Skip to main content

Blindness And Sight

Armies of mystics could get lost in the spiritual metaphor of a blind man receiving sight from Jesus. I tend to see all of it in terms of God's gradually unfolding plan of covenant love. It goes together, of course. The better disposed we are toward God, the more we can participate, and help others to participate, in the plan of redemption and salvation.

I have always loved the creative tension of knowing that the other blind man (from John 9) didn't do anything personally to "deserve" the misfortune, and yet, we know that original sin is ultimately the cause of this, and other miseries.

There is no way that I am fully entering in to the mystery of that covenant love in Christ, but it unlocks the secret of suffering. No earthly misfortune can touch the glory we are to see in Christ! If faith gives you the eyes to see that, just take a moment to reflect on that.

My friend Jason Mraz (OK, I met him one time) sings in his first hit "The Remedy (I Won't Worry)" about a friend stricken with cancer, "And what kind of God would serve this?" It's a legitimate question, not easily brushed aside, especially in terms of its emotional resonance. Still, I would have to answer, "Love, who wills us to be with Him, to share in unfathomable joy." If Steph Curry or Kevin Durant knows that shooting 5000 free throws and running 6 miles in a day will win an NBA championship, they'll do it without a second's hesitation. And that's a glory, however great, that no one will remember, in a few weeks or months' time. What kind of glory compares to the tragedy of this life? I'll bet you never turned it around like that. In the darkest valleys, no one does. It's still true, and it's still a question worth turning around.

St. Paul in fact says the suffering isn't worth comparing to the glory. That raises the stakes even higher. But trust me, friends: Jesus has the cards.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...