Newspaper Page Text
April 5,1979
PAGE 5
Am I Bored Because
Of Christian Commitment?
t,
BY BERYL NEWMAN
It is laughable to. imagine anyone seriously
suggesting that Christian commitment might be
responsible for boredom. The whole thrust of
the Gospel is that commitment to the word of
God is precisely the answer to the
purposelessness and emptiness in which
boredom takes root.
Of course, boredom is the direct opposite of
commitment. Yet we do hear of Christians
complaining of being doomed to a boring
marriage because of their religious belief, for
instance, or of being trapped in some tedious
occupation because of a religious vow, of life
becoming joyless because of stricter moral
standards than common in our society, of
religious observances deteriorating into the
hum-drum.
But the idea that such boredom could be
allied to our commitment indicates not only a
confusion of thinking, but a misapprehension
of the nature of commitment. The fact is that
boredom and commitment are contradictory
terms.
One does not grow bored with something to
which one is committed. It is simply not
possible. It is possible, on the other hand, to be
bored when we do not believe in what we are
doing or why we are doing it, or see it as
something added to our lives that is less
important than our real purpose in life.
Students, for instance, may become bored
with classes because they are not convinced
that their subjects bear sufficient relationship
to what they perceive as their future calling.
Married persons may complain of boredom
when they have lost sight of the real meaning of
marriage, or have never really appreciated its
something imposed or obligatory, nor can it be
spiritual dimensions or what is present in the
marriage as it is lived day-to-day.
We may then speak of commitment when it
never really existed. We seem to be using the
word more and more loosely. Sometimes
people undertake certain tasks, assume certain
roles, adopt certain lifestyles, less from
conviction of the rightness of such a course
than from the need to adapt to what they
believe is expected of them, or what will
enhance their reputation, prestige and so on.
We are, unfortunately, all vulnerable to the
temptation to impress others.
Often we refer to commitment and
sometimes wryly speak of being stuck with it.
But that is not commitment in the religious
context. Christian commitment is not
entered into unwillingly. It is the willing
bondage of oneself to the way of Christ and the
teaching of the Gospels in whatever
circumstance of life we find ourselves.
It is living with a vision. A vision of Christ
crucified and resurrected; of Christ suffering on
in mankind and transcending the human
dimension. If there is not at least a hint of such
a vision, there cannot be commitment.
A rather obscure research scientist was once
asked if his lifelong dedication to work where
progress was almost imperceptible and failure
common, had not been tedious — if, in fact, he
had not grown bored with it.
“I have never given boredom a thought,” he
replied. “There have been times when I have
been tired to death, exhausted. But bored?
Never.”
He was far too involved in the intensely
challenging process of probing the limitless
complexities of life and its mysteries. Even the
most trivial data were imbued with significance
because of their relation to the whole.
“I may never make a great breakthrough,” he
continued, “but what I do lays foundations for
others, steps on which they can advance. It all
builds toward an end that most of the time is
hidden from us.”
He lived with and worked toward a vision of
the day when man would understand all there is
to know of life. He worked out of his own
darkness into the hope of light. Christians, too,
are involved in the exciting revelation of the
mysteries of life and for us the vision is even
more important. We are concerned not only
with the visible aspects of life but its spiritual
source and end.
And we need to search out that vision and,
finding it, renew and refresh it from time to
time so that when we speak of commitment we
will realize to what we are committed as
Christians. That is why a knowledge of the
Scriptures, prayer and spiritual reading are so
important to us.
If we are bored in our so-called apostolate, it
is not because of commitment but the lack of
it. And then the problem is not so perplexing.
Our question is not self-defeating. There is
always an answer to the boredom of lack of
commitment.
This week, the question of boredom as
a result of Christian commitment is
explored. We are encouraged to define
the meaning of commitment closely.
Beryl Newman suggests that boredom and
commitment are contradictory in terms.
She feels that it is impossible to become
bored with a thing to which one is truly
committed. A true commitment demands
constant attention and is ever challenging.
In the section of Scripture which has
been called the Loaves Section (Mark 6,
31 - 8, 21-26), the 12 apostles were
having difficulty in understanding who
Jesus truly was. We see Jesus somewhat
s
exasperated with their lack of
understanding. The apostles, on the other
hand, were still searching for truth. We,
too, are like the apostles. Our constant
quest to know God is never-ending in this
life. But as long as we strive to know and
understand him better, we will never be
consumed with boredom.
We find it worthwhile to learn
something of the Eastern mystics because
we can learn something from their search
for God. We are all God’s children, and
there are always those among us who
make the very focus of their lives the
understanding of the Creator.
Disciples:
Their Blindness
BY FATHER JOHN J. CASTELOT
There is a fairly large segment of the Gospel
of Mark which has been called the Loaves
Section (6,31-8, 21, with 8, 22-26 as an
appendix, but a meaningful one). The author
has gathered together here for catechetical
purposes quite a bit of originally isolated
material, so isolated that it is often difficult to
discern the logical sequence. The one common
link is the mention of “bread” in the several
subsections, with the two interpretations of the
multiplication of loaves as the theme-setter.
It is this rather loose method of composition
that accounts for the especial difficulty of 8,
13-21. The second multiplication account (8,
1-9) was followed immediately by the
recrossing of the lake and the aggressive
demand of the Pharisees for a “sign” (8,10-12).
And now the little group was back in the boat
again, upset because they had forgotten to
bring bread with them. Mark qualifies his
remark about their not having any bread by
adding: “except for the one loaf they had none
with them in the boat” (8,14). One is tempted
to suspect that he was suggesting that, having
Jesus with them, they had the one loaf that
really matters, the eucharistic Lord.
At any rate, their predicament occasioned no
little consternation and some bickering among
themselves, as is suggested by 8, 16, which
would follow more logically after 8, 14, even
though the Greek is none too clear and has
given rise to several alternative translations. But
in between 14 and 16, Mark has put a puzzling
remark, which Luke has used in a very different
and much more logical context. Jesus
instructed them: “Keep your eyes open! Be on
your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees
and the yeast of Herod” (8,18). The saying
seems to have been atracted to this “Loaves
Section” because of the mention of yeast. But
surely Mark had more in mind than that.
Matthew (16,5) substituted Sadducees for
Herod and explains the yeast as a figure for the
teaching of Jesus’ adversaries (16,12). Luke
(12,1) interprets it as a reference to the
hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Among the Jews
yeast had become a popular symbol for
corruption, for corrosive influences, and it is in
this general sense that Mark seems to intend it
here.
The disciples have just witnessed the
multiplication of loaves and the feeding of a
considerable crowd. Here in the boat with them
is the one who performed this marvel, and they
are all upset because they’ve forgotten to bring
bread. In other words, they have missed the
whole point of the miracle and are just as blind
as Jesus’ ill-disposed foes. This is the “yeast”
about which he is warning them, and he goes on
to make the point painfully clear by asking
them no less than seven insistent questions. He
is patient with them, but one can sense, too,
something close to exasperation, as his last
question would indicate: “Do you still not
understand?” (8,21)
In the sweep of events in Mark’s Gospel,
there is at this point a definite impression of
impending tragedy. John the Baptist, the
forerunner and personal forecast of Jesus’
career, has been beheaded. Jesus has been
rejected by his official adversaries, his relatives,
and his own townspeople, and now his disciples
fail to recognize him. There is something
sharply ironic in his question to them: “Do you
still not see or comprehend? Are your minds
completely blinded? Have you eyes but no
sight? Ears but no hearing?” For these
FATHER JOHN J. CASTELOT
writes, “The disciples have just
witnessed the multiplication of loaves
and the feeding of a considerable
crowd. Here in the boat with them is
the one who performed this marvel,
expressions are simply a paraphrase of the way
he characterized “those outside” in 4,11-12.
And before long, these, his chosen ones, would
abandon him in his darkest hour. Only the
resurrection will open their ears and eyes to the
full truth.
This would seem to be Mark’s catechetical
point. It is not that the disciples were obtuse or
ill-disposed. It is rather that they simply could
not comprehend the mystery of Christ without
faith. And neither could — or can — Mark’s
Christian readers. They must accept and
treasure God’s gift of faith and walk bravely in
that “dark light.” Mark underscores this lesson
by ending his Gospel, not with reassuring
appearances of the risen Lord, but with the
latter’s promise that the disciples would see him
in Galilee (Mark 16, 7; the remaining verses of
this chapter, 16, 9-20, are a later, although
canonical, addition).
and they are all upset because they’ve
forgotten to bring bread. In other
words, they have missed the whole
point of the miracle and are just as
blind as Jesus’ ill-disposed foes.’’ (NC
Sketch by Eric Smith)
“ONE DOES NOT GROW BORED
with something to which one is
committed,’’ Beryl Newman writes. “It
is simply not possible. It is very
possible, on the other hand, to be
bored when we do not believe in what
we are doing or why we are doing it, or
see it as adjunct rather than integral to
our real purpose in life.’’ (NC Photo)
' — -v
Ramakrishna:
An Important Mystic
• J
S - 4
BY MARY C. MAHER
Ramakrishna (1836-1886) is perhaps the best
known Hindu mystic of modern times. His
teaching was spiritual in character.
Ramakrishna was born of a Brahman couple,
the fourth of five children. Religious lore has it
that previous to his birth his mother received a
divine visitation which told her of the special
character of her son. As a child (his name was
then Gadadhar), he showed an extraordinary
artistic taste and was said to have had mystical
ecstacies which revealed much reality to him.
He was a highly sensitive youth. Later in his
life, his “anima,” the feminine sensitivity which
Carl Jung stressed as highly evolved in most
religious people, was the basis of his
understanding of the feminine side of God.
When a teen-ager, he went to Calcutta to a
school which his older brother had started.
However, he was not greatly moved by
academic things. He sought wisdom more in the
natural world. He became known as
Ramakrishna. “Rama” was originally a
character in an old Indian Sanskrit epic who
gathered his army to fight a demon from among
the animals of the forest. “Krishna” is the chief
speaker in the Bhagavad-Gita, the well known
Hindu religious text. From these two characters
and the meanings of their lives, Ramakrishna
was well named as his life brought together the
love of nature and inner mysticism.
Ramakrishna became a priest in the Kali
temple near Calcutta where he spent 12 years in
uninterrupted prayer and meditation. His
desire, later fulfilled, was to see Kali, the divine
mother. He married and then began the study
of Vedanta, a Hindu philosophical system. He
experienced what he was thereafter to stress
throughout his life: the non-duality of being.
Faith and reason were not opposed, neither
were the urges of body and soul opposed in his
mind.
He later studied Islam and had visions of God
as Allah; finally he studied Christianity and
claimed to have had visions of Jesus. He
believed strongly in the central unity of all
religions. He dedicated himself without reserve
to the reconciliation of all humankind. He
sought to unify the East with the West by
locating the primeval force he believed at the
heart of all religion.
Ramakrishna believed that in all that existed,
including joy and sorrow and with them all the
forms of life in humankind and in the universe,
there is one who is a perpetual birth. The
creation of this world takes place anew each
instant. Religion is therefore never
accomplished: it is a ceaseless action and
involves the will to strive — like the outpouring
of a spring and never a stagnant pond.
This religious leader was not a social hero
like his fellow Indians, Gandhi and Tagore. But
he profoundly influenced religious life in India.
His famous disciple, Swami Vivekananda said,
“It was no new truths that Ramakrishna came
to preach, though the advent brought old truths
to light. In other words, he was the
embodiment of all the past religious thought of
India.”
Every age has its great thinkers. Certainly,
while Ramakrishna was not of the Christian
tradition, he was a searcher of truth.
The Vatican II document, “Declaration on
the Relationship of the Church to
Non-Christian Religions,” states: “From
ancient times down to the present, there has
existed among diverse peoples a certain
perception of that hidden power which hovers
over the course of things and over the events of
human life, at times, indeed, recognition can be
found of a Supreme Divinity and of a Supreme
Father too. Such a perception and such a
recognition instill the lives of these peoples
with a profound religious sense. Religions
bound up with cultural advancement have
struggled to reply to these same questions with
more refined concepts and in more highly
developed language.
“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the
divine mystery and express it through an
unspent fruitfulness of myths and through
searching philosophical inquiry. They seek
release from the anguish of our condition
through ascetical practices or deep meditation
or a loving, trusting flight toward God.”
f >
KNOW
YOUR FAITH
' * .• • ' I
(All Articles On This Page Copyrighted 1979 By N. C. News Service)
i ’ ,