​The Instrumentum Laboris (working document) for the first session of the Australian Plenary Council was released on 25 Feb 2021, and I eventually finished reading it sometime in mid-March.

You can read it yourself:
https://plenarycouncil.catholic.org.au/instrumentum-laboris/

It wasn’t an easy read, despite it being beautifully presented. Penitential, it was. Firstly it takes a very long time to set the scene and give a situational analysis of the Church in Australia. Many times I wondered if the document would ever get to the point. Secondly it uses lots of ambiguous language that feels like it was written by a combination of church bureaucrats and school teachers. It would be easy to decode for them, but not for me. I longed for some footnotes that gave situational examples to aid understanding.

In particular I longed for concrete and contextual explanation of this passage from 166:

“Not infrequently, Catholics and their family members find themselves in an uneasy situation regarding particular Church teachings or disciplines, not because they identify any less as Catholic, and not because their attachment to Christ has grown “lukewarm” (Rev 3:16), but because of shifts in cultural norms and expectations that they once relied on to support their Catholic faith. Very often, however, this tension between people’s lived experience and the teachings of the Church reaches the point where people withdraw from parishes or communities, and no longer identify as Catholic.”

Is this about going to Mass on Sundays, cohabitation, same sex attraction, blended families, or about some, all or even more than this? How do you even begin to discuss this passage without knowing what the original catalyst for the passage was? How do you begin to frame questions that ask, ‘prove to me how attachment to Christ hasn’t grown lukewarm despite being out of synch with Church teachings, disciplines and practices…by what other means can you show strong attachment to Jesus Christ (John 12:26, James 2:17-18)?’?

I admit I was struggling to reconcile the somewhat rosy view the Working Document paints compared to what I am seeing in the pews. Then Philippa Martyr’s article came up while I was trying unsuccessfully to find any online commentary on the Working Document which wasn’t a clone of the official press release. It is well worth a read:
https://gaudiumetspes22.com/2021/03/05/stranded-under-the-southern-cross-news-from-a-shrinking-church/

I found it a more accurate analysis of the Catholic Church in Australia 2021.

In particular I found her imagery of a carapace to be valuable, viz:

“I tend to see the Church in Australia as consisting of the ‘real Church’ and an unpleasant outer structure that I call The Carapace. The Carapace is like The Borg in Star Trek, if it helps. It attaches itself to the real Church and feeds off it. Its principal purpose is to employ people, and its mission is to protect the Church’s assets at all costs.”

What bothers me greatly is that the Instrumentum Laboris seems to be written by the carapace, and the vast majority of the delegates for the Plenary Council sessions will come from the carapace.

What else bothers me is that God seems to be a minor stakeholder among many instead of the One and Only opinion that matters.

Why else would there be so much virtue signaling about sexual abuse, indigenous issues, women in leadership issues, ecology, etc? I’m not saying that they aren’t important, just that they pale into insignificance against the urgency of saving souls from eternities in hell. Dealing with these things of necessity will be part of that primary mission, for the salvation of the people in these minorities, but they should never overshadow that primary mission.

Which matters to God the most?

What matters to God the most?

I put it to you that growth in relationship to Him (holiness), family (His plan that predates Scripture), and bringing people into relationship with Him (mission) and co-operating in expressing His love to others (service: which is the natural overflow of increase in holiness and mission) are what matter most to God.

On everything but service we are not doing well at all, and even our service is usually human powered service rather than Holy Spirit empowered service.

My view from the pew looks like this:

Everything starts from Holy Spirit inspired preaching. But for Holy Spirit inspired preaching to happen lots of prayer, study of scripture and sacred tradition, openness to the charismatic workings of the Holy Spirit and surrender to the workings of the Holy Spirit are necessary; and the preacher has to be able to effectively use the language and language idioms of those he is preaching to.

It is ‘hymns, hospitality and homilies’ or ‘music, ministry and message’ that either engages a newcomer and keeps them returning or turns them off for good. Generally we are mediocre when it comes to hymns and hospitality with the occasional flash of brilliance, but where we consistently fall down is in homilies.

When was the last time a homily encouraged you to pray?
When was the last time a homily invited you to go to confession? (and made it available)
When was the last time a homily opened your eyes to how good and great God is?
When was the last time a homily made you want to know Jesus better?
When was the last time a homily kept you awake and hanging on every word?
When was the last time a homily contained anything memorable that wasn’t a pre-prepared joke?

Every day I pray that God will use the words of the homilist that day to touch hearts. Often I wonder if God hears me because even I can only decode on average 3 words out of 5 from our overseas-born priests, and the most common question when Mass is over is ‘What did he say?’.

But a preacher doesn’t have to be in a pulpit. We pew dwellers are just as bad because we talk far more about parish politics, weather and medical ailments than we ever do (if we ever do) about Jesus, about inspiration we have found in Gospel passages, answers to prayers, and about living out the vocations we have been called to.

There is such laser focus on encouraging priestly vocations that you could be forgiven for thinking that vocations to family life, religious vocations, career vocations and vocations to special non-ordained ministries aren’t important at all. Yet apart from a very few exceptions to the rule, priestly vocations grow in strong families and in devotionally vibrant parishes.

When was the last time you saw any parish-based initiatives for encouraging and supporting marriages and families?

Did you know that Australia has no (nil, nada, ziltch, zero) Retrouvaille ministry/weekends for marriages in crisis?

Schools. Shudder. They are supposed to be places where the Catholic faith is taught and flourishes. Yet they are places where those who do teach the demanding parts of the Gospel are persecuted in various subtle and non-subtle ways. But these days no one in the parish knows anyone with children at the local Catholic primary school, and vice versa, and about the only person who visits both places is the parish priest and any assistant priest. What we actually have are non-government schools. At what point do we call a halt to the massive investment in schools that don’t evangelise, barely catechize and consistently churn out students indistinguishable from atheists and agnostics?

Families with faith have been choosing not to send their children to Catholic schools, many have chosen to home-school, some have chosen Christian schools, and the rest are sending their children to state schools partly because the cost/benefit analysis has swung the other way. In times past parents were willing to pay the extra cost of the Catholic school because it helped support the development of faith in their children.

The view from the pew can look very different from the view of the carapace.

An example may be useful…
In recent years the St Vincent de Paul Society went through a centralization process, and created regional hubs for furniture and other items. The people managing the hubs were happy. Some of the people in the local outlets were happy ‘it’s great, we refer them to the hub’. But those who knew how things worked pre-hub, and the people in need were not happy. Locally there used to be a room where furniture could be stored on a temporary basis. For the hubs to work, they were told rooms like these had to be stopped. The thing is, those rooms enabled society members to respond quickly when needs became manifest. With a hub, you have to send requests up, wait for decisions, and for action to be sent down, and sometimes have to follow-up the requests, all of which means many days, if not weeks, before needs get met. As for the person in need who had enough trouble asking for help the first time, now they have to travel to the hub to get help; and ask for help a second time. How many of them don’t take the extra step? For some the transport costs alone would be prohibitive. For others it was so hard to admit they needed help, it would be a long time before they attempted to admit it again. Or they would seek other alternatives with quicker responses to their urgent emergencies.

Even more seriously, the local outlet loses the opportunity to begin a relationship of accompaniment with that person in need, and the probability of needy people falling through the cracks increases. But the hub managers will only see the turnover of furniture and other items, and fluctuation in staffing levels, and never record or quantify these other losses, and will assume everything is going great guns.

Thankfully there have been moves towards decentralization again.

There are very good reasons why the Church values the principle of subsidiarity, and why any moves towards adding bureaucratic layers for co-ordination of smaller entities has to carefully make sure that the principle of subsidiarity is not violated.

Pope Francis has encouraged leaders to take on the smell of the sheep, to take time to be with those on the fringes and on the front lines. It is the only way to find out what is really going on.

An example may be useful…
A person serving at the diocesan curia has responsibilities for parish support. Most of this person’s time is spent liaising with parish staff and with parish members who voluntarily take on co-ordination roles. The parish support team puts together a Lenten discussion group programme, sends it out to the parishes. Some groups will meet every year regardless. Other groups will only form if there is active encouragement from the pulpit, and some recruitment and engagement of group leaders. Some parishioners will use the contents of the programme privately.

The parish support team will know how many programmes got sent out, and have a rough idea how many groups formed and how many participated. But they don’t usually get information on how many programmes were thrown out because they were still on the display table several weeks later, nor information about why parishioners left them there, nor information about why groups didn’t form, nor why anyone gave up part way through (individually or group). The only way you get that information is by talking incognito (without them knowing what your role is) with people in the pews whom you have never met before and truly listening to what they have to say, even if it isn’t what you want to hear. (eg. “I picked it up, but I put it back when I saw you needed to download stuff. I’m not that good with computers, and there’s no one at home who is any better at it than me, no one who could help me if I got myself into computer trouble.”)

Can you see how from a curial vantage point everything could look rosy, and better than last year? And yet from a pew dweller’s view point it could look very different indeed?

That’s why I am so worried that the Instrumentum Laboris seems to be written by the carapace, and the vast majority of the delegates for the Plenary Council sessions will come from the carapace who haven’t taken on the smell of the sheep.

A few passages from the Instrumentum Laboris caught my eye:

Passage 74 page 27
Rather, Pope Francis, echoing the thoughts of his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council, insists that an authentically Gospel-inspired renewal of the Church flows from a renewed encounter with Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit and gives rise to a ‘pastoral conversion’ of the entire Church, a renewal that is expressed in a ‘missionary option’ or ‘missionary impulse’ for making the saving love of God known in every place.

Amen. Amen. What we all need more than anything is a deeper encounter with Jesus, and a deeper encounter with the Holy Spirit. Without that, nothing, but nothing changes for the better. We can’t make it happen, that is up to God Himself. But we can make the conditions and environment more conducive for those encounters to happen. Things like encouraging private individual prayer, corporate prayer (prayer meetings, public devotions, liturgy), scripture study, reconciling strained relationships, forgiveness of wrongs done to us, getting to know each other better so as to grow in unity, self-discipline, generosity to others, encouraging more frequent visits to the sacrament of penance, and asking God (individually and corporately) to grant us these precious encounters.

Passage 123 page 41
Submissions to the Council also raised what Pope Francis, among others, has identified as the danger of an unhealthy culture of clericalism within the priesthood and in the wider Church. At its most extreme, this has been identified as a significant factor in the sexual abuse crisis in the Church. It can also undermine the mission that belongs to the entire Church and discourage the exercise of gifts within it. Some fundamental questions arise in light of this concern: What are the causes of such a culture of clericalism? What are the theological, structural, psychological or spiritual influences that can contribute to it and how might the Church better equip its clergy and laity for mission today and for increasing co-responsibility in the decades to come?

Clericalism encourages an ‘us and them’ mentality, with ‘us’ being far superior to ‘them’. Sadly our seminaries are still full of it. We have seminarians visiting parishes on placement and making the assumption that no one in the parishes knows how to use incense properly except for them. That assumption most certainly gets up the noses of parishioners who have been serving at the altar and using incense for decades. Then there’s the practice of getting 2nd year seminarians and above to always wear soutanes at Mass, even if they are sitting in the congregation. That’s visibly making an ‘us’ and ‘them’ distinction well before the vocational discernment process has scarcely begun. It is very difficult to get to ‘we’ and ‘team’, albeit with different gifts and vocational callings, if from the ‘get go’ seminarians are treated as heroic and special. For the mission of the Church to proceed, ie the making of disciples of Jesus, clerics can’t do it without laity, and laity can’t do it without clerics. We vitally need each other. It is one of those ‘both/and’ things. Mutual respect will get us much further in that mission than clericalism.

Passage 131 page 43
There is not a well-developed understanding and practice of the Church as a community of missionary disciples. The Plenary Council offers the Church in Australia an opportunity to consider carefully, and prayerfully, what steps must be taken to awaken this awareness of the missionary vocation of every Catholic, for all the baptised are called equally to live and proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

This is true. Although there are sub-groups within parishes that have this awareness eg catechists. Vatican II speaks eloquently of the universal call to holiness and the universal call to mission and so have subsequent papal documents. Encouraging us pew dwellers to read these texts is one thing, helping us to understand how to respond in our own lives is quite another since most of us have no idea what that looks like, nor what it feels like. A possible way forward is gathering and sharing testimonies of how God has used pew dwellers to make disciples, with particular emphasis on how pew dwellers came to understand what God was calling them to do, and how that mission developed over time.

Not everyone is going to be called to be an evangelist (nor to the same evangelistic mission field eg family, co-workers, young people, PSTD sufferers etc); not everyone is going to have a calling to specific works of mercy; not everyone is going to have a calling to accompany people through the RCIA process. So there needs to be intentionality about gathering a wide range of stories, and in presenting them with an openness to the multiplicity of God’s callings. It is really easy to unconsciously fall into the trap of ‘God has called me to be a preacher, it is so wonderful and exciting, therefore God is calling everyone to be preachers’, thereby putting unnecessary burdens/guilt on listeners who may be called to very different missions.

Passage 135 page 44
Underpinning such renewal of practices and methods within dioceses, parishes, migrant communities and movements must be the renewal of sacramental life and prayer among all Catholics for it is the encounter with Christ in the midst of the Church that rekindles hope and makes genuine renewal possible. This is seen in the Emmaus story in Luke’s Gospel (24:13-35) where, in the midst of the disciples’ difficulties and even disillusionment, the faith of the followers of Jesus is restored and a new future opened for them by this encounter.

Without prayer and the sacraments, there is no fuel for mission. We can’t give what we don’t have. What we most need to give are God’s love and access to Jesus. Prayer and the sacraments give us access to the infilling of God’s love, and to experiential encounters with Jesus. We haven’t done a good job of proclaiming this truth about prayer and the sacraments, by and large it has been a well-kept secret, when it should have been ‘shout it from the rooftops’ stuff. Again one of the best ways to renew sacramental life and prayer is to gather testimonies from pew dwellers who are living as missionary disciples. We need to share with each other what a difference prayer (personal and communal) and the sacraments (baptism, penance, eucharist, confirmation, anointing of the sick, marriage, holy orders) make in our lives. It is good news, in fact it is great news. All of them make a big impact. But again, sensitivity is needed, because some people feel and experience lots and some people feel and experience little even when God’s grace is just as active in both. It is all too easy for a focus on feelings and experiences to get us chasing them rather than God, and for this focus to make those who barely feel or experience anything to rate themselves as second class citizens of the kingdom of God. For this reason it is always wise to focus more on the fruits eg growth in patience, generosity, peace, trust, improvement in relationships etc.

Passage 197 page 67
It is this assurance that should encourage us and empower us to speak and act with that parrhesia, that boldness and courage, which are a gift of the Holy Spirit: We need the Spirit’s prompting, lest we be paralyzed by fear and excessive caution, lest we grow used to keeping within safe bounds. Let us remember that closed spaces grow musty and unhealthy. When the Apostles were tempted to let themselves be crippled by danger and threats, they joined in prayer to implore parrhesia: “And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to Your servants to speak Your Word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29). As a result, “when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31).

It is my dearest desire that when the delegates gather for both of the sessions of the Plenary Council that they dedicate somewhere between a half day and a full day as representatives of the faith communities of Australia to imploring this parrhesia for Australia – and that they do so before they start any discussion of the Working Document. What this needs to be is heartfelt spontaneous prayer ebbing and flowing as the Holy Spirit prompts. Apart from an introduction and a conclusion, it needs to be totally unscripted. It needs to be allowing God to dredge up from the depths of our soul’s expressions of our personal, corporate and national desire for Him and for the dynamic action of the Holy Spirit in our midst, in words, songs, groans and anything else He inspires. It needs to include our leaders begging pardon of God for the ways we have failed Him personally and corporately, to include confessing our failures and our shortcomings, and asking God to step in, to take control, to take leadership and give us sure guidance and the courage to respond with an active Yes to everything He wants us to do.

Without this, nothing else will really matter.

Come Holy Spirit, Come!,
and through this Plenary Council
make of this nation Australia
the promised great south land
in complete synch with You.
Amen.

...........................................................................
​
​A printer friendly version is available below, 6 x A4 pages:

The Gospel for this Sunday, Palm Sunday Year B, comes from about an eighth of the whole Passion narrative, and is the fifth of those eight portions. It contains the end of the interrogation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, the denials of Peter, and the beginning of Pilate’s questioning of Jesus.

Looking at the online translation of the Greek into English via BibleHub two things become clearer, the extent of the physical violence done to Jesus at that time, and the extent of the denials Peter made.

The other thing to ponder is the title King of the Jews which Pilate uses. He wasn’t the first one to use that title for Jesus, the archangel Gabriel was possibly the first, viz, ‘He will rule over the house of Jacob for ever (Luke 1:34)’. May this reminder spur us to pray for the descendants of Jacob of our day, that they might come to know and love Jesus as their King.

As soon as Jesus responds to the high priest’s ultimate question, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ with ‘I am’, extraordinary levels of violence are unleashed against Him. For a mortal to say he was God’s equal was blasphemy of the highest order, and beyond outrageous. This is blasphemy as originally understood, not as we refer in everyday speech to the insulting swear words that many people make from the names of God. In their minds there was no way at all that this could be true. Hence the violence.

It starts with spitting on Jesus, then someone winds a cloth around His face to blindfold Him and everyone has a go at hitting Him with their fists. Then when the temple officers come in to take him into custody, the officers slap him in the face.
Peter is close enough to hear the violence unleashed against Jesus. It stands to reason that anyone who gave credibility to this ‘blasphemy’ is going to be a target as well.

Peter’s first denial is relatively simple, ‘I do not know. I do not even understand what you are talking about’.

As he moves from the warmth of the fire pit around to the forecourt of the high priest’s residence, to escape the gaze of the serving girl who accused him of being a companion of Jesus, the cock crowed the first time.

But that wasn’t enough to jolt Peter out of his dark mental space.

We aren’t given the words Peter used for his second denial.

At the third accusation Peter starts cursing and swearing. In our day we use these words interchangeably, so we don’t get the full impact. The word we translate as swearing means the swearing of oaths, something far more serious and emphatic than mere expletives. Something probably along the lines of ‘may God strike me down if what I say isn’t true’ or ‘on my mother’s grave I promise you this is the absolute truth’.

Only then does the second cock crow, and Peter simultaneously remembers what Jesus said to him, and how vehemently he has fulfilled it. These weren’t ordinary denials, they were completely 'burn the bridges of a relationship' denials.

Peter goes into full emotional meltdown.

Jesus was close enough to have heard every word of Peter’s cursing and swearing. It must have hurt Him far more than all the physical violence He received that night.

Yet such is the love of Jesus for Peter (and by extension His love for all of us) that He chose Peter to be His close companion, and to remain a close companion of His, despite knowing in advance the extreme hurt Peter was going to inflict upon Him - albeit under great duress.

He knows the absolute worst we can do, the absolute worst we can be, and yet He is willing to be loving and merciful to us anyway.

When times of despair come upon us, may the Lord Jesus cause us to remember this truth, and to grant us sufficient courage and boldness to seek His pardon and mind-blowing mercy.
​Amen.

The Gospel for this Sunday, the 5th Sunday of Lent Year B, comes from chapter 12 of St John and is situated chronologically between the Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem and the washing of the feet on the evening of Holy Thursday.

Against the volatility of that week, the caution shown by Philip and Andrew becomes understandable. At any other time and place a request to see/meet with Jesus wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. An observable interaction in Jerusalem just before the Passover with the potential to send His message beyond Jewish borders and the stakes suddenly get higher for both the Jewish authorities and for Jesus.

Just like the arrest of John the Baptist, which was the catalyst for Jesus to begin His public ministry, this event feels like a catalyst or an expected sign that confirms that This is The Passover for Jesus, the Passover when He will be sacrificed.

Just like the Baptism in the Jordan, and the Transfiguration, this event includes a theophany; an audible response from God the Father. While the Transfiguration happened in private, and the Baptism may or may not have had more than one witness, this theophany is public.

Therefore what Jesus is saying here carries great significance.

What we have in this passage is a glimpse into how Jesus approached His Passion, and what kept Him committed to seeing it through despite the frightening personal cost.

Unless a wheat grain dies, it does not produce a rich harvest.
Only by surrendering His life will the better, eternal life be attained.
Only by His death are the powers of evil overthrown.
Only by His death does the conquering of each heart for the Kingdom begin.
Only by His death is ultimate victory accomplished.

Verse 31 deserves special attention:
“Now sentence/judgment/justice is being passed on this world; now the prince of this world (satan) is to be driven out/cast out/ejected.”

This is a mission statement, a declaration of war, and a declaration of victory.

The purpose of Jesus is to drain the whole world of evil.

He definitively did this on Calvary.

The decisive battle is won, and it is a victory that keeps on growing.

Jesus began changing the world and began draining the whole world of the swamp of evil on Calvary.

In each era of history since then, He has continued to drain the swamp of evil and advance the kingdom of God.

Jesus is still draining the various swamps of evil today.

Every day we can declare with Him, ‘Now the prince of this world is ejected’.

Today we can declare with Him, ‘Now the prince of this world is ejected’.

And it’s true.

In our own era the swamp of evil has become boldly visible to extents and complexities never before seen.

Jesus is still about His mission of draining the swamp, and a major victory is immanent.

Sometimes an enemy has to be lured out of the shadows before it can be vanquished on a massive scale.
​
This seems to be what is happening in our era.
So do not be dismayed.
The plan to massively vanquish evil is in operation.
Jesus will attain His full purpose.
‘Today the prince of this world is ejected.’
Amen.

The Gospel for this Sunday, the 4th Sunday of Lent Year B, comes from chapter 3 of St John and contains part of the late-night conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.

It also contains one of the best loved and well-known verses in Sacred Scripture: John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

We are very fortunate that the details of this important conversation were recorded for us. Can you imagine how different our understanding of Jesus and His mission would be without them?

Nicodemus is a member of the Pharisees, a movement within Judaism that tried to live out God’s law as perfectly as possible; and Nicodemus was respected and influential which meant that if he didn’t have the official status of elder he certainly had the unofficial status. In him we see someone seriously trying to please God in everything, and who had a much greater knowledge of scripture and the law than most people of his time.

To Nicodemus Jesus can talk and entrust knowledge succinctly, and in many layers, because He knows this fine mind will retain this teaching/knowledge and mull over it and wrestle with it from many different angles, through many and varied conversations, and over many years until true understanding comes.

So what does Jesus entrust Nicodemus with?

Firstly with an understanding of the depth of the agape love of God, and secondly with the eternal ramifications of our responses to that agape love of God, among other things.

To give one’s only son is a sacrifice few can comprehend, and even fewer can make. Many see the life of their only son as more precious than their own, because the whole future of their family rests on him. Without a child to assist, provide for, dream for, aspire to make the world a better place for, life loses almost all of its purpose and motivation.

God’s commitment of covenant love for us is so great, that even as He tells Nicodemus this, He has already begun the process to sacrifice His Son for each one of us. This is incomprehensible love verging on outright lunacy in its extravagance and costliness.

The only appropriate response to this covenant love of such unimaginable magnitude is to accept such a gift of salvation with gratitude and to commit our lives in covenant love to this only begotten Son of God.

One of the eye-openers of this passage of scripture is that there is no in-between. Either we respond with agape love to God and dwell in His light, or we respond with agape love to evil and dwell in darkness.

There is no middle ground.

On the choice of where we give our agape love is what hangs our eternal future.

The sad and bad news is that more of us choose evil and darkness over God and light.

The good news is that we still have an opportunity to choose God and light, but it has to be a total agape love response. It can’t be anything less.

We were made to give ourselves in agape love.

What we have chosen to love with agape love will be given us eternally.

Choose well.

​#GospelReflection

The Gospel for this Sunday, the 3rd Sunday of Lent Year B, comes from the second half of chapter 2 of St John and contains an account of the cleansing of the Temple.

In the other three Gospels this account is part of the final visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, but with John it occurs very early in His ministry just prior to the first Passover after His encounter with the Holy Spirit in baptism at the Jordan river.

Why?

Part of the answer is in the traditional preparations for the Passover. In the preparation time all of the yeast and all leavened products are expelled from Jewish homes. The whole family does it, but the father of the family has the most authority to do so.

Yeast, if you have ever worked with it, is a rather stinky pungent substance. Getting rid of the yeast is symbolic of getting rid of anything offensive to God, especially our sins, and the whole of Lent has this purpose.

So we can see in this event Jesus with the authority of the Father cleansing the Temple of the things that didn’t belong in a place of worship and prayer.

Jesus was bringing the Temple back to its original order and purpose, and making the place more conducive to finding God during the years of His public ministry.

It was a very confronting and dramatic thing to do, and it took a deal of courage.

The rest of us would probably complain and grumble privately and never do anything to fix it because fighting ‘city hall’ is never easy.

Why do it that way?

Well how did things get that way in the first place?

To me the following seems like a plausible scenario:

In the beginning all the animals and stuff were outside the Temple walls, a short distance away. Then one day it must have rained hard, and the merchants moved their unblemished animals closer to the Temple for shelter. The dove and pigeon sellers possibly got just inside the front door, and then they got more business because of the better/closer location, sellers and buyers were happy and the birds made next to no noise. But one pigeon table became two tables, and two tables became more tables. Not too long after the lamb sellers thought they’d see if they could muscle in too. The slow creeping encroachment continued. By the time the presence of the sheep had been accepted as normal, the cattle sellers made their move. Time passed and the presence of the doves, pigeons, lambs and cattle in the outer Temple precincts became tradition. No one remembered that it had ever been anything different. People occasionally grumbled about the noise and the smells and the mess, but it was what it was, and it was still convenient.

So how do you fix something like that?

Obviously an incremental approach; remove the cattle, then remove the sheep, then remove the birds isn’t going to work. Why should I move my stall if the other bloke isn’t moving his?…etc.

How do you fix it so that no one dares to even think about creeping back in for a very long time?

You have to do it dramatically, and emphatically, and all at once.

And that is exactly what Jesus did.

We might even see Him do it again.

We have seen a lot of creep over the years ourselves, no fault divorce, contraception, abortion, cohabitation, redefinitions of marriage, gender fluidity, euthanasia. Young people today cannot even imagine a time when these things weren’t accepted and weren’t celebrated.
 
Likewise an incremental approach to fixing it is unlikely to work.

Something bold, dramatic, authoritative and emphatic that brings us back to God’s original vision for marriage and family and contains enough awe for us to never to consider that other stuff again for many centuries. That’s what would work. Something only God can do.

In history we see that whenever societal norms have swung too far one way, the pendulum swings back the other way. Similarly the ying yang concept of the orient implies that if you go too far ying then everything becomes yang, and if you go too far yang then everything becomes ying, and quite dramatically so.

Lent is a time for us to work on clearing out any compromise and any increasing levels of compromise in our lives, in order to put God emphatically first.

But we also shouldn’t be surprised if God does some dramatic and emphatic spring cleaning too; individually, in families and parishes, and on a worldwide basis.

It is wonderful that God has this kind of zeal for our salvation, and that He is willing and able to clean everything up and restore it to original order and purpose.
​
May He have His way in us, and in our troubled world. Amen.