Homily on Matthew 21:28-32

This is a homily a good friend of mine and permanent deacon for the Diocese of Duluth, Dr. Philip Mayer, gave last Sunday. Enjoy.

What are we to make of Jesus’ words today? He seems to be saying to us, “It doesn’t matter as much what you say, as it matters what you do.” But is it really that simple? It is always wise, when reading the Scriptures, especially the parables of Jesus, to consider their setting. To whom is Jesus addressing his message, and what is the situation of the discussion? This will often shed light on a very specific teaching he has in mind for us. Jesus is not trying to make it difficult, to mystify us with vague ambiguous stories. He wants us to understand as clearly as we are able, the Father’s plan for our lives and how we are to live in it. We make it difficult when we take things out of their context and try to simplify or generalize. So, lets take a good look.

Who is Jesus talking to? The chief priests and elders (Mt. 21: 23), the religious leaders of the people. That is very important. Note, also, the 13 verses immediately following today’s Gospel (Mt. 21: 33-43), where he tells the parable of the wicked tenants. This parable, for those who don’t remember (it will be the Gospel for next weekend), is about a landowner who leases a vineyard to tenants. These tenants prove to have very little respect for authority because when the landowner sends his representatives to collect his share of the harvest; they seize them, beat one, kill another, and stone the third. He finally sends his son thinking, “They will surely respect him.” They, in fact, show their utter disdain for his authority. They kill his son. Jesus poses the question, What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants when he comes? (Mt. 21: 40)

The parable of the two sons is taking place in the context of a discussion Jesus is having about authority, human authority. How do we live with authority? How do we react to the authority in our lives? Are we like the 2nd son and the tenants? Do we enter into agreements like the tenants, then break them? Do we pretend to be law-abiding citizens and then lie on our taxes? Do we vow to love and honor our spouses, then use and abuse them at our whim? Or are we more like the 1st son, willful, yet honest, rejecting authority then ultimately doing what it requires and living according to it? Keep in mind, the parable says nothing about the two sons’ reasons for what they do or the justice in what their father is ordering them to do. It only speaks about their response to human authority. It seems a little empty to me. Interpreting it as such; it doesn’t fit in a way that is satisfying with the parable of the tenants that follows. It is incomplete or inadequate in some way. Lets look further. Lets see what comes before….

The verses immediately preceding today’s parable record Jesus’ miraculous cures, his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and his casting the merchants from the temple. After these events, he is challenged. Again note, by the chief priests and elders who ask him, What authority do you have for acting like this? Who gave you this authority? (Mt. 21: 23) Jesus, who knows their hearts responds, And I will ask you a question, just one; if you tell me the answer to it, then I will tell you my authority for acting like this. Was John the Baptist’s authority from heaven or was it human? (Mt. 21: 24-25) The gospel then explains to us how for political expediency the chief priests and the elders back off and claim not to know. Interesting…

With that in mind, should the parable of the two sons be boiled down to “it is more important what we do … than what we say… to authority in our family, government or in our business obligations?” I fear that to leave it at that is to miss a lot, perhaps, to miss entirely Jesus’ point. This parable is told in the context of a dialogue that Jesus is carrying on with the local religious authorities, the chief priests and elders, and it is a dialogue with people who have religious authority… about religious authority. More importantly, it is a challenge to them to see that there is a new age dawning, the dawn from on high is breaking upon them (Lk. 2:78). The Father’s plan for their salvation and their own role in that plan is unfolding afresh before their very eyes. There is a new order upon them. Christ’s Church is laboring to be born into their very midst. It is foreshadowed in the Baptist’s call for repentance. It can only be accepted by a humble, repentant heart. Jesus, in his love for them, is challenging them to see it, to reflect on how they are responding to this new authority and how His Father will view their response.

The context of our parable is essentially a dialogue about: 1) who has religious authority, was the Baptist’s authority from heaven or human? … 2) how do we respond to it, ….are we like the 2nd son who claims to honor it or more like the 1st ?… and 3) what are the consequences of setting ourselves outside or above religious authority, like the tenants did with the landowner and his representatives? All of chapter 21 of Matthew’s gospel is fundamentally a dialogue about who speaks for God and how we answer to them.

This was a difficult discussion for the chief priests and elders. Their role in their religious community was changing. They could feel it. They could sense their authority slipping away. They had questions…. legitimate ones. They needed to know was this of God? It was their duty to find out. But they also, for very human reasons, did not wish to lose their status, power and influence. Jesus knew this was not easy for them, so he made it as clear as he could. He, also knew they would not receive his message well. He was in a situation very much like a CEO who has to inform his managers that the company is reorganizing. They are no longer in charge. There is new personnel a-coming. Are they going to be onboard? You see, Jesus was already in the process of establishing His Church on earth. He had already selected His Apostles. He had already given Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, the power to bind and loose. Jesus knew what was coming next, that His Church would be born when the water and blood burst forth from His side on the cross, that it would know itself in His Resurrection, that it would breathe its first breath of life from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that it would be with us always until the end of time.

Now, understood as a parable about religious authority this is, also, very difficult for us to hear, but for different reasons. In Jesus’ time religious authority was readily accepted. What made it difficult for them to understand was the fact that it was changing. In our day, it is quite different. Religious authority is readily challenged. What makes it difficult for us is that it will not change!!! It will last until He comes again in Glory!! Jesus established authority in His Church around Peter and the Apostles. He declared Peter a rock; a solid, grounded, stable foundation upon which the Church is built. In case we worry about how sturdy that foundation might be, Jesus tells us the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18). Peter and the Apostles are present to us today in our Holy Father and the Bishops who are in communion with him. Jesus has made this as clear as he possibly can for us!!

Now, the gospel for today, how are we responding to the religious authority in our lives, the authority in the Church? Maybe we acknowledge that the Church is established by Jesus, yet, we find ourselves not accepting or serving her authority? Challenged by her teaching, we cry out, as the prophet Ezekiel observed, The Lord’s way is not fair! (Ez. 18:25). This is part of the human condition; our intellects are fallen and our wills are weak. We, as most parents of teenagers know, are prone to rebellion. However, we must be very careful that we do not, like the 2nd son, say, ”Yes, I am a disciple in His Church,” then publicly deny what the Church definitively teaches, especially in matters of faith and morals. We must not dissent, that is reject, work against, undermine, and seek to destroy the divinely instituted authority. What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants when he comes? We must not, especially in regards to the young, lead others astray, sew confusion in the vineyard, and cause them to question and turn them against religious authority. For one to do so would be to wish to be thrown into the sea with a great millstone hung round his neck (Mark 9: 42). Jesus is telling us in this parable that it is better to be honest, like the 1st son, to say I will not, to declare openly your disobedience to religious authority, and then to quietly obey, rather than to be like the 2nd and declare your obedience, and then live in disobedience…. live a lie.

We are called first to be holy, true disciples of Jesus. We are called to be his universal, catholic witnesses to all. We are called to witness to people of all nations and languages, to people of all races, to believers of all denominations and to the unbelievers, to all people of all occupations, and all ages, …to the old, but especially to the young who we are responsible to form in the Faith. We are called to witness as one, humble and obedient followers of the apostles, of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing (Philippians 2: 2).

This is the big picture. This is living as a sign of Faith, living as sacrament, as an outward sign of the Church. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. It is not easy. We need the Holy Spirit to live it. It takes humility …… and Jesus is our example. Listen to the words of St. Paul: Have in you the same attitude that is also in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to grasped. Rather he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, …he humbled himself becoming obedient… (Philippians 2: 5-9). Even Jesus, who is the Son of the Living God, followed the plan and submitted to human authority. We must do no less.

A Democrat on His Party

Georgia Senator Zell Miller (D) has strong words for his party and how 2002 looks a lot like 1972.

More for the Baghdad Boys

E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post has some advice for Baghdad Jim and Baghdad Bonior.

NYTimes Letter Watch

Today's installment: Iraq Idiocy.

Both letters are full of red herrings and strawmen. The first alludes to the fact that we "made Saddam," and then concludes that this somehow argues against going to war. Huh? It seems to me that if we are responsible for the present state of affairs in Iraq, then it is that much more important for us to fix the situation; if you make the mess, you clean it up.

The second letter-writer wishes for a debate. So do I. But I don't see any sign of debate in his letter. As others have pointed out, those who call for a debate never actually make a contribution to such a debate. If you want a debate, wouldn't you make a case for your position, in some way? Any way? Kinda wierd, if you ask me.

Good stuff at NRO today

A good piece by political philosopher Robert P. George on New Jersey's Supreme Court fiasco.

A terrific piece by theologian Father Matthew Lamb, who echoes George Weigel and Father Richard Neuhaus on the central role which theological dissent has played in the priest sex-abuse scandal.

Both are worth your time.

I'm going to be sick

Via Drudge, I found this "editorial" from England's "The Mirror", in which the writer drools over Clinton and how "he spoke yesterday with an extraordinary passion, vision and clarity" at a Labour party conference in England.

This is how the piece opens: "What a performance. What a politician. What a superstar." I'm sure this is completely true... Clinton is a performer, consummate politician (in one sense of the word), and a (pop culture-esque) superstar. But you know what he isn't, Mirror writer? A Leader.

Everybody loves Patricia

Cool entry by Kathryn Lopez at The Corner quoting Patricia Heaton (Ray Romano's tv-wife on "Everybody Loves Raymond") on being a pro-lifer in Hollywood, from Heaton's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. This one is my fav: "it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life." Blam!

Russell Shaw on Iraq

Catholic writer Russell Shaw addresses the Iraq question. Great stuff. He points out that "there are large, serious questions here that, up to now, the public debate has hardly touched, much less answered." I agree, and I don't think such a debate will be had until everyone involved reads Kenneth Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm, which I linked to Monday.

JPII on Real Ecumenism

John Paul II addressed a group of Brazilian bishops recently, and in so doing spoke of real ecumenism. Good article.

Point of clarification: ecumenism, properly speaking, deals only with the drive for unity among Christians. Scholars in the field refer to common activities between Christians, Jews, and Muslims as inter-faith dialogue, while talks with other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) are referred to as inter-religious dialogue.

Not trying to be picky. Just clear.

At least the Hamburgers are with us

According to this (London) Times article (link via Instapundit), Germany is getting every closer to making a U-turn in its Iraq policy. Apparently the tift with the Bush Administration is taking its toll.

But my favorite thing about this article is the news (to me) that the city of Hamburg took out an ad in the NY Times declaring, "America--Hamburg stands by you."

Now we need a similar declaration from Bavaria.

Michael Novak: Democracy & Religion in America

Great piece by Michael Novak at NRO today. Its driven by an analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville's own view of our country. The third paragraph is a kicker:

"Tocqueville began with a shocker: That the first political institution of American democracy is religion. His thesis went something like this: The premises of secular materialism do not sustain democracy, but undermine it, while the premises of Judaism and Christianity include and by inductive experience lead to democracy, uplift it, carry it over its inherent weaknesses, and sustain it."

Wow. I wonder what the Internet Infidels think of that? Stupid question... I already know.

Uh-oh

The NYTimes' lead editorial today is on stem-cell research. Guess where they come down?

The Democrat Penchant for Self-Destructing on Foreign Policy Issues

Good column in the Washington Post today by Michael Kelly on the Democrats' decades-long tendency to do and say really dumb things on foreign policy matters. Baghdad Jim and Baghdad Bonior (George Will's terms, as far as I can tell) are only the latest examples, when they say regarding Bush that "the president would mislead the American people", while regarding their hosts, "you have to take the Iraqis on their value, at their face value." Sure, guys.

Rosary Reflection

Great reflection on the Rosary by Disputations.

Talking Wayyyy Past Each Other

With the fall election approaching and the campaigns approaching their typically feverish intensity, I've found myself becoming more and more disillusioned with politics-as-we-know-it in our country.

My biggest problem is with the half-truths and obfuscation that are standard campaign ad fare, and both sides are guilty. It's hard to find a political ad in which the producer is really concerned about getting the full truth about their candidate out there. Now, I know that this isn't completely the fault of the campaigns... they're simply trying to make a point in the 3.2 nanoseconds they have before the average tv watcher either tunes out the ad or flips the channel. And this is clearly a problem beyond the politician's control. Nonetheless, it would be refreshing to see a campaign in which full disclosure is the norm, rather than the extreme rarity.

Another thing that troubles me is the lack of any authentic discussion on the issues. In my experience, Americans heavily involved in politics (as participants or spectators) tend to suspect their opponents on the other side of the aisle of the vilest motives. Take this letter to the editor in the NY Times, in which the writer warns that Republicans are for "regressive economic policies; and against protecting the environment, civil liberties and civil rights, a woman's right to choose, and occupational safety." Yes, that's right: those evil Republicans actually desire pollution, a police state, and on-the-job injuries. Come on! Of course, conservatives can be just as guilty of such suspicions: I have many friends who have stated at one time or another that liberals and Democrats are just out to use Big Government to run our lives. Please. Hey, I live in South Dakota now -- Tom Daschle's home state -- and as much as I can't stand his style and as much as I disagree with this policy positions, I would never say that his secret plan is to rule the life of every American. But it's because of these suspicions that we all too often fail to listen to the other side, and therefore never engage them in meaningful discussion.

Finally, I'm tired of too many politicians basing their actions on the desire to retain or gain political power rather than on principle. My primary example? Daschle's argument during the tax-cut debate, using the example of how a "rich" person would get back enough money to buy a BMW, while a "middle-class" person would only get enough to buy a BMW's tire. Talk about disingenuous! Senator, of course the middle-class taxpayer is going to get back less in a tax cut in which the rates are cut by the same percentage... they pay less in taxes in the first place! (I'm sure there is a similar example from the other side.) It's this sort of half-truth (again) that irks me, and (in my opinion) really prevents America from having a debate about the issues, and ultimately, about the First Things. But then, we've never really been a people interested in First Things, have we?

Deterrence?

Rich Lowry has a good piece on the Deterrence Argument vis. Iraq -- that is, that Saddam will not employ Weapons of Mass Destruction because of the threat that we will annihilate Baghdad in response.

Lowry does a good job of refuting this argument. But Kenneth Pollack, in his book which I linked below, does an even better job. He refutes the Deterrence Argument in principle and then by example. For instance...

Imagine it's 2007. Saddam has by now acquired a small nuclear arsenal. Being sane, he has no illusions about using his arsenal against New York, D.C., etc., as this would most certainly invite an overwhelming response by the U.S. Besides, there is no real reason for Saddam to do so: it doesn't further his purposes. But what does further his purposes and ambitions is taking Kuwait, something we well know he is willing to do. So...

Iraq repeats 1990 and invades Kuwait, with little problem. But this time, he warns the U.S. not to attack his forces, because if we do, he will employ his small nuclear arsenal (or a portion thereof) against the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, thereby reducing the world's oil production by some 22% (Polluck's figure) and thereby plunging the world economy into a recession or even a depression (as Polluck points out, the oil embargo of the early 70's which had such an impact on our economy saw a lessening of oil production of only some 2%).

Now what is the U.S. to do? Allow Saddam to invade his tiny neighbor and thereby gain even more control over Middle East oil and continue in his desire for Middle East dominance, or risk a worldwide depression by attacking Saddam's forces? Hardly a choice any president would want to face. But it is a very plausible one, if we chose deterrence over regime change.

Interview with Archbishop Dolan

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has an interview with Archbishop Dolan. Good, heartening reading.

The Euros aren't happy

The Washington Post has an article today on how the Europeans aren't happy with the direction the Bush administration has been taking vis. multilateral institutions and coalitions.

Frankly, I'm frustrated and exasperated by all of this. Take the situation with Iraq. The Europeans are apparently unhappy because we've told them to get on board or step aside. Well, what do they want? The Bush Administration (and others -- see the excellent article by Stanley Kurtz on the new book by Kenneth Pollack, The Threatening Storm: the Case for Invading Iraq) has laid out a clear case for regime change, now. We believe that it is in the best interests of our nation, the Middle East, and the world that Saddam be removed from power. And we believe that it is particularly urgent that we take action soon. Europe (apparently) disagrees. So what are we supposed to do? Nothing, simply because some (many) of our allies don't see the urgency? I don't think so.

I'm convinced that the President is right about Saddam and Iraq. He has to go, for a number of reasons. I wish that others would see that, but if they don't, then we must act alone. I don't think Bush relishes the idea of going it alone, but if no one choses to join us, then he doesn't have any choice, does he?

Paul VI's Dominus Iesus-esque language

While reading Pope Paul VI's excellent Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization In The Modern World), written in 1975, I came across this gem:

"In other words, our religion [Christianity] effective establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven."

Wow! This is the sort of thing that got the Vatican in trouble with those with a misunderstanding of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue when Dominus Iesus came out two years ago. I wonder what sort of a reading it got back in '75. If any.

When Unconditional Isn't

The White House website has a nice press release which shows how conditional prior Iraqi promises of unconditionality (is that a word?) are.