The Gospel of Luke has interesting sibling tensions. There is Mary and Martha in Luke 10:

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a village; and a woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me. 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; 42 one thing is needful.[f] Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”” 

There is the person in the crowd in Luke 12:

13 One of the multitude said to him, “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” 15 And he said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 And he told them a parable, saying, 

These two cases seem to highlight similar things. Focus on the the better part that cannot be taken away. In the case of Martha, it wasn't serving that was the problem. It was that she was "distracted with much serving." For the other man, the request leads to the parable of the rich fool who stored up wealth for himself. That in itself is fine. It was that he was not also "rich toward God."

Then there's our friend, the prodigal son in Luke 15:

25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”


The wayward son spends his inheritance, while the dutiful son/brother remains faithful and works hard. The prodigal gets rewarded with a party, the brother doesn't. Two of these sibling stories have to do with sharing inheritance. In the other case, the one calling out to Jesus felt an injustice was done to him. His brother was not sharing the inheritance. In this case, the older brother felt and injustice was done when in fact there was no injustice, just mercy.

Fairness is a persistent concern among family members. And in the presence of Jesus it is easy to call on him as a judge. But Jesus' response in all cases is to accept the perceived unfairness and focus on the one thing needful--the better part that shall not be taken away.

When Jesus' disciples asks him to increase their faith, he gives the following parable (Lk 17):

"7 “Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? 8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”"

I wish Jesus could be just a tad clearer. But whatever the message about faith is in all this, there is something interesting about being a servant. The Greek for servant is "doulon" so it might be better thought of as "slave." So in this parable, when a slave comes in from a hard day in the field, would one ask the slave to sit and rest or demand they do their duty to serve the master? Well, one would expect the slave to serve, not be served. And then after one has worked all day in the field doing back-breaking work, and then comes in  and serves the master, the slave says "we are unprofitable servants" as the King James Version puts it. We've simply done our duty.

Now here's the flip side of being a parable slave. (Lk 12)

"35 “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes; truly, I say to you, he will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and[e] would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”"

and a few verses later:

"42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions."

So the Luke 12 slaves have to be vigilant and awake to serve the Master. But there is a reward for their faithfulness. The Master will have them eat at the table and serve them! He will give them their portion in proper time and they will be set over all his possessions. Doing one's duty here comes with inordinate and disproportionate rewards.

There is a bit of whiplash, but one might lead into the other. After all, what slave would strain to be awake through the midnight watch and even until dawn? Who would be constantly alert and vigilant for his master's coming? It would have to be the slave who saw it has his duty and not for the sake of reward--the unprofitable servant.

The film Amazing Grace is a truly astounding film. It should be on everyone's must watch list. It is the story of the English abolitionist, William Wilberforce and his work to end slavery in Great Britain. The film is masterfully done. Here's the trailer:

There is a scene with Wilberforce and a group of Abolitionists at dinner. William Wilberforce is at this time still contemplating how to get into the kind of advocacy he would eventually be know for. At this dinner, he responds to a dinner companion's claim about the making of a better world.

"Issues of the making of a better world."

Wilberforce: "Better in which way?"

"If you make the world better in one way, it becomes better in every way. Don't you think?"

Is this true? Does the world become better in any way, if it is made better in one way? If I solve hunger in Somalia, but another country falls prey to war, faminine, and destruction, has there been any net gain in the betterness of the world?

Is making the world better not like scooping water out of a leaking boat? It probably is. But perhaps it's the wrong question to ask whether one really makes a difference. The only thing we can control is what we do. So the real question is in the face of futility, do we resign ourselves to inaction, or do we, with our dying breath, as Albert Camus says of a dying woman, scream "never!" That is, do we press forward against the tide until we're swept away?

​The world can't become better. But we can make it better.

Trees and plants feature significantly in the Gospels. Jesus speeks about mustard, wheat, weeds, vines, etc. While wheat, grape vines, and even mustard are positively portrayed, the fig tree does not come off well.

First, there's the parable of the unfruitful Fig tree in Luke 13:6-9.

6 And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?’ 8 And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure. 9 And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”

Then there's the weird cursing of the fig tree in Mark 11:12-14

12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.

It rough being a fig around Jesus. In Mark, he expected the fig tree to have fruit when it wasn't the season for figs! But to make things worse, the fig tree gets cursed. And then in Luke, there's pressure to produce figs in season for an impatient land owner when it seems reasonable to give the tree a little more time tand attention. Especially since if it eventually does produce figs, it would do so for a long time. On the other hand, if it still doesn't produce figs, the opportunity cost would've been high. That time and attention could have been given to another tree that would've produced fruit.

I think the lesson is that we should pray to be mustard seeds, wheat, or grapes. It's too much pressure being a fig tree.

Paul, in 2 Thessalonians, speaks about "the man of lawlessness" who will precede the day of the coming of the Lord. This man of lawlessness is generally spoken of as the anti-Christ. I've seen people ask whether President Trump is the anti-Christ. It would be easy to dismiss the suggestion except for the one salient fact--that millions of Christians have made him their idol. And why is this relevant?

Here's what Paul says:

2 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, 12 so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Paul says there will be a "rebellion" first.  The Greek word is "apostasia" which can be translated as "apostasy." So this is referring to believers. But apostasy is not necessarily leaving the faith, but it is turning from what one knows to be true and holy, to what is false and sacrilegious. This man of lawlessness eclipses all objects of worship, drawing all attention--devotion--to himself.

The part about the son of perdition taking a seat in the temple and proclaiming himself to be God I suppose depends on how one wants to take that, literally or figuratively. It would seem too obvious if someone literally sat in the temple and proclaimed themselves God, that this is another Christ--an anti-Christ. But perhaps that's what's in store for the world. The temple has not yet been rebuilt so there is no threat that we are living in the time of the man of lawlessness.

But the "mystery of lawlessness" is already present as Paul says.  He indicates that there will be precursors to the true anti-Christ. And, unfortunately, many will be deceived. Do we know anything about who will be deceived?

The condition for deception is not some predestined ledger God created from the beginning of time. That makes no sense. Rather, what qualifies one for deception is that one does not "believe the truth." That's vague, so let's put that to the side. But here's the other condition, they have "pleasure in unrighteousness." Not that they necessarily do the unrighteousness, but that they have pleasure in it--endorsing it, accepting it, justifying it. This seems like a concern that Christian devotees of President Trump have to tackle. Have they become like Esau? Have they traded their consciences for the idol of so-called righteous policies, and sought the unrighteous or the profane or the banal? 

The difference between President Trump's Christian devotees and liberal Christians serious about their faith has to do with this "having pleasure in unrighteousness." When your hands are dirty, you know you have no choice but to cower in the corner of the temple and plead for mercy. I think many liberal Christians are aware that they are "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17:7-10). Although many are absolutely certain that God must conform to a philosophical standard of universal good, thereby declaring that God is not in fact God. I guess when it's all said and done, no one is righteous.

President Trump is not the anti-Christ, but one can't help but feel that his vessel floats down the stream of this mystery of lawlessness that is already at work in the world.

John tell us that the Word who was in the beginning with God and is God is the light of men.

" 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (Jn 1:4-5)

Jesus said,

"Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” " Jn 8:12

Jesus, who is the Word, is the light of men and the light of the world.

Then there's John's vision in Revelation:

"22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it," Rev 21:22-24

Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the lamp who radiates the glory of God which is the light of the New Jerusalem.

But then in all this, lest we forget, Jesus makes the following claim about us:

"14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Mt 5:14-15

Jesus--the Word and the Lamb is the light of men, of the world, of the city of God. But we ​also are the light of the world. A heavy burden to be called light by the one who is the light. In Jesus' case, he is light by virtue of who he is. In our case, our light is in our good works.

St Francis de Sales says:

"Rash judgment begets uneasiness, contempt of neighbor, pride, self-satisfaction, and many other extremely bad effects. Slander, the true plague of society, holds first place among them."
Introduction to the Devout Life, 3.29

If the question was asked, what is the true plague of society, slander is not what would come to mind, not by a long shot. Yet, the good saint feels that it is slander. He says, "The man who could free the world of slander would free it of a large share of its sins and iniquity."

Slander, for DeSales, is:

• robbing a neighbor of his good name--it is literally taking possession of another man's property
• Murder because it murders, not our spiritual or corporeal lives, but our social life. "By a single stroke of his tongue the slanderer usually commits three murders. He kills his own soul and the soul of anyone who hears him by an act of spiritual homicide and takes away the social life of the man he slanders."

But what is slander? I think for DeSales it is, "falsely imputing crimes and sins to your neighbor, revealing his secret sins, exaggerating those that are manifest, putting an evil interpretation on good works, denying the good that you know belongs to someone, maliciously concealing it or lessening it by words. . . . false accusations and denying the truth to your neighbor's harm. It is a double sin to lie and harm your neighbor at the same time."

Prefacing slander with mentions of honorable intentions, compliments, or jokes is venomous, according to DeSales.

DeSales seems to be concerned with correct labeling. Seeing someone drunk is not enough to slander them by labeling them a drunkard. Don't assign vice to individual acts. Only habitual acts that could have been thought through should be labeled a vice. Only say or describe what you see in the present, nothing more. However, as poisonous as slander is, to avoid slandering, one must not speak well of vice. 

Quite the tightrope. That's why he's a saint and we're not.

According to Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), yes. 

"In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history. Truth is outwardly powerless in the world, just as Christ is powerless by the world's standards: he has no legions; he is crucified. Yet in his powerlessness, he is powerful, only thus, again and again, does truth become power."
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection.

Ratzinger is not saying that Jesus appeared powerless. He is saying that truth is essentially powerless in the world as Jesus was at the trial. The qualifiers--in this world/ by the world's standards-- don't make a difference.
​
The problem with this is:

Matthew 26:52-53 "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?"

John 19:10-11 "So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”"

Jesus was keenly aware of his power and thus of the need to restrain himself and submit wholly to what as necessary.

The deceptively named Minority Report movie, a classic by the way, is one of those movies that addresses sin (and its potential eradication) in society. What if we could technologically (with some mystical help) eliminate murder or very serious crimes? In the film, with the help of special humans with precognitive abilities, we are able to foresee certain crimes, and have empowered agents of the department of pre-crime to intervene before the crime occurs. The premise is that these precog humans see the future, not a possible future. Thus, the commission of the actual crime is a given.

Of course, this raises all sorts of moral questions, including the question of human autonomy and some form of determinism. Is it not possible that people can change their minds at the last moment in process of commiting a potential crime? On the other hand, why risk only assigning culpability when it's too late? If we knew for a fact that someone was more than likely going to commit murder then, given the consequences, shouldn't we err on the side of preventing crime?

Worthwhile ethical discussion, but there's also the broader issue. Our primary natural quest is to optimize our flourishing in a society that is structured with the right balance of restrictions and constraints that sets condition for the most people flourishing. (Certainly not our supernatural or spiritual quest.) And in so doing are we not muting or undermining the very faculty that would enable us to rise to a greater consciousness of good and freedom? If society takes away the burden of self-regulation and attainment of the good, and, instead, sets up structures that relieves us of the moral training that comes from understanding the world (raw and brutal) as it is, and learning to eventually rise above it, then do we not remain moral infants?

Perhaps this is too weirdly Hegelian in the sense that the coincidence of theses and antitheses yield a new equilibrium that introduces a new stage of human development and consciousness. And it perhaps ignores the pesky little detail that is original sin and our inability to do the good we know to do because of sin that reigns in us. Or it might diminish the role of grace that signals that in our wretchedness, the power to be actualized comes from beyond, from God through the cross of Christ.

Yes, I grant all that. Still, it stands to reason that there is a sense of moral good and evil that is/can be trained and can habituate us to seek and cherish the good. The analogy works in many other sphere's of life. If we never knew danger, suffering, death, pain, we wouldn't learn to avoid them, innovate around them, cooperate to avoid them, etc. 

Now, this may be the paradox of civilized society. It builds a city for us, gives us comforts, and dulls our senses, ultimately rendering us impotent and dependent on cultural technology. We grow in one sense, but diminish in the most important sense of all. Perhaps this is why Babel had to be destroyed.

The now infamous Oval Office shouting match between Trump and Zelensky seems more bizarre in hindsight. It is clear that Trump wanted the mineral deal according to the NYtimes and there's no clear indication that this was a setup or ambush.

The whole thing degenerated when VP J D Vance interjected and took over. The question is why? There was nothing to lose. Well, nothing, but the presidency. Ever since President Trump said JD Vance is not the obvious, slamdunk heir apparent, it's put Vance on a course to show that he is in fact the heir apparent. And the only way to do this is to bring on the crazy. Trump set the model of crashing norms and being brazenly outlandish. JD Vance has learned the lesson and is unapologetically applying the lessons he's gleaned from his mentor.