On the Motherliness of the Church

"Let us rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready" - Rev 19:7

The expression "Holy Mother Church" is a seldom used expression in our modern day. By "mother church," people would understand firstly, Protestants in particular, of which denomination came first, or which ministry gave birth to all the other ministries (the answer is clearly Catholic). The term is understood only secondly to be a spiritual caretaker. As a mother would, the Church as an institution gives birth to, educates, and nourishes the believers of the Christian religion. Whatever calamity should befall, the Church is there to nurture as a mother would. It is of little surprise how this understanding of a Mother Church has come to disappear; we only have to look at how individualistic and non-institutional approach to biblical interpretations of the modern world, birthing new heresies equipped only with their "personal relationship with Christ". I wish to briefly discuss the validity of the latter expression, the Church as a caretaker, in this post. 

    In the quotes verse above, what is meant by "bride" is the whole of the faithful as a community. It therefore connotes the whole of (savable) Christians as congregated in the Christian institution. According to Christian theology, Christ's crucifixion is the redemptive moment of mankind; it is the decisive step toward the New Creation. This moment is rich in metaphorical significance, connecting the events written in the book of Genesis and fulfilling their prophetic truths. There are a couple connections to be made. But one connections relevant to this topic is how the moment created a new "mother of all living" (Gen 3:20). As God opened a wound in Adam to take his rib (Gen 2:21), a wound was made by piercing Christ's side. Christ, then, is the new Adam, and the Church that was birthed from his death and resurrection is the new Eve. 

     I should digress and I should note quickly here that Virgin Mary is also called the new Eve. And this connection strikes true also, though the Church as the new Eve is an older thought. The divine Nature of God's works can permeate to the physical world in multiple facets. To understand the metaphorical significance to be extracted from the Christian narrative ought not to be constrained by worldly conventions.

     Now that the metaphorical significance can be gained from the events written in the Scripture, let us move on to see how the function of the Church can be motherly. First, it provides and nourishes. Like a mother milking her babe the Church feeds the homeless and shelters orphans. Also, thorough the ministering of the Eucharist, the physical form of which is made with "fruit of the earth and work of human hands," the Church nourishes us spiritually. The Church also educates. Through the community members, the Church corrects the wrongdoings we have done. When we run to one of the members of the faith, we are given advice. Sometimes, we are given an advice regardless of whether we are liable to listen, such as in the case of sermons and a true friend telling us just how bad we have been. Thirdly, the Church forgives and offers a shoulder to cry on. Through the sacrament of reconciliation and our friends we find comfort. By supporting one another in actions, and, if too distant, through prayers, we make the Mystical Body of Christ. In this support structure made possible by the Christlike virtues exemplified by its faithful members, the Church maintains its motherly nature. 

     It goes without saying ,then, the motherly imagery of the Church has been accepted by the tradition for a long time. The imagery not only exists in its functions but also in its architecture. Although this piece of architectural design is not seen commonly in our modern day, but it was the dominant on during the Gothic era. When we look at the doors of Gothic churches, we often see them ornamented with an arch shaped like halved almond. This "almond" imagery shaped like pointed oval is called vesica piscis. Perhaps the perverse modern mind would have a difficult time understanding it charitably, but it is an ancient yonic symbol depicting the female womb. The symbol has long been associated by ancients with how they considered the female womb as a mystical portal between life and non-life. Further, we often see Virgin Mary and Jesus within the full-almond outline. There was a conscious choice in Gothics choosing this design. With this architectural design, after the priest says "go forth the mass is ended," and the congregation replies "thanks be to God," the faithful, charged with the Eucharist, would be metaphorically re-birthing themselves, imitating the resurrection of the body. By exiting the archway, the faithful would be exiting the womb of the Mother Church out unto the world, renewed with the spiritual care given by the liturgy.

     From what has been said, the validity of expression can be seen.  

     

The Conservative Political Commentary of Captain America

"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
- Charter of the United Nations (Article 25)

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression ans shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." 
-  Charter of the United Nations (Article 39) 

Now, it is prudential and charitable on my part to warn you of possible spoilers here.


It is no secret that the last two Captain America movies have political undertones. I argue that the messages are conservative in nature, and they relay the message from the positions Captain America himself takes. I suppose the hero's conservative nature is to be expected, being a soldier from the past and all. With all that's been happening, "people might just need a little old-fashioned."

     The above quotes are from the Charter of the United Nations. The significance of the Articles is that the member nations are required to relinquish their sovereign powers on certain occasions as directed by the Security Council. By allowing the Security Council itself to determine the threat to the peace, the international actors who are actually involved in some incidents lose their voice. When the ones involved in a conflict may see the conflict as something irrelevant to the international peace, the Security Council has the power to render such an opinion pointless by asserting its own. Many think that this provision is prudential. Some think that such a provision may be counteractive to the goal it is trying to achieve. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain America seems to be in the latter camp. This view is exemplified in the latest movie of his Civil War, and a similar one is exemplified in Winter Soldier.

     To relinquish individual agency for the sake of better comfort is a liberal trend of thought. The more control the state has over individual security or welfare, the more liberal the state is. The Communist states of the past are prime examples of extreme, or perhaps deviant, versions of political liberalism. In opposition to this mentality, a political conservatism has to do with relinquishing state powers to either the individuals or the local governments. We see this contrast between liberals and conservatives in American politics: hardcore liberals tend to be socialists favoring radical state control and hardcore conservatives tend to be libertarians favoring radical individual agency. With this perspective, it is clear that the Article 39 from the UN Charter is a liberal one. The Article places superior agency to an international institution as opposed to (relatively) local state institutions.

     In Civil War, Captain America opposes signing the Sokovia Accords on grounds that the Avengers not being under the palms of the UN would keep the world safer. There is wisdom in this. The bureaucratic nature of an international entity would slow down the decision-making process significantly. If the Avengers have its own will to act, the heroes involved would make a decision on the spot. In the same way, the if the Security Council is to determine what is threatening to international peace, then the decision-making process could slow down, leading to inaction when an action is necessary.

     The tragedy of Rwandan Genocide is one such an example. There was a peacekeeping force, UNAMIR, stationed in Rwanda at the time of the conflict. While the Security Council toiled in a river of conversations and investigations and what not, they failed to give an order of action to the peacekeepers. President Bill Clinton went so far as to say that there's no genocide happening in Rwanda. The commander in charge of the peacekeepers, Romeo Dallaire, wanted to intervene. But without the proper order from the UN, he could not. Had he been able to intervene, the situation in Rwanda would probably have been less destructive. To prevent such a disaster by way of giving localized forces more agency is a conservative approach to international politics. Captain America's opinion is thus conservative in favoring the agency of localized or private forces.

     Captain America's conservative approach to security can be seen in the previous movie Winter Soldier. The movie, in relation to the hotly debated topic back in 2014, is a clear stab to the NSA. The message is that the power given to secure ourselves can be abused. In a fear-stricken world full of alien invasions and terrorist groups like Hydra, S.H.I.E.L.D planned to deploy three helicarriers that can shoot thousands of targets in a short period of time with precision. Such a weapon exists only in the wildest fantasies of Hobbes' Leviathan. To allow such a thing is a liberal trend of thought (as Hobbes is one of the fathers of modern liberal thought). The thought is liberal in relinquishing personal privacy and agency to a government agency. Captain America, as a conservative, is disturbed by the invention. Sure enough, the power given to S.H.I.E.L.D was hijacked by others with less than pure intent, leading to disasters.

     From the examples used, then, the conservative nature of Captain America's message can be observed.  

On Humbling as a Maturing Process

Wheat ready for harvest bows its head. 
- Confucian proverb

It is said that maturity and the level of self-knowledge coincide. The more we know of ourselves, the more mature we are. It is then a no surprise that the youth do not know themselves. It is not an uncommon sight to see vainglorious boys thinking that they are more charming than they actually are, and girls over-appreciating  their beauty with an SD card full of perfectly angled selfies.

     The core of these childish behaviors is pride. Their pride propels them to think better of themselves than they actually are. Only through humility can one attain self-knowledge. Only by humbling ourselves do we recognize the flaws within us and recognize our strengths with objectivity. For this reason, among many, humility is a virtue. Of course, the more virtuous a person is, the more mature a person is; it is by virtue do we measure the growth of a person. Just pick a random middle-aged celebrity whose social life is like that of a high school student, lacking self-control and riddled with insecurities. Can we say that the celebrity is mature? Surely not.

     Now, I do not mean that immature people are always prideful. On the contrary, excessive submissiveness is a sign of immaturity also. I have seen that some of my peers are full of potential. But they would not put themselves out in the world, justifying inaction with awkwardness or shyness. It is appropriate to have better people stand above those who are lesser than them, but their excessive submissiveness would not have them recognize their true potential. In so many cases we see unqualified people leading due to their ego and qualified people working simple day jobs due to their submissiveness. It is the proper order of human society to have qualified people lead, not the other way around. But our vices do not allow us this ideal.

     Some people measure maturity by the stern character of an authority figure. This is false. It is a mark of a mature man to act like a fool, and convincingly so, to play with his toddler son. It is also the case that a mature man would play ignorant to let his students think on their own for a while. Thus, continuing on from the connection between self-knowledge, maturity, and humility, a mature person knows to be humble in appropriate conditions.

     This sort of maturity is shown by Socrates. He is fabled to be the wisest man in all of Greece, but he plays ignorant with his interlocutors. It may be the case that he really does not know, but it is clear that he can think better than all of his interlocutors. He may as well just shut them all up and lecture, but he does not. He lets them think. A man of clear authority, in this case, is humble.

     Suppose another example. Imagine a boy of 20 years old. He has an IQ of 140, has seen more of the world than most, came across more types of people than an average person, experienced more things than most people would in their lifetimes, and also learned in different fields relevant to human interactions. Through all these, he developed a talent of getting a good read on people quickly and knowing the correct course of action. He knows accurately the kind of people he ought to keep close for mutual benefit and the kind of people that he ought to avoid. This talent proved to be extremely reliable over time. People he gave trust to would flourish into great friendships whereas people he distrusted would lie, boast, manipulate, and even harm others in a criminal fashion. In this example, it is clear that it is only fitting that the boy takes a seat of authority, advising people on life matters as he sees fit. It is more fitting that people listen to him more so than others.

     Let's say that you are either this boy's peer of similar age or an adult of higher age. How seriously would you take his advice? If you are his peer of similar age, you will merely take his advice as a suggestion, not superior to your own opinion. It could also be the case that you take his advice less seriously than your own. If you are an adult of higher age, let's say above 30, you would be liable to dismiss the boy's sayings on the assumption that he is inexperienced, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. By consequence, you would disregard his advisement.

     So what would be the mature response by the boy? Assert himself uncompromisingly? No. He ought to bow his head and be humble. With his prudence he ought to know that nobody will take a 20 year old boy seriously, that nobody will recognize him as an authoritative figure he rightfully should be. He ought to know that he lacks the age and the social status to command people around. He also ought to know that, without the social recognition, people will be unhindered by his advice and be entrenched in their own opinions and the opinions of those they favor out of their stubbornness; people trust PhDs more so than the one who is not, even if the two's abilities are exactly the same. Even when he proves to be right almost all the time, he will go ignored. With this knowledge he would play ignorant and wait in patience, waiting for the day he would be recognized as an authoritative figure. Only then could he begin to see the results in people he advises. For the time being, he would tell noble lies and sugarcoat his words for the sake of others. In this display of humility assisted by patience and prudence would the boy display his maturity.

     But if the boy kicks and screams to get people to recognize him at such an early age, he would be acting immaturely. If you, reader, read yourself into the example I used, it may be the case that you are deceiving yourself out of immature pride. Or perhaps it is not the case. At any rate, the relationship between humility and maturity is explained.

To Make Swords of Ourselves

"O, me alone! Make you a sword of me?" - Shakespeare in Coriolanus

I recently gave a tiny advice to a bunch of college students. Perhaps my arrogance is blinding me, but I liked what I said, especially the fact that I said it on the spot. So I'm going to expand on it on this post.

     If you have been around me long enough, you have heard me quote the line above from Coriolanus by Shakespeare. Coriolanus has been a favorite Shakespearean play of mine for quite some time, and the line above is one that rings my heart. It is kind of like a motto I live by.

     When Coriolanus says the line above, he is attempting to inspire the fear-stricken Roman army against the Volsces. I've seen a couple of productions and how they have portrayed this scene. I am saddened by how few have portrayed the scene accurately. The movie adaptation with Ralph Fiennes uses an exclamation: "Make you a sword of me!" It is an excellent adaptation, but I believe that the scene is not accurate to Shakespeare's intent.

     The original version written by Shakespeare uses a question mark as quoted above. It is an offering from Coriolanus to be his soldiers' sword. To those who are too cowardly to get the job done, he offers himself as a sword, a source of their courage, a weapon with which they can fight their fears.

     Like Coriolanus offered himself as a sword to his soldiers, I think all of us should be able to offer ourselves to be swords for others who are mired in problems of all sorts. If there is a person too fearful to reach to the heights one ought to reach for, it is admirable to offer oneself as a sword, a source of courage for that person. If there is a person suffering, a person of virtue would reach out to that person, offering oneself as a weapon by which the one suffering can cut down the pains and the demons that haunt. To do these things is to display the virtue of charity.

     If more of us could display charity, wouldn't there be less people trapped in constant sorrow? If there are more swords to be used in battle against the evils and the sufferings of this world, wouldn't this world be a better place? I have seen people toiling in pain with no one to help them. With no one to empathize with them and understand them, they would feel all alone in this world. With no one to fight their battles with, they would tread further into the darkness. Finally, they will say that this world is too cold to live and contemplate suicide. I have seen too many of these people. If someone in their lives had enough charity and courage to reach out to them, their lives would have been much brighter. If someone in their lives had made a sword of themselves, the sufferings would have been less.

     To be charitable or to love in such a way is closely intertwined with courage. In some sense, we see the most of the divine in love and courage. To truly love is to risk immeasurable pain. Only in risking this pain do we truly love. As Christians believe, the foreknowledge of Christ shows just how true his love is. He knew of the immense pain He was to suffer, but He offered Himself up as a sacrifice nonetheless. For God so loved the world he dived into pain and suffering.

     Like how Christ was battered by those he loved, to be charitable is to risk hurt. To offer ourselves as a sword for others to fight with as an act of charity is also risk hurt. Our edges are expected to be dulled, and our shiny gleam is expected to be stolen by dirt and blood.

     When you offer counsel to those who hurt, that person might not be responsive to you; a hand reached out in friendship could be denied. In fact, that person might end up scorning you. That person might even lie to you and betray you. A boy who said that he was not going to smoke again would smoke a week later. Another boy who said that he was going to moderate alcohol would get drunk that very night. A girl who said that she was not ready to date due to her problems would go on a date with a stranger a couple weeks later. Another girl who said that she would not drink to solve her problems would wake up with no memory of the past night three days later.

     Many who have not listened to you would not suffer grave consequences. But some would end up suffering a great deal more from not listening to you. Need I say more? In each of these cases, the one who offered oneself as a sword would feel pain. To see these people the sword has chosen to love fail so miserably would be heartbreaking. If this occurs repeatedly, the sword would feel tired and alone, dulled and battered.

     The tragedy of Coriolanus begins with this sort of tiredness and loneliness. To Romans, Coriolanus' skill as a warrior puts him above all others like god among men. Perhaps he began his career with a charitable mind. But the character presented is a beaten down man who resorted to pride and anger to compensate for the lack of recognition from the Roman people. For this reason, the Roman plebes banish him. He ultimately turns against Rome, invading it by commanding the Volsces, in his vengeance.

     I suppose this is the lesson Shakespeare is trying to tell. The tragic flaw of  Coriolanus is that he was not godly. In offering himself as a sword, he expected others to bow before him, recognizing the fact that he is superior over others and how he alone is the one holding Rome against her enemies. If you offer yourself as a sword, say to yourself: "I shall not want." Love is freely given. Be it recognition of virtue or love, want not in return from those to whom you offered yourself.