Sunday, December 19, 2010

Fourth Sunday of Advent


Chaplain Al and his wife Cathy

O Radix Jesse, qui stas in signum populorum,
super quem continebunt reges os suum,
quem gentes deprecabuntur:
veni ad liberandum nos, jam noli tardare.



O Flower of Jesse’s stem,
you have been raised up as a sign for all peoples;
kings stand silent in your presence;
the nations bow down in worship before you.
Come, let nothing keep you from coming to our aid.



The 19th century historian hoped to predict the future. He believed he could do this in the same way other scientists make predictions. Scientists first develop an explanation for the reason things happen and test their hypotheses by setting up tests and predicting outcomes. If an electrical charge binds oxygen and hydrogen to form H20, then a scientist should be able to demonstrate that principle in the lab or classroom a thousand times over.
Historians wanted to do the same thing in their science. In America they predicted Manifest Destiny. Americans believed the United States should control and govern all the land from the Atlantic to Pacific oceans. And so it happened -- despite the objections of our neighbors to the south who controlled Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and California.
Communism predicted a workers’ revolution to unite all the nations of the world under one form of government. Nazis would rule the world as the superior race.
Many people think there should be no poverty in the world. They predict everyone will someday enjoy the middle class benefits of opportunity, education, health care and leisure. Some people expect all nations will have democratic governments; others predict we’ll colonize outer space. 
All of these hopeful projections are enmeshed in ideologies that strangle realistic thinking and do more harm than good.
Recently, as I understand, historians are giving up the art of prophecy. Some entertain themselves with silly projections like “What if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor?” But serious historians are content to explain what happened and why.
Perhaps they failed to predict too many things that should, in retrospect, have been foreseen -- like the 1979 revolution in Iran, the collapse of Communism in 1990, and the bursting of several economic bubbles. If they could not predict those things what can they predict? The future remains opaque at best. Beyond tomorrow's sunrise I don't believe anyone knows the future. 

All of these historical theories were inspired by our Christian tradition. Enlightened thinkers hoped to replace faith, religion and mystical promises with hard science,  predictable results and universal prosperity. They thought sin could be erased with enthusiasm and propaganda. In many cases the Church could only stand by and watch as idealistic zealots made war and murdered millions in the name of peace. 

In today’s gospel we hear how ancient prophecies about the Messiah were fulfilled. He should be the child of a virgin, because he would be the Son of God. He should be born in obscurity, raised in exile, and live in poverty because the brilliant light of God can be recognized only in profound darkness. He would be honored only by the faithful as the faithful were always the first to welcome the Word of God. And he would be despised by the powerful, who always fear change. He was born among us because God could not remain aloof from our world and our lives. He would share our fears, our dangers and even our tragedies as he had always been Emmanuel, God with us.

The ancient prophecies were fulfilled but no one could foresee beforehand how that would happen. The future will remain surprising and unpredictable. It will be graceful and good because God is with us, as in the beginning, so now, and forever. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.

Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.

I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.

You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.