, when it comes to traditions, we’re not so easily accepting of change—in fact it often seems that the very idea of deliberately changing a tradition is almost contradictory in itself!
   However, actually our traditions do change but usually gradually and imperceptibly (and sometimes mistakenly as well).
   For example,
   – What’s the proper skirt length for a well-dressed woman?
   – If I say, “Thank you”, and you reply, “No problem”, is that polite or inappropriate?
   – Is missing Mass on Sunday without an adequate reason a mortal sin for which you could burn in the fires of Hell forever?
   – Should a man greet another man with a kiss on the cheek?
   – Could a woman be elected president?
   – Is Heaven only for my coreligionists or can any good person end up there?

   – Is it wrong to use contraceptives?
   – If it’s written in the Bible, it must be always true, no matter who, what, or when.
   – If Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Latin, why should the Mass be in Latin?
   – Shouldn’t real Americans be Republicans? Democrats? Liberals? Conservatives?
   – Shouldn’t the man be head of the family?
   – The U.S. should keep out aliens, foreigners, socialists, communists, gays, Africans, Asians, Latins, etc.
   – Is gender a matter of anatomy? social customs? upbringing? personal preference?
   Excuse this smorgasbord listing of odd examples, but I’m trying to illustrate that traditions have changed or are changing, and are changing more rapidly than we sometimes realize.
   Why? Because of growth and development, individually and collectively, we are always encountering new challenges, ideas, experiences, and understandings. To be alive involves change, non-stop until the end of our lives.
   We no long believe that the earth is flat, that we live in the center of the universe. We no longer believe in many gods, and for many, in any god. Our notions of right and wrong, virtue and sin, evolve with the course of history and our individual lives. Our capacity for rapid exchange of information and communication is phenomenal—and often misleading.
   Sometimes, it’s because we can’t keep up, because we can’t process so much so fast, that we fall back on and cling to “traditions”.
   Our heritages are our legacies not our laws, our gifts not our obligations, our memories not our futures.
   Respect traditions, surely, but also live!

19 September 2021

God Doesn’t Shout

Chapter 19 of the 1st book of Kings tells of Elijah’s encounter with God on the mountain:

There was a strong and violent wind rending the mountains and crushing rocks before the Lord—but the Lord was not in the wind; after the wind, an earthquake—but the Lord was not in the earthquake; after the earthquake, fire—but the Lord was not in the fire; after the fire, a light silent sound.

   When Elijah heard the light silent sound he knew he was in the presence of God.
   We may yearn to know the will of God, to know what God expects of us. We may yearn to hear his voice.
   The Bible tells of us of the experience of others, of how they perceived the will of God, of how they heard his voice.
   The lives of the saints are similar. We learn how they came to discern God’s will, how they heard God’s call.
   We may cry out in the depths of our hearts, “Lord, why did you allow this to happen? Lord, where are you leading me? Lord, what do you want of me?
   Can it be that God ignores our plea? that God doesn’t hear our cry? that God is indifferent to our plight?
   No!
   God always answers—and God often answers in ways we do not expect.
   If you’re expecting dramatic divine intervention in your life like the experience of St. Paul the Apostle on the road to Damascus, you may be waiting in vain. In fact, you may be missing or completely misunderstanding God’s way of communication. God may be speaking, but it is you who do not hear!
   When the people heard the crash of thunder and the flashes of lighting they “knew” that God was speaking to Moses.
   But Moses—and Elijah—knew better.

   Three special ways God speaks to us are through the created universe, the teachings of Jesus, and in the depths of our hearts.
   The problem is not that God is not talking to us. The problem lies with us, that we are often deaf, dumb, and stupid—we don’t see, hear, sense, feel, taste, discern, understand, or comprehend.
   Elijah in the depth of depression and despair, went into the desert to die—and yet he was summoned to stand before God on the mountain and hear his voice. At least he was not so far gone that he misconstrued the violence of nature as the voice of God. He listened for the light silent sound!
   The sonnet of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “How do I love thee?”, could also be a reflection about “How do I hear thee?”:

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right.
I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

12 September 2021

Ruling (the) Class

“Rulers” (e.g., governors, presidents, CEO’s, kings, tyrants, dictators, bosses) may but are not obliged to justify their decisions or actions.
   They wield power. They may possess it through family, social status, election, appointment, class privilege or even deception, falsification, assassination.
   “Teachers” (e.g., professors, school teachers, scout masters, dieticians, counselors, trainers, guides, trail blazers, therapists, models, designers, artists, directors) are the opposites of rulers
   They coach and challenge others to learn to think, analyze, and understand, encouraging them to encounter new ideas, perspectives, and experiences.
   “Leaders” are a sort of blend of both. They have a responsibility for organized groups with common purposes. They serve the group both through personal qualities and example and through their special role of making decisions for the common good.
   What is the principal role of clergy? When a bishop, priest, deacon, or other minister is preaching the Good News, explaining the Scriptures, or counseling an individual or a congregation, is it mostly a matter of teaching, leading, or ruling? Is it more about witnessing, persuading, or demanding?
   There’s a complicated history to all of this, and the answers may vary depending on the era you have in mind.
   Jesus was not a ruler, even though he spoke with the language of his day of a kingdom not of this world. He taught by word and example, he led and guided, he gave standards and mandates.
   His early followers were heralds and proclaimers of what they considered to be good news all over in and outside of the Roman empire in which they lived. But, they needed and had leaders, not rulers, to guide them, coordinate their efforts, and foster their unity and common values.

   Jesus and his first followers were Jews, whose tradition was that priests and other Levites were a special tribe with roles and power as presiders in religious rituals and as adjudicators of the laws of God.
   The early Christians in the Jewish world were influenced by this tradition, while those in the pagan world struggled to accommodate the proclamation of Jesus and his teachings to the traditions and ways of a foreign culture.
   When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, the proclaimers of the message and the celebrants of the rituals possessed a status in the empire, as the new priesthood and temples replaced the old.
   With the collapse of imperial authority in the West, Christian leaders in Rome began to fill the gap, by ruling and wielding political power. This blurred the distinctions between ruling, teaching, and leading for many centuries. (Movie fans, just think of Becket, A Man for All Seasons, and films about Joan of Arc.)
   Vestiges of this, like the pope’s appointing nuncios (ambassadors) to countries or establishing codes of law, still linger. Is the Pope today a powerful enforcer of legislation, a fearsome wielder of life or death decisions? Hardly!
   His power lies in faith and witness, in his skill in teaching, motivating, and leading. Dictates are out-of-date and ineffective.
   Decreeing, judging, and penalizing have become outdated religious methodologies, while witnessing, explaining, persuading, and leading are far more effective.
   Even so, trying to rule as well as to teach and to lead still lingers as a methodology of some religious leaders and their followers.

18 July 2021

Playing Many Roles

A great actor/actress can handle a wide variety of roles. Sometimes they can so effectively become “another person” that at first we don’t realize who they really are.
   Others may be excellent and entertaining performers, but they’re always more or less playing the same kind of character even in very different situations.
   In life, each of us has a variety of roles to play and, similarly, sometimes, for better or for worse, we’re playing the same character throughout. For example, you may be a good mother, but you’re not a good sister if you treat your adult siblings like children.
   As a priest, I’m used to being called “Father”, but a more accurate label for what people expect might be “Brother”. Most people want understanding and compassion from a priest more than paternal correction and being told what to do.
   There also are various categories of roles we play throughout our lives. Some are rooted in biology like child or senior, sister or brother, mother or father, aunt or uncle.
   Some are the result of actions we take such as husband or wife, employee or employer, leader or follower; others result from the actions or rules of others like victim or prisoner, citizen or illegal alien, celebrity or outcast.
   And, of course, the passage of our lives casts us in different roles all the time.
   What defines each role we play is relationship, and most of the labels we use for them involve relationships
   If I have great love and concern within me, but never manifest it to others in word or deed, then I can’t be considered a lover or an empath. I’m not playing the role, even though perhaps I could.
   There’s no hypocrisy in all of this. We all behave differently to different people at different times. We don’t act the same with every other person we relate to in our lives. We are multifaceted, complex beings.

   If each of us has a variety of relationships in our lives and a variety of roles to play—if each of us doesn’t communicate all that we are and all that we can be in every relationship we have, what about God?
   Over the centuries, different religious traditions have developed different ways to describe the different relationships we have to God and the different relationships God has to us.
   For example, in the early books of the Bible, God is described as the personal God of Abraham. Later he’s called the God of his immediate descendants, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Later still God is considered the family or tribal God of the Israelites (the descendants of Jacob).
   It is took some centuries before the Israelites moved from polytheism to monotheism, from “You shall not have other gods beside me.” to a denial of the very existence of “other gods”.
   The Messianic Jews (the early Christians) began to describe the one and only God in terms of a variety of relationships and ways of communication, especially as:
   – Father: God in the role of the ultimate source of all being and life, the maker, the creator, the sustainer.
   – Son: God self-manifesting through the long-awaited Messiah, Jesus, and his life, example, and teachings.
   – Spirit: God communicating and acting through each, every, and all human persons, in the depths of their being.
   We don’t have up-to-date words to label this complexity, and some of our traditional words no longer mean what once they did.
   We believe in one God, although “Holy Trinity” almost sounds like we don’t!

20 June 2021

Figuring Things Out

There are an awful lot of things that we can’t figure out, that just don’t make sense to us, and that we don’t really understand no matter how hard we try.
   As a matter of fact, we live our lives constantly surrounded by things we can’t figure out—and, oddly enough, that doesn’t seem to bother us at all.
   Just because we don’t know exactly how a cell phone works doesn’t stop us from using it all the time. On the other hand, it may be able to do more things than we realize, but if we have no desire to do those things we’re not bothered in the least because we don’t understand them.
   How many of us can really explain how a plane flies? Even though we may not know exactly how, it doesn’t stop us from taking flights. But, we do presume and trust that the pilot understands a lot more about it than we do.
   It’s like going to the doctor. When we’re sick or don’t feel well, we trust that the doctor will know better or find out what’s wrong and do something to help us. We don’t have to know precisely how it works, to benefit from a vaccination.
   Whether you’re going to an obstetrician or a local midwife, it involves an act of confidence and trust in the knowledge and decisions of the other.
   The hardest things to figure out aren’t matters of science, technology, mechanics, or biology. The hardest things to figure out are other people!
   How often we’re baffled by their decisions, reactions, and behavior. How often we think or even say, “I just can’t figure him/her out!”
   Because we often can’t figure the other persons out, we can unknowingly misunderstand them, misjudge them, or react to them inappropriately.
   And, it’s not just strangers. It could be your mother, father, wife, husband, child, sister, brother, neighbor, friend, colleague, counselor, minister, entertainer, or boss.

   When it comes to our faith and religious practices, there’s also a lot of things we can’t figure out, that just don’t make sense to us, and that we don’t really understand.
   As a matter of fact, we live our religious lives constantly surrounded by things that we can’t figure out—and oddly enough, that also doesn’t seem to bother us at all.
   Just because we don’t know enough history, philosophy, and theology to explain the origin, change, and development in religious matters, it doesn’t usually bother us in the least or stop us from practicing our religion or living lives of faith.
   When we join with others in religious observances, we may not be able to explain everything, but we do presume and trust that our religious leaders (be they priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or swami) understand a lot more about them than we do.
   In religious matters, as in many things, although we may not have all the answers we do trust and have confidence in our religious leaders and fellow believers.
   Of course, religious leaders, like all leaders, like all people, are less than perfect, don’t know everything, and can’t explain everything, even though we may trust them.
   We may be baffled by their decisions, reactions, and behavior. We may think or even say, “I just can’t figure him/her out!”
   If this is the way things are with other people, how much more it must be with God (the maker, the creator, the supreme being, the source of all life and love).
   We can’t figure God out, and so God can be unknowingly misunderstood, misjudged, or reacted to inappropriately also!
   Especially with God, it’s really not about figuring things out—it’s all about trust and love.

13 June 2021

At Home on the Range

No, this is not about the song
   It’s about how comfortable we are about where we seem to find ourselves—or others choose to situate us—on the various ranges or scales that we use to describe and measure our appearance, behavior, popularity, feelings, skills, etc.
   Here’s a notorious example: skin color—classifying people on a range from Black to White (which actually is a range from dark to light).
   Nobody is at either extreme. Nobody’s skin is 100% black or dark, and nobody’s skin is 100% light or white.
   We all may know many so-called “black” people who are paler than some so-called “white” people, and many so-called “white” people who are darker than some so-called “black” people.
   When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides skin color—physiognomy, dress, behavior, ethnic origins, family, social status, education, wealth, etc.
   Just think about what we’re trying to get at—and how confusing it gets— when we classify people on the “conservative-liberal” range, or the “young-old” range, or the “smart-dumb” range, or the “weak-strong” range, or the “good-bad” range, or the “rich-poor” range.
   Whatever range we’re using to describe ourselves or another, there’s one common factor to them all: nobody is at the extreme of any range; no one is 100% anything!
   In other words, we all have and may display to some extent a bit of both: I may be fairly liberal about somethings and conservative about others, know a lot about somethings and little about others.
   And, of course, as we change and develop, our position on any of these ranges shifts, more towards one extreme or the other—sort of like the way the mercury moves one way or the other in a thermometer.

   Here’s another contemporary example: sexuality—classifying people on a range from heterosexual to homosexual.
   Nobody is 100% at either extreme—or exactly in the middle (e.g.. “bisexual”). Nobody is only and exclusively attracted to others of the opposite sex and never, ever attracted to the other—and vice-versa.
   When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides sexual attraction and/or behavior—physiognomy, dress, mores, cultural standards, affects, etc.
   With this range, there are key factors which strongly influence our reactions and judgements—our standards of morality and, or based on, our religious formation.
   A strong influence in the shaping of standards of morality and religious formation until fairly recent times, especially in Western societies, is sometimes identified as Jansenism (based on the writings of a 17th century theologian, Cornelius Jansen).
   This movement, rooted in Augustinian theology, emphasized original sin, the fundamental sinfulness of the human condition, and the need for divine grace. It inspired a very rigorous moral theology, especially in sexual matters.
   For example, I can remember being taught as a child in catechism class that the sixth commandment (about adultery) forbade, under penalty of mortal sin, “impure” thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions.
   I was terrified by what, in retrospect, I later realized were bad religious teachings.
   A moral to all this: be aware of the range of views regarding most matters and beware of believing your judgement about the right point on any range is the only legitimate, unbiased one. (Alas, we’re not infallible!)

23 May 2021

Loaded Language

Recently Frank Bruni wrote a thoughtful opinion article for The New York Times called “Stop It With ‘Gun Control’. Enough Already”. Its subtitle was “Language matters. This language doesn’t help.”
   He considered “Gun Control” as “an example of the loaded language that often shapes our discourse on important matters.”
   His point was that “how we write and talk about any issue that engenders passionate disagreement” is “inevitably consequential”. Although his main example was the difference between speaking of Gun Control vs. Gun Safety, he gave a few other examples of what he considered loaded language:
   – Illegal Aliens vs. Undocumented Aliens.
   – Pro Life vs. Pro Choice.
   – Gay Marriage vs. Marriage Equality.
   Sometimes, although we may not realize it, we may be using religious, theological, and canonical language that is loaded also.
   Maybe once upon a time, the language may have been perfectly respectable and clear, but as times change, customs change, and words change, the same language can become “loaded” in the sense of engendering passionate disagreement.
   At present, there is disagreement about translations of the Bible, especially whether they are discriminatory.
   For example, translating St. Paul’s opening words on the Areopagus: Traditional translations usually use “Men of Athens” whether it was an all-male audience or not. But some modern translations, presuming it was a mixed audience, use “Athenians”.
   In any case, for us, nowadays, “Men” usually means just adult males.
   With the changing usage of words, sometimes we find that the word we need doesn’t exist. For example, we shouldn’t apply exclusively masculine or feminine words to describe the Creator. But, we don’t have any good alternatives for using “he”, “him”, or “his” when referring to God.

   Sometime there are solutions. We can use “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers” if a message is directed to everyone, not just to men.
   Translations are not the only challenges regarding using words that have evolved and changed in meaning or usage.
   People were once identified as black, brown, red, white, or yellow—a very racist mentality. Now a popular usage is “people of color” for everyone who is not “white”. It’s really no less racist an expression, although it’s meant to be not racist at all!
   Race is a word that implies a different species—and there is only one human species.
   We refer to LGBTQ people meaning everyone who is not . . . heterosexual? normal? not-different? We don’t have an good opposite word in this and many cases.
   The obvious opposite of “Pro Life” is “Pro Death”. The opposite of “Pro Choice” is something like “Pro No-Choice”.
   If one’s definition of marriage involves two people intending procreating children, then it’s difficult to consider a same-sex relationship as a marriage. But, anybody can be a partner with anybody else in a civil union, which doesn’t imply procreation.
   The Order of the Holy Sepulchre includes men and women. What to call the women members? In English usage (England that is) a title of distinction for a woman is “Dame”. But, in some places (U.S. for example), “Dame” sounds like slang and “Lady” sounds better. However, any woman can be called a lady; it’s not an honorific title at all.
   “Words, words, words.” Be very careful how you use them, especially the loaded ones!

11 April 2021

Cursing the Darkness

Better to light one candle
than to curse the darkness.

It seems, considering how we invest our time, energy, and attention, that we have become inordinately absorbed in cursing the darkness!
First, let’s be clear what we’re talking about. “Darkness” refers to the absence or lack of light; by extension and metaphorically it alludes to wicked or evil beings that inhabit or are associated with it.
Second, let’s be clear about the attention we give to darkness.
– Although we want light, we’re not being inundated by candle-lighters or overwhelmed by the light they’re shedding. But we do try to educate potential candle-lighters about the depth and extent and danger of the darkness.
– That’s what prompts us to condemn the darkness. We want to persuade people that, even in spite of certain advantages and satisfactions of the darkness, it’s not good. So, we try to heighten their awareness of the undesirable consequences of the darkness.
– But, to motivate cursing the darkness, we really have to reveal the darkness in its depth. We have to call attention to its vastness, its origin, and its seemingly rapid expansion. We have to dramatically illustrate its deceptive worth and value. We have to announce the dark dangers daily.
What happens! Often we end up becoming absorbed by the darkness and its effects, by the absence of light.
Look at the entertainment sector: audiences are thrilled by films that exceed one another in shockingly vivid depictions of death, destruction, and violence.
Look at the religious sector: church goers sometimes are titillated by exhortations to righteousness and virtue that dramatically describe the consequences of their absence—sins and their enormity.

Look at the political sector: citizens are ceaselessly informed about the scope and significance and failings of the “other”, so as to muster support for the “right” side.
If we’re often hearing and speaking of the darkness, its extent, and the achievements of darkness dwellers, we may not be doing a great job of spreading the light.
There are always spots of light amid the darkness, like stars in the night sky. Do we see them as spoilers of the darkness, or as harbingers of the beauty of the light?
In over-educating people about the achievements, pleasures and dangers of the darkness, we may be blinding them to the power and glory of the light.
To be a force for light, we need to be aware of the darkness, but not to curse and denounce it in such exquisite detail that in effect we become its promoters.
To be a force for light, don’t forget that the most important thing is to light and keep burning the candle of our lives—even one spot in the night can encourage others to shine their little light as well.
To be a force for light, we should learn from the current pandemic. One tiny virus so multiplies that it is interfering with human life on earth, causing more death than many a war, radically affecting and altering the behavior of almost everyone.
Your priority is to light your candle, which instantly dispels nearby darkness and can become a very contagious behavior—each candle-lighter encouraging another.
Remember Paul’s plea to the Ephesians: “…you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth…”

7 March 2021