Safe Haven

 I have a loose acquaintance who has a frame on her Facebook profile picture that says, “I don’t care that you are vaccinated.” There have been plenty of reactionary spoofs like this, related to COVID. I think people still think that it’s OK to play politics with the virus, or that if there are any undeniably political elements to safety and care in a COVID world, that opposition is morally neutral or good. It’s an act of charity, to protect yourself. It’s an act of charity to protect others. I hope that “political” isn’t just “anything I don’t happen to like,” and that it’s not consequently synonymous with “social.” If there is no “we,” eventually, there is no “I.” I won’t say that every vaccine refusal is illegitimate, obviously. Some of us literally cannot safely take it. But most are. And the facts are that this thing mutates, the more people it infects. With more mutations brings the possibility and even likelihood of greater lethality. If some people might rightly argue that ther

 Let me get some potentially hostile questions out of the way. Is this deconstruction premised in philosophical skepticism? If it is, no one will be able to know when they have arrived anywhere meaningful, because it starts an endless loop of interrogation concerning one's own conclusions. One obvious requirement, if someone wants to remove unnecessarily particular cultural baggage from an expression of Christianity, is that one be able to distinguish between that cultural baggage, and something that is universal to all, or fundamental to the Christian message. Is anyone actually able to make that distinction in a principled way? I haven't seen it. And then we must deal with that troublesome word: "evangelical." I still don't always have a handle on what it means, but let's do the best we can, and give it a meaning that its proponents seem to agree with. "Evangelicalism" is a socio-cultural movement within Protestant Christianity, that emphasizes per

 I always get a little jumpy, when I hear someone say they want to do great things for God. God doesn't need us to do things for him. We need to find ourselves in Him. Have you ever had the thought that the moment that just passed was the moment that made your destiny? Even if it was mundane, that's a possibility. Lewis's devils in The Screwtape Letters seem to think that slow and steady wins the race for them. I don't fancy myself a too impressive follower of Jesus, but if I can claim one moment for the good, if I can steal one moment of contemplation of the goodness of God, that is one moment less for evil, and one moment less of my participation in evil. I have an awareness of my own failures enough to know that I haven't won anything; the forces of evil never stop, and they will never surrender. Yet I have an opportunity to string lots of little moments together, to make a life of goodness and charity.

 It was dishonorable to sit on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland for over a year, and then hypocritically rush Justice Barrett through the process before an election. Dishonorable, but not illegal. I don’t think the seats were “stolen,” therefore; the Democrats got beaten at the game they started. Unless the confirmation process itself was illegal, no one on the Court sits illegally, and any noise to the contrary is just that. And if Roe v. Wade goes down, there won’t be any sad tears here. My dislike for the GOP and President Trump notwithstanding.

"They say the captain goes down with the ship So, when the world ends Will God go down with it?" --Fall Out Boy, "What A Catch, Donnie," (2008) "Folie a Deux" LP. -- It's a solid question, actually. The answer is surprising: yes. God did, in a sense, go down with the ship. We could see the world as we know it after the fall of mankind as in a certain way dominated by evil. God had of course promised to redeem, right from the beginning, but until the death of Christ, the great blow against evil had not been struck. From one angle, the crucifixion of Jesus is the high point

 That's what we celebrate today. It's a bit like Church New Year's, and that makes sense, because after this is Advent. As I think back over the year, it's a lot. We have much to be thankful for, but we have much to weep and cry about. It's so hard to be a Christian, and I don't mean just in the usual spiritual ways. It is the hardest when the people who are supposed to be like Christ to us fail in some heinous way. I honestly can't blame anyone who goes through the darkness of unbelief, if their spiritual leader does something truly evil. It goes beyond the forgiveness that Jesus requires of us in "normal" life. If we lose our temper, or we forget something important, or we say something hurtful, these are things that are normal, almost routine. And then some things are much, much worse. It's natural to wonder if God is watching, and if he is watching, why isn't he doing anything? Tim and I were talking about this the other day, and I reca

 The reason why the vaccines against COVID are being provided free of charge to citizens is that a large group of citizens that are unvaccinated poses a serious health risk to everyone, not just to themselves. Of course, this shared burden of risk is why "I'll take my chances" is an incredibly selfish reason to refuse the vaccine. And you would have to believe that a good socialist or a social democrat is going to call this bluff, if you somehow argue that diabetes or cancer treatment is more worthy of being paid for by the government. The person who posted this foolish meme is now in the process of backtracking and denying that she favors "socialism," but the clear implication of the argument, such as it is, is that she favors public funding for the things that she worries about, and not the things that you might worry about, like catching the virus that causes Covid-19. If this strikes you as inconsistent, well, it is. For my part, the only thing more galling

 Bryan Cross is right. The text is here . I was actually quite prepared to criticize Archbishop Gomez--if only internally--for being woefully out of touch with the lived experience of people in America. What I found is not so much a criticism of the political movements themselves, or of particular injustices they raise, but of the primacy of politics in our society today, and the belief that the most important needs of human beings can be addressed by political means alone. In this light, the archbishop's comments deserve considerably more reflection on our parts, if not sympathy. The context of his comments about social justice movements as "pseudo-religions" is the replacement of a Christian worldview by a materialist worldview, where the battle is exclusively political, in the ends and in the means. I consider myself quite sympathetic to these movements on the whole, but I personally do so through the lenses of the Christian story. Specifically, the God-given dignity o

 I guess that destroys that old secular idea that religion makes people comfortable here on Earth, until they die. On the other hand, I don't blame the sociologists for thinking that's exactly what people do with God. "God" tells them they are great, and that they don't need to do anything else. Forgive me; I never want these thoughts to become grumpy, and have the quality of "get off my lawn!" But Love has a Name, and a face. He looked right at St. Peter, after he was a coward and denied Him 3 times. He died for all of us, but he died for you. He certainly didn't die so you could believe whatever you want. God has revealed Himself in Jesus. He requires things of us! Now, understand that I beat the "Mercy" drum for good reason. If we knew how much we were loved, we would live differently. But we get this nationalism and sentimental garbage about God, because we treat Him like our plaything. Maybe people of my generation saw "Aladdin&qu

I felt really tender when I went to church last night. "Tender" in my parlance usually means that I'm going to cry about the trials and tribulations of fictional characters that I love and appreciate. I'm just really into stories, and I find that the stories I really enjoy are the ones that help me put words to my feelings and experiences. I had it in my head: "We're just here to be memories for our children." That's the sort of climactic line in the beginning part of Interstellar that really resonates with me emotionally. I was thinking of my father, and that most of what I really have from him is a memory of who he was. I suppose that if you are about to make the fitting sacrifice of the new covenant in Jesus, thinking about your dear departed loved ones is proper and good. As I continued to sit there, I realized that I am deeply drawn to all stories of love, reconciliation, and harmony. I think many people in the business of telling stories think

 If you spend any amount of time reading the news, you will become aware that human beings live a tenuous and fraught existence. Death is always close at hand, but in our comfort and blessing, we can almost pretend that it is not. When people realize they are not in control, things can go two ways: either a person becomes irretrievably anxious about their lack of control, or they come to know that the One who is in control has them securely. I have been made master of a few things; I have plenty to eat and drink, and I can choose whatever thing I want. I'm quite particular about my clothing, and I have a favorite shirt. I have a pair of "happy pants" that I'm quite fond of. Yet maybe my tendency to become upset at the utterly inconsequential things of life is an occasion to reflect on the ways that I still seek control which I do not have. If we are simply chasing money, or influence, or any number of things, the emptiness of it all is readily apparent, eventually. Th

 I stopped in the neighborhood church today. Today was the day that they decided to test the fire alarm in my apartment building, so I would rather be in a church. I can't remember what hymn was being played, but as it turns out, the organist likes to practice, when he thinks no one is there. For an entire hour, it was the same hymn. I wish I could remember, but I know it was about the love of Jesus. Then again, aren't they all supposed to be about the love of Jesus? As I sat there, a friend found me, and he said, "Don't you get curious about the hidden places in here?" Or something like that. I said that I did, and that one time years ago, I got to see "in the back", where most ordinary folks don't get to go. I said I had the feeling that I shouldn't be back here, and he said, "You're an institution; you belong here." That was a very kind thing to say, but when did I become an institution? I only know that it was a joy to rest in t

 I was in the bathroom of my residence hall in college, brushing my teeth. It was pretty late in the morning, actually. A guy ran in, telling me that 50,000 people probably just died in the World Trade Center, because some terrorists attacked it. I remember saying, "Come on man, don't joke about that. That's not funny." He wasn't joking. I was sort of numb, but I went to the front desk, where I knew we would have news. On the whiteboard which had news every day, there was a little box off to the side, and it said, "In spite of what has happened, we are committed to not judging people based upon religion, or national origin." Today, it is fashionable to bash sentiments on diversity, or even to claim that a certain openness in that regard stifles discussion as to the nature of the truth. That may be true sometimes, but I have never been more proud to have been spoken for in that way. I did truly fix in my mind that the attackers were some sort of radical f

 Is any particular expression of it premised in epistemic skepticism? That is, are we able to reason together, to test particular assertions against evidence, and reach a shared conclusion, or must its claims be accepted on authority? If it cannot be questioned, its assertions collapse into fideism, a kind of dogma without reason. In that way, certain expressions of it may be a "religion," as many critics claim. Notice I said "theories." Every unique expression of a theory that could fit under the umbrella of CRT has aspects that may explain particular observations best, and other aspects that explain what is observed less well. That's the nature of theories. There isn't one Critical Race Theory. I will say that banning CRT because it is Marxist is foolish. You can't avoid the pitfalls of Marxism, if you don't know what it is. I studied Marxism up close; even young people don't automatically become advocates of whatever they are taught. That not

 I am gratified that I maintain relationships across the Christian world, in spite of the divisions among the Christian people. "In spite of" probably hits some people the wrong way, because I think a lot of times, "ecumenical dialogue" means, "let's get together and celebrate all that we agree on," instead of what it is, which is dialogue concerning the matters of revealed truth, with the express purpose of reaching agreement in that truth. Then again, this is one of the reasons that I don't like debate that much, because I don't enjoy telling people that I love that they are completely wrong, and that their wrongness could have dire eternal consequences. There is a large part of me that is a hippie, who just hopes that all the historic talk of sin, judgment, and wrath--not to mention heresy and schism--will just be wrapped up in a big ball of hugs from the Trinity. I'd like to be a universalist, but I am not. This is a tough balance to st

 Admittedly, I have been spending too much time at the neighborhood McDonald's. It is perhaps a betrayal of a commitment to slow food, healthy eating, and localism, but it's right there, and I don't have to cross any major streets to get there. Anyway, I often see the same man at the neighborhood McDonald's. I'll call him Gabe. He's one of those guys that could be anywhere from 50 to 80, and I can't tell. When I first met him, he seemed solicitous for my well-being. He asked me if I wanted a refill on my drink, and I did not, because even I don't think 32 ounces of Coke should be upgraded to 64. We started talking about kindness--ironically enough--and we both decided that we thought there wasn't enough of it in the world. I decided that Gabe must've been a leader of men at some point, like a coach or in the military. Still sharp, and perfectly able to tell people what to do, if the need should arise. I thanked him for his kindness, and we went o

 I will not bore you with arcane discussions of infallibility, or somehow insist that no pastoral decision can ever be questioned. But I must be honest with you: I'm uncomfortable with a great many people who believe that they can dance right up to the line of open rebellion, and as long as they don't cross it, they think they can say whatever they want. I wish I had the grace to "weep with those who weep" over recent decisions, but I don't. People's defensiveness just proves that somebody had a point. I would rather be accused of being a fervent yes-man, than be shown to be the opposite. If what we believe about the Church is true, we cannot openly defy the sacred shepherds, while at the same time insist to the world that we are their only hope of salvation. Something has to give. My favorite Psalm is the 73rd, and one line from it is often translated, "If I would have spoken thus, I would have betrayed the generation of your children." In short, in

 In all honesty, St. Peter probably wasn't too thrilled about dying a gruesome death. Rather than think about that, he wanted to change the subject. St. John was standing there when he turned around. Maybe St. John was looking joyful; maybe he was making notes for the Gospel we are reading right now. Who knows? St. John says again that he could write more than he has written, and as we think about it, that makes sense. There is nothing about the "signs" of Jesus that seems normal or ordinary. Even as we know that these are ordinary people caught up in the story of Jesus, Jesus and his story are anything but ordinary. Jesus answers him by saying basically, "Don't you worry about him! You have your own job to do! If I want him to be alive when I come back, what is that to you?" We can see why people might have thought that Jesus meant that St. John wouldn't die. On the one hand, St. John is the only one of the faithful apostles who did not die for his fait

 Now, the final piece of the puzzle falls into place. St. Peter might have thought that this part of his life was over, since he failed so spectacularly in following Jesus. You can't do much worse than denying Jesus three times. Much has been said in preaching about the wording here, and that Jesus is calling Peter to a deeper love than he is at first willing to give. That is all true. Still, I want to focus on the fact that Jesus asked the question three times, the same number of Peter's denials. Jesus could have said simply, "I forgive you, and I love you." Yet there is something real about each denial that needs to be reconciled. Three denials, three affirmations of love, and three commands from Jesus, which are really one command: to take care of the Church, and all of its members. Peter cannot wallow in self-pity, because Jesus has sent him to do a job. We all need the grace of Christ, and the mercy of Christ, but none of it is simply for us to keep and enjoy. We

 As most of you know, I am a board-certified geek. I do believe that science fiction can serve as a kind of parable, a way to talk about contentious things, without raising defenses, before thinking takes place. There was once a little television show called "Firefly," about a ragtag group of misfits on the run from an autocratic government in the far future. They sought mercenary work in space, far from the oppressive government. The protagonist, Malcolm Reynolds, fought in the war against that government, called The Alliance. Malcolm--his closest friends call him, "Mal"--lost that war, and lost his Christian faith, when he prayed to God, and God did not deliver "the Browncoats" out of the hands of the Alliance. In one thought-provoking and moving story within the 13-episode arc which was Firefly, Mal and the gang get a job to steal some sort of crate from a train passing from one town to another on a particular planet. They don't know what's in t

 It's possible the apostles didn't believe what they had already seen, so Jesus comes again to reveal himself. It might've been a kind of hangover for the apostles, because they had such joy when they saw Jesus again, and then they had to go back to regular life. Or so they thought. Several of them went fishing, including St. Peter. They didn't catch anything. It reminds me of when Jesus said, "Apart from me, you can do nothing." They thought they saw a man on the beach, and they didn't know it was Jesus. Whether Jesus prevented them from knowing it was him, or whether they couldn't see them because they were a long way off, Jesus wanted to wait until the right moment to let them know it was him. As it turned out, Jesus decided to let the miracle do the talking. They cast their nets on the right side of the boat. St. Peter probably thought he was just being nice to a guy trying to give him advice on fishing. He is a fisherman; I would hope Peter knows

 I don't know how to do anything halfway, unless--let's be honest--I start something, get distracted, and start something else. All of my people with ADHD, where you at? Anyway, there comes a point in the Christian life where we don't have to obey with gritted teeth. Our obedience doesn't come with apologies to the watching world; it just comes quickly, and without struggle. This is joy, and this is the possession of virtue. I'm not saying this to tell you what a great man I am, but to say that, at least as an intellectual matter, I don't ask why things are the way they are. We all slip up sometimes, and it doesn't mean that we never believed in God, or wanted to do His will. And we do need to give grace to one another, for the times when we fail. That's easy for some of us, and harder for others, or harder in particular situations. Human sexuality is a topic that is coming up a lot, not only among Christians, but obviously with everyone. Many people say

 St. John tells us that he could tell us a lot more stories about the things Jesus said and did, but these are written so that we might believe in Jesus, and that by believing, we may have (eternal) life in his name. St. John's purpose to convince us about Jesus explains why the book does not tell the stories in exact chronological order. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke tell us different details, but the theme is the same: Jesus is Lord and God. I suppose St. John could have ended it right here, but God is a God who reconciles, and there is a very important person who needs to be reconciled. If we need to be reconciled, we share it with him.

 When Jesus came to the apostles, St. Thomas wasn't there. He gets a bad rap here, for wanting proof. If faith is not reasonable, then the God who gives faith as a gift is also not reasonable. On the other hand, there does come a point when questions are not helpful, or sincere from any one person. Jesus is saying that faith is a gift, and the vast majority of us--since we are not apostles--believe because of the testimony of the apostles, not because we have any first-hand proof. Sometimes, people ask for scientific proof of this or that miracle, but remember that even people who witnessed miracles found a way to deny that they were real. We must remember that our faith is a gift of grace, and that by believing, we are blessed. Even though it is easy to be a little rough on "Doubting Thomas," pious tradition holds that he made it all the way to India, and established some of the earliest churches known to exist. Sometimes we might think that we are crazy to have faith in

 The apostles weren't necessarily courageous at this time. Hiding behind locked doors is not what we think of when we think of bold leadership. Jesus appears, and gives them his peace. When he was there with them, he showed them his wounds from the crucifixion. A few of them probably would have thought that they were hallucinating. When they saw Jesus, wounded and somehow victorious, they knew they were not imagining things. Jesus sends the apostles out to preach his message of forgiveness of sins through faith in his name. They receive the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathes on them, and they become true ministers of Jesus and his grace. There is something about the forgiveness of sins in Jesus that needs to be accepted, not only once, but all the time, and throughout life. For the apostles to be able to forgive sins, they must be in some sense Christ Himself. These verses here are very similar to the verses in Matthew 16:18-19. There, Jesus promises to honor the decision of the Churc

 Whatever the apostles knew, or thought they understood, they didn't share any of it with Mary Magdalene. So for all she knew, Jesus was still dead, and somebody took his body. It's unclear whether she recognized the two men she saw as angels at the time, but St. John is telling us that they were angels. This is another one of those times where St. John and the rest of the disciples understood this better after it happened. When the angels speak to her, you can almost hear the voice of Jesus. Usually, when someone says, "Woman…" in the Scriptures, what follows is an important moment. (See again John 2:1-12) Mary Magdalene still thinks that someone has taken the body of Jesus. She turns and actually sees him standing there, but she doesn't recognize him. I think Jesus kept himself hidden until the right moment, just as he had done with the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus, as recorded by St. Luke (see Luke 24:13-35). Although scholars rightly call the

 I suppose Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early Sunday while it was dark to make sure everything was alright. Or at least as good as it could be, considering your Teacher and friend was dead. Or so she thought. She saw that the stone was rolled away, and she figured quite reasonably that someone must have stolen the body. So she goes and tells St. Peter, and St. John was also there. Those two guys ran to the tomb, and St. John got there first. At a human level, he might be bragging, but considering that this is the word of God, there must be a reason why we are being told that St. John got there first, but he did not go in. He waited for St. Peter, and he let him go in first. Many Church Fathers and teachers see in this a deference to Peter's office as the head of the apostles. Pious tradition holds that a woman named Veronica gave Our Lord the face cloth that St. John finds neatly folded, next to the linens that Jesus was wearing. St. John says that he "saw and believed.&quo

 After the sad and unjust death of Jesus, his close friends and disciples needed to find a place to bury him. I think they buried him in a tomb close at hand so that they could still eat the Passover, without being ritually unclean. Joseph of Arimathea was the one to pay for the tomb. Nicodemus, who came to Jesus at night, (John 3) also helped with the burial preparation. It was a fresh tomb, that no one else had ever laid in. And no one ever would again.

 It would have been undignified at the very least, to leave the bodies of condemned men hanging on the crosses for the Passover. The Romans consented to breaking the legs of the prisoners, so the men would die if they were still alive. (The only way to keep breathing for at least a time while you are being crucified is to push up on your feet.) The soldiers discovered that Jesus was already dead. Who knows what caused the soldier to stab Jesus in the side with a spear? He did, though, and blood and water came out. St. John says he saw it. This is his way of letting us know that he saw this personally, without drawing attention to himself. He never mentions himself by name anywhere in the Gospel. The quotation referring to broken bones is from Psalm 34, a Psalm of David. It speaks again of the Lord answering the call of those who cry to him. There were also NIV cross-references to the law of Moses relating to the Passover, in the books of Exodus and Numbers. This is St. John's way o

 A Catholic is only culpable for the grave evils of Catholic politicians, if and only if they vote with the intention of supporting those grave evils. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and anyone who persists in saying it is a partisan hack. I don’t care how many Catholic books they write.

 They took Jesus out to the place of the skull, which suggests that many people died there. Perhaps it was a common place of execution. They made him carry his own Cross. Three men were executed, with Jesus in the middle. Pontius Pilate made a sign--in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek--which said, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." The Pharisees and other leaders objected, and they wanted Pilate to write that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews. He left the sign the same, probably as a little act of rebellion against the leaders with whom he was tired of arguing. It's a shame he didn't have enough courage to set Jesus free, but in doing what he did, he unintentionally told the deepest truth. Whether he was mocking or not, Jesus is the King, not only in Israel, but over the entire universe. The soldiers who crucified Jesus took his clothes, but they didn't want to tear his tunic, so they cast lots for it, which is a bit like rolling dice. The quotation there c

 Pontius Pilate tried to reason with the hostile crowd, but they knew that his political position was dicey. Many scholars seem to think that Pilate would have been removed as governor, and possibly jailed and tortured, if there were another rebellion on his watch. The crowd uses his own motive for self-preservation against him, and he caves. It's possible that in the second part of this section, Pilate believes that he won't be reasoning with the crowd, so when he says, "Here is your King!" he may be trying to antagonize them. "We have no king but Caesar" is somewhat predictable for the chief priests to say, because that particular group was not known for their religious devotion. In fact, they were despised by many Pharisees, because of their willingness to compromise with foreign powers, and to make a lot of money doing so. What makes Pilate so bad is that he was the one with all the power, and he behaved as though he couldn't do anything other than w

 When we start to look closely at the ways of God, we notice that people often think they are shaming God, or making Him small somehow, with their words and actions against Him, when in reality they are glorifying God without realizing it. So it was with the soldiers mocking Jesus: putting the crown of thorns on his head, and dressing him in a royal robe. You can say, "Hail, King of the Jews!" as mockingly as you want, but if Jesus really is the King, the truth is the truth. One of the reasons that the Church puts the words, "Crucify him, crucify him!" on our lips on Palm Sunday is that we don't want to begin to think that we are so much better than these officials. Every time we sin, we are like these leaders, who traded the innocent Jesus for a robber and a murderer. Pilate finally got an answer to his question about what supposedly Jesus had done wrong: they were charging him with blasphemy, because he made himself equal with God. I think this is what made Pi

 Whether Pilate didn't believe truth could be found, or he was worried about practical matters as the governor, the certainty of Jesus made him uncomfortable. He could have made a better choice. We don't know how his story ends, but to be mentioned by name in the two ancient creeds--Apostles' and Nicene--is not good. St. Matthew records that his wife warned him to stay away from the case of Jesus. She had a dream about Jesus, and she received insight that he was a righteous man (see Matthew 27:19). Even so, Pilate knew that what was taking place was an injustice. He tried to use a custom he had of pardoning someone around the time of the Passover to get Jesus off the hook. It didn't work. Sometimes, when we have the power to do something, and we don't do it as we should, it is easier to imagine that our hands are tied, rather than take responsibility for the choices we have made. Nobody in this situation has more power than Pontius Pilate, at least from an earthly p

 The guards then took Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Jesus met Pilate at his residence. The guards did not go in, because they did not want to be unclean for the Passover. Pilate wanted to know what Jesus had done. At first, they deflected the question, and they suggested that they wouldn't have bothered him with something trivial. But that was not the question that Pilate asked. He told the people to handle it themselves, but they both knew that the people had no authority to execute someone themselves. Jesus had predicted that he would be handed over and killed. St. John sees in the words that Pilate spoke the fulfillment of that prophecy. Pilate wanted to know with what they were charging Jesus. To this point, no one is answering directly. It must have been that Pilate heard people say that Jesus claimed to be a king. He came back in and asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus wants to know where he heard that, but Pilate isn't talking. He

 There have been numerous news reports and opinion pieces recently about synthetically created meat that may be available soon. I do not mean plant-based imitation meat, although if they can fool me, more power to them. Anyway, it's being said that we may be able to create animal flesh without killing an animal very soon. The whole thing may be completely contrary to localism, or to a healthy community as I imagine it, but this seems like a great idea, if it is safe. There is nothing in me culturally anymore that has to prove my manliness, or devotion to the truth. Raising animals to feed ourselves is expensive, and fraught with moral ambiguities that we tend to gloss over, for the sake of convenience, or because we don't want to be identified as "those liberal hippies." Sustainability tends to be a buzzword nowadays, but in light of climate change, and the lack of access to basic things of life for many people around the world--food and clean water, for example--thos

 St. Peter just wants to be left alone. He's probably already embarrassed that he denied Jesus once. The crowd gathered around obviously thinks he looks familiar. Peter denies being a disciple of Jesus again. But the kinsman of Malchus knows he saw Peter in the garden, when Jesus was handed over. The man surely knows that Peter is lying, but Peter denies Jesus again, just as Our Lord said he would. (See Matthew 26:34, Matthew 26:75, Mark 14:72, and Luke 22:61) This is one of the times where St. John doesn't want us to think of his Gospel as something entirely different than the other three, written by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. St. Peter's denial is clearly something very important for the leaders of the early Church. We will see that Jesus considers it important as well, and will use it to demonstrate his love to Peter, and to us.

 The way St. John figures it--and this agrees with the leadership who oppose Jesus--Annas is the authentic high priest. Later, he may have sent him to Caiaphas in order not to anger the Romans, who put Caiaphas in place. Jesus is not willing to answer questions from the high priest, as though the high priest could not have obtained this information another way. The way Jesus answers demonstrates that he is not overly impressed with the high priest, or afraid of his authority. One of the guards noticed this lack of deference to the high priest, and struck Jesus with his hand. When Jesus spoke again, he confronted the farce that is this "trial."Annas then sent him to Caiaphas.

 Peter followed behind, wanting to know what would happen, but not wanting to get too close. The mystery in this section is whether the "another disciple" is St. John himself, or someone else. Another question is whether it is a benefit to the two disciples of Jesus to be known to the high priest. At least to be known as one of the people allows them to confer with him, and at least not have him run away from them as "Gentile sinners." On the other hand, the high priest is one of the architects of the conspiracy against Jesus. St. Peter was obviously afraid that if he named himself as one of the disciples of Jesus, that he would be punished and possibly killed. In the end, he'll get his chance to die, for confessing the name of Jesus. On this occasion, Peter is a coward, afraid of being honest to a servant girl. He warmed himself by the fire that the servants had made, and tried to forget about what was happening.

 A footnote in the RSV Bible explains that the Romans had removed Annas the high priest almost 20 years earlier. Because that priesthood was supposed to be for life, many of the people continued to recognize Annas as the high priest. Even so, it was Caiaphas who prophesied that a man would die for the people. He could not have known how true his words would be, even if the way it came true was completely unjust. In any case, this is the reason why Jesus appears before two people who were high priests of the people at some point.

 St. John says that after they ate the Passover in the Upper Room, they went to the Kidron Valley. It was a familiar place, likely where they would get away to pray. Judas Iscariot knew the place, too. Judas Iscariot brought soldiers and representatives from the chief priests and Pharisees. Apparently, they were expecting a more violent confrontation. Jesus stepped forward, asking the soldiers who they were looking for. Why did they draw back, after Jesus identified himself? Did Jesus knock them over with some sort of power, or did his name somehow carry a special significance? Did some of the soldiers believe in him, or hear stories of his miracles? Based on what we have right here in the text, we don't know. I would like to think that a certain voice of conscience offered the soldiers an opportunity not to participate in this evil betrayal. Eventually, though, they got off the ground and did what they were ordered to do. Jesus bargains for the release of the rest of the apostles,

 Now Jesus prays for us, because we are the ones who have heard his message through his apostles. Jesus prays that we would be united to the apostles, and to one another, through his saving message. He prays that we would be united in the same way that he is united to the Father, and in the way that both the Father and the Son are united with the Holy Spirit. This is a mystery of deep prayer and contemplation, because he is inviting us to be in the fellowship of God Himself. Even this has a purpose beyond the enjoyment of it, because it will prove that the Father has sent the Son, and loved us to the end through him. There is another mystery here, in the fact that Jesus wants to share the glory of God with us. We don't by nature have the ability to participate in the glory of God, or to share fellowship with Him. God has given us the grace to be friends with him, to be supernatural people. Jesus prays for the apostles to receive the gift of heaven. Heaven will be the place of seein

 Jesus says that he has made the Father's name known to his apostles, and he says that the Father gave the apostles to him. Jesus also says that the apostles believed what he shared with them, which is probably a generous interpretation of what the apostles said and did. Then again, when God writes our story, he is often more generous to us than we would be to ourselves. Jesus says that everything he has is from the Father, which is what you would expect the obedient Son to say. Jesus also says that all the words he spoke were the words the Father gave him to say. Maybe what we could say is that the apostles had to believe fully in Jesus before Jesus could honestly pray this prayer. There may be many gifts that the Father intends to give us, but we are not yet ready to receive them. Jesus is praying for his apostles, which is truly an amazing thing, and is a great mystery, because true prayer takes humility. And the mystery is that the glorious Son of God would humble himself at al

 When Jesus had finished saying what we have recorded in chapter 16, he began to pray. Jesus is a prophet and the true King of Israel, but he is also the true high priest of the new covenant. This is the prayer that Jesus prays for the apostles, and for all of us. Priests offer prayers and sacrifices to God, and Jesus doesn't see a reason to change what we would expect. He asks the Father to glorify him, so that he may in turn glorify the Father. Jesus tells us through his prayer that receiving eternal life is a matter of believing in the one true God, and in him, whom the Father sent. We see once more that Jesus considers himself to be fundamentally the one who was sent by the Father. What is Jesus praying for, if God has no needs, and God has glory in Himself? Jesus wants the glory of God the Father to be seen in this world. If the goal of our lives is to be in relationship with God forever, then a life well lived will show this glory, the same glory that Jesus is praying for. He

 There are a lot of different reasons why Jesus would speak in "figures" as he calls them. One is the mysterious plan of the Father, which could include God's knowledge of who would accept him, and why. In various ways, Jesus has taught them about not wasting their breath, or throwing pearls before swine, as it says in another place. Using metaphors also keeps the enemies of Jesus off-balance just a bit, until it is time for the Cross and Jerusalem. But now among his most intimate friends, Jesus makes everything clear. The things he says are not new; he has said that he is going to the Father before, but they didn't understand. Maybe St. John's purpose in this passage is to tell us that this is the moment when they understood what Jesus was saying. Jesus says that they're going to be scattered, and that they will have trial and tribulation. He tells them that they will abandon him, but that he will rely on his relationship with the Father. Jesus tells them and

 The disciples didn't get it, that Jesus was talking about his death and resurrection. It's somewhat funny to think about now, because he just said a few verses ago that he was going to the Father. But the apostles are just like us. How often do we miss the most obvious things, and forget things we know? On the other hand, "a little while" in God's time could mean anything. The fact that it turned out to be three days by the Hebrew counting is somewhat of a relief, but we remember how hard it was for Jesus to endure the fact of Lazarus being dead for a couple of days, even knowing that he was going to raise him from the dead. In light of that, I think his sympathy for their sorrow is genuine. Jesus speaks as a prophet next, with the familiar formula. The apostles and the other disciples will have sorrow at the death of Jesus, while the world will rejoice. In this way, Jesus is introducing them and us to the idea of redemptive suffering. There has always been suffe

 Jesus says that he could say even more, but the apostles can't bear it now. The Holy Spirit will come, and he will explain everything. The Holy Spirit does not work alone, but he says what the Father and Jesus would also say. As Christians, we believe that nothing new has been revealed in Jesus, since the death of the last apostle, which interestingly enough, was St. John. Yet this seems to say that the Holy Spirit can give us and the whole Church a deeper understanding and clarity about things we already know. In fact, if you look at our history, you will see this. A person from 800 years ago will not have the exact same understanding of the faith as we do today, but the heart of it is the same. Who is Jesus? Who am I? And why does it matter? These are still the questions we ask, in every time and place. Jesus is the faithful Son of the Father, so unlike the younger son in the parable of the prodigal son, (Luke 15:11-32)  Jesus doesn't waste his "inheritance" on him

 Jesus knows that if he tells the apostles all these things, they will have more courage to face the persecution that will come from the authorities. Sometimes, we react poorly in times of struggle because we are surprised. Jesus tells them that they will be kicked out of the synagogues. He is reminding them that faith in him will change the practice of their faith in such a way that it is a new faith. There is a time and place to tell things, and Jesus thought that while he was still there to care for them and teach them, it wouldn't be the best time to tell them everything. Of course, they would be sad; that's only natural. He tells them he needs to go away, so that the Holy Spirit will come to them. It will be the Holy Spirit who now teaches and cares for them, and indeed, the whole Church. The Holy Spirit convicts and convinces, with regard to sin. Jesus says that the leadership has sinned in rejecting him. He will go to the Father to fulfill the Father's plan of righte