Tag: Relationships

Male – Female

Male: a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.

Female: a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, uterus, and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

    These biological definitions are the fundamental meaning of the two words—and, based on these definitions, it’s hard to imagine changing from one to another.

Masculine: having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, such as strength and boldness.

Feminine: having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, such as sensitivity and gentleness.

    These behavioral definitions are not so clear and fixed as the biological—there are men with some “feminine” qualities and women with some “masculine” qualities.
    Remember when you were just a child? In my time (long ago!), if you fell, hurt yourself, and began to cry, usually it was your mother who held and consoled you. Dads usually didn’t do that sort of thing.
    If you wanted to use hammers and nails and other tools, usually it was your father who showed you. Moms usually didn’t do that sort of thing.
    Gentleness was considered feminine behavior and toughness, male behavior.
    Girls could play “house’” and have dolls, but not boys. Boys could have bats and balls to play with, but, traditionally, girls didn’t.

    In those days, a girl who had behaviors associated with boys was called a “tomboy”; a boy who had behaviors associated with girls was called a “fairy”.
    Now we have a far more varied and elaborate vocabulary to describe sexual behaviors and identities.
    It’s like shopping in a paint store. You may want blue paint, but you still need to choose what shade of blue you want from a color chart with far more possibilities than you may have expected.
    There are far more possibilities on the “Male – Female” chart or range, too, and some of the labels or names we use for them are pejorative and some are not.
    The behaviors associated with “man” or “woman” can vary from culture to culture, ethnic group to ethnic group, country to country, and age to age.
    In spite of biological, behavioral, and historical, and other differences, it’s clear that we are all human beings. It’s also clear that we may have different sexual identities, relationships, behaviors and moralities.
    Once, being questioned about divorce, Jesus said, “…Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…” (Mathew 19:4)
    This was a reference to biological difference, not behavior, in answer to a provocative question about the Mosaic law, about husbands divorcing their wives.
    Years ago, the Heinz company had a popular advertising slogan on its ketchup bottle about its “57 varieties”.
    I don’t know if human beings are that diverse, but we’re all God’s children and, in spite of differences, belong to that one and the same variety!


28 August 2022

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

Apostolic Development Officer

No, St. Paul was never called that, even though to some extent he was a fundraiser.
   He once appealed to the Christians in Corinth to be generous in providing aid to the poor Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8-9). His appeal is a beautiful reflection on the nature of charity, practical and realistic as well. Here are a few excerpts:

   – I am not saying this as an order, but testing the genuineness of your love against the concern of others.
   – You know the generosity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, although he was rich, he became poor for your sake, so that you should become rich through his poverty.
   – I will give you my view of the matter: this is appropriate for you as you were the first, a year ago, not only to take any action but also even to desire the project. Now then, complete the action as well, so that the completion from your resources may match your enthusiasm.
   – For as long as the enthusiasm is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what a person does not have.
   –  It should not bring relief to others and hardship to yourselves; but there should be a balance—your surplus at present may fill their deficit, and their surplus may fill your deficit, so there may be a balance…(8:8-12)

   – But remember: one who sows sparsely will reap sparsely as well, and one who sows bounteously will reap bounteously as well.
   – Each should give as much as you have decided on your own initiative, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver… (9:6-7)
   – The one who provides seed for the sower and food to eat will supply and increase the produce of your righteousness.(9:10)

   Making charitable contributions is not just about having a deduction in your income tax. It’s also not just a gesture that will enhance people’s esteem of you when publicized.
   Giving also shouldn’t be determined by the worthiness or the attractiveness of the recipient. Many an old story told of helping a repugnant person who turned out to be the Lord, illustrating the judgement story in Matthew’s gospel: “…whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”
   Frequently the demands on our generosity are unplanned, unsought, unexpected, unattractive—and also can be annoying, delaying, distracting, and even a little intimidating.
   How much, how often should I give, contribute, donate to needy persons or good causes? At least as much as you judge to be really needed and you can.
   Charitable contributions, gifts, and assistance to others are not according to a scheduled or traditional amount. And, we’re not expected nor required to rashly exceed our means, especially at a cost to those who depend on us. But, it can be commendable to sacrifice of ourselves to assist others.
   “Love one another as I have loved you.” This new commandment Jesus gave us has no fixed quantity or limit.
   Sometimes our easiest gift may be money. Giving time, attention, presence, ear, support, respect can be harder.
   How will you know if you have fulfilled his mandate and loved as he loves you? Not until you have nothing left to give except your very life itself, and you do!


29 August 2021

Until Death Do Us Part

“Marriage” is a very complicated word—with a very complicated history behind it. It means very different things depending on who is speaking, the language used, and where the speaker comes from.
   “Marriage” historically has had to do with breeding—in the biological sense of sexual reproduction or the procreation of offspring. (Although mating doesn’t always result in procreation.)
   “Marriage” often is described as a kind of bonding—in the sense of a relationship between persons entered into with some degree of consent or, sometimes, constraint. (The relationship may be intended to be—or turn out to be—long or short term or indefinite or life long.)
   “Marriage” may result from merely personal decisions by the parties involved, from mutual agreements between families, and from formal recognition by societal authorities (civil or religious).
   Depending on the culture or customs of a particular time or place, a person may have multiple marriages, whether simultaneously or serially.
   As people, cultures and customs have developed and changed, so has the understanding of “marriage”—a process that is still going on.
   When I was studying Canon (i.e. ecclesiastical) Law many years ago, these were the juridical definitions of the purpose of marriage and of matrimonial consent:

   The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary, mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (Canon 1013, §1)
   Matrimonial consent is the act of the will by which both parties give and accept the perpetual and exclusive right to the body for acts which are per se apt to generate offspring. (Canon 1081, §2).

   Canon Law doesn’t seem very romantic! But, don’t blame the canonists. In many times, places, and cultures, romance was not considered a primary factor in marriage.
   Often we speak of marriage as a contract concerning procreation and education of children and sexual rights and obligations.
   Since children can inherit titles, thrones, class or caste prerogatives, money, property, and other material assets, it is clear that there are important contractual matters associated with marriage.
   Sometimes they were at the core of the marriage, since things like love, affection, passion and sexual pleasure could be found and satisfied outside of marriage.
   All this is mostly about legalities. Morality brings another dimension to views about marriage. That’s when we judge certain behaviors, whether within or outside of marriage, as good or bad, holy or sinful.
   When marriage is considered a sacrament, “an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring grace”, the matter becomes even more complex, canonically and theologically.
   For example: When is a marriage “valid”? When/how does a marriage end? When may a marriage be blessed? Are there other relationships that may be blessed? What does it mean, to be blessed?
   In our day, traditional marriages in many different cultures are sometimes being critiqued, reinterpreted, and redefined. What used to be a common and relatively unquestioned institution is being challenged by some and defended by others.
   Long ago, Shakespeare used a grim label for his tale of Romeo and Juliet, two lovers who challenged the marriage customs of their day. He called it a “Tragedy”.


4 April 2021

Dramatis Personae

In my copy of the collected works of William Shakespeare, every play is preceded by a list giving the title and/or name of each of the characters that appear in it. The Latin label for the list is “Dramatis Personae.”
The words literally mean the “Masks of the Play.” This is because of the ancient Greek and Roman custom of an actor wearing a mask to identify the role, part, character, or (as we now say) person he was representing.
Now, of course, we rarely use masks, but we do disguise the actor using costumes and sometimes elaborate makeup to help identify and support the role and part he or she is playing.
For Shakespeare, and in ancient times as well, theatrical companies would be relatively small, so many actors would play more than one role—and, of course, would attempt to change their voice, mannerisms, and style as appropriate.
By now, as words and their meanings evolve, by “person” we usually mean the individual human being in his or her uniqueness—which more than includes the role in life he or she plays and the varied ways he or she relates to other persons.
It’s very hard to describe the uniqueness of any one human being. Each person is perceived differently by others, each person has a different part to play regarding every other person.
Our identity is not only described in terms of age, gender, complexion, height, weight, citizenship, ethnicity, health, employment, and other such factors but also by our interrelationships with others, the different roles we play.
A person simultaneously can be a child to a parent and a parent to children, a student to a teacher and a teacher to a student, a friend to some and an enemy to others, an inspirer to one person and a tempter to another—the possibilities are endless.

In my day, as children preparing for First Communion we had to learn—in the sense of memorize—questions and their answers from the Baltimore Catechism. The ones about the unity and trinity of God were hard to understand, especially:
Q: “How many persons are there in God?” A: “In God there are three Divine persons, really distinct, and equal in all things—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
Of course, as little kids we weren’t at the stage where we could learn about the etymology of the word, “person.” Even if we had been, it still wouldn’t have and couldn’t have adequately explained the mystery of the unity and trinity of God—but it does help a little.
“Three Divine persons” does not refer to three entirely separate, individual, and unique divine beings—but it does at very least suggest three different roles God plays and three different kinds of relationships God has to human persons and all the rest of creation
– God as the loving begetter, maker, creator, and source of all that exists;
– God as the intervenor in human history who uniquely reveals himself and his love through the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus;
– God as the sustainer, guide, and inspirer of our lives, the interior wellspring of our creativity, strength, and love.
Having the Dramatis Personae preceding the play is curious—knowing the cast of characters beforehand isn’t necessary to understand what follows. The play itself gradually reveals the players and their roles.
Life’s like that!


25 August 2019

A Very Attractive Universe

In 1915 Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity—a new insight and idea that changed our understanding of the universe in which we live. It was followed by other great breakthroughs in scientific thought, dazzlingly difficult to comprehend.
Science-Faction books and films have popularized many of these ideas, sometimes veering into fantasy or a kind of mysticism.
I’ve always had a fondness for the notion of “the force,” in the 1977 Star Wars film. In it wise old Obi-Wan Kenobi tells young Luke Skywalker that “It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.”
The study of forces and energy is part of traditional physics, including, for example, gravitational, magnetic, electric, and intra-nuclear. The quest, the “impossible dream,” is to find the one theory that will embrace them all.
It’s hard to find simple words to explain the sophisticated theories of modern physics, but perhaps one of them helps: “attraction”—the idea that everything attracts everything else, one way or another.
Magnetism obviously involves attraction. The notion is so common that we even use the word “magnetic” to describe mutual relationships between persons.
Gravity can also be described as attraction. What “falls” to the ground is attracted by the earth. Less obviously, the earth is attracted to the thing that falls—but this attraction is negligible compared to the other.
Clearly the degree to which one thing is attracted to (responds to or moves towards) another has to do with their relative size, strength, and other qualities. In physics, the word “mass” is usually used.
In modern astronomy or astrophysics, a hard to imagine yet real fact is that even light can be “attracted” by an object with enough mass. So to speak, instead of traveling in a straight line light can be “bent” or deflected from its course.

This was a cause of misunderstanding in traditional astronomy. We presume that when light hits our eyes it has traveled in a straight line, and so we think we know exactly from which direction it has come. But, if its path is curved—think of a golf drive or arrow in flight—it’s much harder to know the direction of its source.
If everything “attracts” everything else, then everything is subject to a great variety of “attractions” or forces pulling it one way or another.
Even more bewildering, if everything “attracts” everything else, then everything is subject to an infinite (i.e. without limit) number of “attractions” or forces at any given moment.
And, to make things even more bewildering, the total amount of “everything” is constantly changing. Things are constantly appearing and disappearing, constantly “being born” and “dying.”
Fortunately,the “attraction” of many things is negligible even though they are real. But even this is relative. For example, the “death” of a star millions of light years away hardly affects us at all—but suppose it was our star, the Sun?
There’s a huge difference between viewing a snapshot and a video. Living things are constantly changing and developing. Modern scientific thinking realizes that everything is “in motion.”
Nothing is fixed. Everything is dynamically situated in a web of forces pulling it this way and that. In fact, everything and everybody can be described in terms of the forces, the “attractions,” affecting it. (And, don’t forget, among the most powerful forces is love.)
It’s a very attractive universe!


29 November 2015

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)

Cover Story

A precious legacy of blessed Pope John XXIII was the encyclical, Pacem in Terris, issued just before his death in 1963. This forthright, clear and openhearted appeal “to all men of good will” showed the way to peace in the modern world.
One challenging section distinguished “between error as such and the person who falls into error — even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards.
“A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity . . . Besides, there exists in man’s very nature an undying capacity to break through the barriers of error and seek the road to truth.
“God, in his great providence, is ever present with his aid. Today, maybe, a man lacks faith and turns aside into error; tomorrow, perhaps, illumined by God’s light, he may indeed embrace the truth.”
What followed startled many readers by its implicit reference to Marxist Communism:
“Again it is perfectly legitimate to make a clear distinction between a false philosophy of the nature, origin and purpose of men and the world, and economic, social, cultural and political undertakings, even when such undertakings draw their origin and inspiration from that philosophy.
“True, the philosophic formula does not change once it has been set down in precise terms, but the undertakings clearly cannot avoid being influenced to a certain extent by the changing conditions in which they have to operate.
“Besides, who can deny the possible existence of good and commendable elements in these undertakings, elements which do indeed conform to the dictates of right reason, and are an expression of man’s lawful aspirations?”

Pope John is affirming that “actions speak louder than words.” We should be more concerned about the other’s behavior than the ideology to which he or she appeals — it’s possible to collaborate in good works with anyone.
In matters religious, one can always find texts in Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy books that can outrage and offend the sensibilities of others. But that doesn’t mean that Jews, Christians and Muslims should never trust one another nor work together.
As a Christian, I’m outraged and offended by many things done by Christians over the centuries. I don’t identify with these deeds. For me, those responsible for them are “so- called” Christians, since what they have done is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus.
With all due respect, the same can be said by Jews and Muslims — and by adherents to Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, various traditional religions, and no religion at all.
Relentlessly holding on to historical — and recent — memories of past offenses, like a dog with a bone, belies compassion, mercy, forgiveness and love.
In matters political, the situation is similar. Politics is the art of the possible, founded on respect for the dignity and rights of every person. Political leaders who demonize the other because of his or her politics, belief or ideology, who refuse to trust or to work together, don’t even need to be identified as a “so-called” anything — by now calling them “politicians” increasingly suffices.
You might say that Pope John’s thought is, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” In that case, look for the inside story and try hard to read each other person like a book!


(Published in
one, 37:2, March 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)

Allegiance to Whom?

School kids in America usually start the school day with a “Pledge of Allegiance” to “the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”
Allegiance is a lesser value in our day than it used to be. In a feudal society, it is a key value. Everyone knows his place. You owe allegiance to the one over you (your lord) and are responsible to him. Those under you owe allegiance to you (their lord) and you have responsibilities for them.
Many other creatures have similar relationships. When it comes to chickens, it’s clear that there is a “pecking order” among them. In every barnyard, you know which bird is boss.
Dogs sort out their relationships very quickly; in a pack, it’s easy to see who is the “alpha male.”
Elephants recognize who is the matriarch of the herd.
It’s all about domination.
Who is the dominus — the lord, the master — for you and me?
For Saint Paul it was clear. He knew to whom primary allegiance was due. As he wrote to the Romans,

None of us lives as his own master and none of us dies as his own master. While we live we are responsible to the Lord, and when we die we die as his servants. Both in life and death we are the Lord’s

Would that we all knew our primary allegiance as well as Paul.
What about who owes allegiance to us? Under God, for whom are we responsible?
Often the rest of our relationships and allegiances are no better than those of birds and bees, dogs and cats, elephants and all other creatures.

What does our Lord tell us about lording over others? The first part of the answer is in Genesis, where it says that God has placed the whole world under us:

Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.

The corollary of this is that we are responsible for the whole world and all the creatures in it — a truth being reaffirmed in our contemporary concern for the environment.
What about our human relationships, one with the other? “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Oh, yes. As Saint John reminds us:

This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother

Jesus dramatically illustrated this when he, teacher and master, washed his disciples feet as a model for them to follow.
If we know our true allegiance and responsibilities, we have a standard to guide all our decisions and our lives.
We shouldn’t act as animals. They are as God made them. And, we must be as God made us.
Individuals or families, tribes or nations, countries or organizations — we’re not meant to establish a pecking order, boss others around, intimidate as an alpha male, or be the matriarch of the herd.
We exercise our “domination” through love.


(Published as “Allegiance” in
one, 34:3, May 2008)