The havoc and mayhem of my thoughts regarding St. Benedict
(Have at this as you will)
My mind is in great turmoil right now. I have just finished my Colloquy on Gregory the Great’s Second Dialogue: Life of St. Benedict. I read this story about the life of St. Benedict last night, and for the first 10 (out of 20) pages I was impressed by this man of God, and his workings on the earth. However, as the stories continued to increase in grandeur I thought to myself, how impressive that God worked through him like this. When the parallel was drawn between Bennet’s accomplishments and the greatest accomplishments of every great man of faith in the Bible, I thought hmm.. that’s a lot of power that God manifested in him, and I mean a LOT of power. I wonder how come I am just now reading of this man. Continuing on through the story, he brings a little boy back to life, very similar to Jesus and Paul (or Peter? I can’t remember) with Tabitha – which was referenced in this writing. However, this little boy (only one of a few that Bennet raised from death) was mangled beyond recognition, so that his body could only be carried to Bennet in a bag. I full-heartedly believe that this is absolutely possible through God. No doubt that God can do that, it was just interesting that he seems to one-up Jesus with the level of his miracle. Not that God wouldn’t do that, because it’s completely possible…just interesting.
As the story kept going I read of many miracles involving objects. Bennet created a surplus of oil and restored many broken jugs, and things of the like. He also made money appear brought up iron from the bottom of a lake to return to the piece it had broken from. I believe that God can make all of these things happen, and especially the oil incident reminds me of Jesus making water into wine. However, I don’t understand why there is so much focus on material things in these stories. When Jesus was on earth, he focused on people much more than physical objects. Still, I understand that objects were spoken of at times in the Bible, so that doesn’t discount his miracles.
Bennet was able to read minds and tell when his monks had hidden wine flasks in the cellar, and when a monk had taken a handkerchief from a female nun, and knowing when a man had not fasted while on his way to see him, and knowing when bread or wine had been poisoned, and knowing when someone was drowning in a lake a ways off, as well as many various other mind reading tales. I also don’t think it is impossible for God to give man that knowledge, however, when in the Bible does he? I know that Jesus can read the minds of other people, and maybe I’m just blind to these passages, but I can’t recall anyone else who is given insight into the thoughts of another person. (Someone please do inform me of my error in thought when it exists.) I believe completely that God can do such things, it is not beyond my comprehension, and I believe that God can do things that are outside of the miracles of the Bible, but there’s something in this that just doesn’t sit well in my heart. I fear that I’m wrong, and I don’t have a problem being wrong except that I generally feel that I have been given the gift of discernment, but mostly I would just like to know the validity of this series of tales. I want to know why my heart is troubled so with these stories.
Bennet is not only given the gift of divine knowledge, but he also is able to appear to others in visions. Not that others see him in a vision, but that he KNOWS that he was in their vision, and claimed that he meant to appear to them in such a manner. He was able to foretell that his abbey was going to be suppressed, and he was able to tell a king the exact details of his life including the time of his death. I don’t know maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t think that God gave anyone THAT specific of knowledge. I know that Joseph was able to interpret the dreams of the baker and wine taster and tell that one was to die and the other to be regained into favor. Also he told the pharaoh of the famine. So maybe it isn’t that out of the ordinary to predict the time of someone’s death. However, we talked a lot last semester in Biblical literature about how the gift of prophecy isn’t really about predicting the future, but rather about administering calls for repentance to the nation of Israel (and I’m butchering this definition), but basically their prophecies were only fulfilled if the nation didn’t repent, and that was their purpose. Bennet though just predicts, accurately, his time of death. Speaking of such, he also knows his own time of death, and plans accordingly the last several days of his life so that he has taken the Eucharist shortly before death, and reconciled his sins with God. I just don’t see how the God who declares live every day as if it were your last, be prepared in season and out of season, would give Bennet the exact timing of his death. I don’t understand what purpose this serves. I just don’t see the God that I have studied, the God that I have served in this story, and I fear that I’m the only one who doesn’t agree with his doings. I fear that everyone else either takes this at face value and just accepts them or that I am just completely disregarding the great deeds that God has given the authority to in one man. Either way, I feel alone and distressed in these thoughts, it makes me weary to know that Daniel reads this and sees God’s great deeds, and I read this and feel sick to my stomach. I don’t even know why it concerns me so much, but I know this feeling, for I have encountered it before.
Bennet saves one of his monks who had been inhabited by a demon. Maybe his monk wasn’t a Christian, that’s the only logical conclusion I can arrive at with this story because I am certain that the Bible says that Satan cannot inhabit a Christian, molest us sure, come into our beings, no. Yet another monk failed at his duties and was resolute to leave the monastery because he didn’t feel like he should continue in this lifestyle. On his way out he encountered a dragon that almost devoured him, and upon calling for help (where the other monks found no dragon) he determined to remain in his course as a monk, and miraculously he was able to perform his duties. I don’t know why this story would have occurred. God makes it plain that we have the choice to serve him, why would he employ a scare tactic to force a monk to return to service? Also it is unlikely, and very against his nature, for Satan to have scared the monk back into serving the Lord. Bennet also was given a vision one night of the entire world and he saw the soul of an instantly (right before that) deceased man rising to heaven. I also think it’s biblical for God to give people visions, even exceptional visions, which he does often in the Bible. I just don’t understand the purpose behind his vision. It didn’t appear to serve much purpose, and he didn’t use it to preach to the world, and I’m not even sure if much was really unearthed in it. Also why did he see someone’s soul? Where in the Bible does anyone ever see someone’s soul? The only account I can recall is Saul calling up the soul of Samuel, which was directly against God’s commands.
Not only does Gregory see souls, but he even pardons souls. At one point he threatened excommunication for two nuns for their improper behaviors, and then they died before they reconciled that behavior. After the sorrowful petitions of a woman, he then pardoned the two nuns and allowed them to go to heaven. When in the world does God give this power of pardoning to humans? The verse that’s quoted as allowing Bennet to do many of these things was Matthew 16:19, which says that disciples have the power to bind on earth what will be bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Daniel asserted that the Bible does give the disciples power to forgive, however, I cannot find that verse..if someone would like to enlighten me, I’d appreciate that). I just don’t see the authority placed in the correct spot here. I really don’t understand. Even if Bennet was a holy man who was REALLY in tune with the Lord, and COMPLETELY after his own heart like David, I don’t think that God would give him the power over other people’s eternal souls like that. Those two girls weren’t even repentant; they died in their sins. I don’t agree with this, and if God really did give this power to Bennet, then what implications does that have for me in my modern situation? How does that affect me? Can a holy man really have power over my soul after I’ve departed the earth? This just doesn’t “jive” with my perceptions of God, and I’m not sure that I find a reason in the Bible to change those perceptions. I’m just very confused, as I’m sure has become quite evident thus far.
Reading this I read the phrases that claimed that Bennet did these things through the spirit of God, which was one with him, and I read that he fell prostrate and prayed until miracles occurred, and I read where he did these things through the power of Jesus (I also noted the several times when these mentions were absent), but I didn’t read this series of stories and think how great is my God. This was the main difference that I noted between the Bible and Bennet’s life. When I read about Moses, and David, and Elijah and Paul, and Peter I read that God did miraculous and great and awesome things despite these people. Even though they were failures and weak, God showed his power through them. He worked in their weaknesses. Bennet talked about asking for forgiveness of sins, but I didn’t really read about his weaknesses, I never heard how he failed. It could be the way that this story was told, but I read this and heard about how fantastic of a man Bennet was. I heard how great his spiritual life was, and the awesome things that he could do. Yeah I think having a great spiritual life is important, but I think if anything when someone has a great spiritual life, they are faced with much more opposition and temptation and struggles none of which were emphasized in this work. One time early on in Bennet’s life a woman came and he was tempted to lust. His reaction was to wallow in thorns as punishment, and I never heard of his temptations again. This just doesn’t seem accurate according to what I know about human nature. According to Daniel, I am just not aware of what it’s like to be super spiritual, and that it’s possible. While it’s possible because anything is possible through God, I think that there is something that doesn’t equate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
On the first day of class in law school we were told that the primary purpose of our course of study was to develop critical thinking and analytical skills. Learning critical thinking and analytical skills are not limited to advanced degrees like law; developing critical thinking and analytical skills are also a primary goal of an undergraduate degree. Consequently, when we are critiquing the validity of written information, we research the motives of the author, the social and political climates which may influence the author, the thesis that the author wants to convey to the reader, and all other factors that may influence the author.
Who was Gregory the Great, and what was the political, social and religious climate that preceded and followed his life? As you read and discuss his writings, remember that they are not infallible like Scripture is. Although it has been over thirty years since I studied church history in seminary, I remember generally some of the knowledge that I gained from my church history courses. Unfortunately, I loaned my church history text books to a friend who did not return them; therefore, I cannot go to them and confirm some of the dates and history of individual popes. Hence, I will generally present some information that may be helpful to you in your critical analysis of the writings of some of the church leaders.
From 300-400 A.D. into the Age of Enlightenment the church leaders were more than spiritual leaders; they were also heavily immersed in the social fabric and the political structure. If I remember correctly Gregory the Great was one of the early powerful popes who had a tremendous effect on shaping the church structure and theology. Augustine introduced Christianity to the world on a whole new level, and Gregory the Great may have been the first monastic pope who took the papacy to a new level. If I remember correctly, he was not a formal political leader, but he was a de facto emperor of the Roman empire. I think he was the pope who introduced the concept of purgatory to the Roman Catholic Church, and he desired to take the Church to a higher spiritual level. Consequently, he glorified the mystical which was exemplified in the monastic lifestyle that he sought to perpetuate.
Numerous popes, particularly during the medieval times, were truly evil men. They killed their rivals and operated as despots. They introduced religious practices and theologies to raise revenues for the church (themselves), and they lived very sinful lifestyles. Protestantism arose from the breach in the Church that occurred when Martin Luther protested the use of charging for “indulgences” to raise money for the Roman Catholic Church. Even today, the church laity is taught that the Church's teachings are more important to the governance of their spiritual lives than Scriptures. The concept of sainthood is very important in the religious lives of today's Catholic laity. Even after their deaths, these Saints have been given great spirit powers. It is my understanding that about thirty years ago, the Vatican admitted that throughout history the papacy had created about seventy Saints (St. Christopher was one of them) who had never lived. They had created the Saints to emphasize various virtues to the laity, and over several centuries Roman Catholics had prayed to these non-existent Saints and attributed miracles to them.
Some of the popes were pious, but others were evil. Each pope had an agenda. Some agendas were spiritually based and others were to help ambitious popes gain more political, financial, social and religious power. In the 16th and 17th centuries popes emphasized social theology in the evangelization of South and Central America. In the 1960's and 1970's popes' agendas were to modernize the Catholic Church, and more recently, Pope John Paul had an emphasis on pro-life (i.e. anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, and antiwar). Hence, as you critique the writings of Gregory the Great or any other writer who purports to deliver the truth, analyze that writer in light of knowledge available to you.
Although Gregory may have been one of the greatest popes, he had an agenda and was no different than any other leader in that respect. If I remember correctly, he was attempting to bring more piety into the life of the church and its laity. Hence, he emphasized the miraculous. The Roman Catholic Church places great importance on many books that Protestants have rejected as been authentic. For example, the Apocrypha is accepted in the Catholic Church as a source of truth, and Protestant scholars reject the books of the Apocrypha as not being divinely inspired and not being equal with the books of the Bible in authenticity. You need to ask what evidence exists that Gregory’s “Dialogues” report true events and are not allegories or other literary devices to convey Gregory’s agenda.
Today, Heather Flies delivered the sermon, and she spoke about Martin Luther’s view of Scripture that is very apropos to this subject. Luther had the following to say about Scripture and the teachings and writings of church leaders and others:
“I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.” (WA, 2. 618. Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium ... Martini Lutheri defensio 11519).
“Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.” (WA, 7, 836-38.)
Therefore, Elizabeth, I think you are right in seriously questioning teachings that are inconsistent with Scripture and your “gut feelings” regarding truth. At the present time I do not have the time to research fully the accuracy and truthfulness of the writings of Gregory the Great or any of the other early Roman Catholic Church leaders, but your best guide to truth is to develop your critical listening and analytical abilities, to continue to listen to your heart (because the heart is generally right, if based on a solid foundation and relationship with God), to continue to question all that you hear whether you agree with it or not, and to stand firm for the conclusions upon which you arrive after the application of critical analysis, comparison to general and specific revelation, and good ole common sense.
Elizabeth, I have enjoyed watching from afar your maturity as you have experienced your studies in London. You are on the right track; do not stop learning as much as you can and questioning all that you read or anyone tells you. Foremost, do not stop listening to your heart because the heart is where God reveals Himself to us.
Love,
Dad
Post a Comment