First Oral Exam Study Guide

First Oral Examination Theology 151 1.) What is the relationship between freedom and commitment? Can one be free and uncommitted at the same time? A.) Definition of Freedom and Commitment: 1.) Freedom: is the capacity of the human person to achieve his final, irrevocable and eternal self a. Karl Rahner: Freedom is “the capacity of the subject . . . to achieve his final and irrevocable self . . . it is the event of something eternal” i. In freedom, we are performing the eternity which we ourselves are and are becoming ii. Human freedom is not some phantom commodity that enjoys a life apart from particulars. Freedom must be exercised in order to be (Haughey, 31) b. God is the ground and goal of our freedom, since God’s love is the only form of love that is able to embrace ourselves in totality: God’s love can unite mankind c. Freedom includes, but is more than “freedom of choice” d. Haughey: Life shall be found when a person is willing to particularize his choices in life  our choices define who we are as a person and gives us a sense of identity i. Selfhood is grounded in our ability to particularize our choices 2.) Commitment: A personal and formal choice made by an individual, which symbolizes and represents a deeper direction that one has chosen to take in one’s life a. A commitment cannot be consummated if there is no promise: promise is an act which seals the deal i. The promise is a particular kind of choice: the unique feature about promise, is that it describes something we intend to do in the future ii. The one making a promise is not understood to be making a prediction about himself, but rather, he is asserting his firm intention iii. Every promise, bind the one who makes it to some future action: by giving his word, he is assuming an obligation iv. Promises are seen as a way for people to determine themselves, and to create a new relationship between another person and the community that the individual is part of b. Hannah Arendt and her book The Human Condition: i. The making and keeping of promises are an expression of one of the most ancient needs of man

ii. The Judeo-Christian religion grew out of the covenant promise God made to Abraham iii. Roman Empire built a legal system based on the inviolability of agreements and treaties iv. Human beings enter into promises in order to ensure their own survival and to make society a more hospitable place to live v. Promise is what holds society together and staves off barbarity c. Three main points about promises in relation to commitment: i. As promises, our commitments project us into the future ii. They also create a communion between ourselves and those to whom we have given our word iii. Our promises and commitments free us from being wholly locked into the present B.) The Relationship between Freedom and Commitment: a.) Common Misconceptions about the Understanding of Freedom and Commitment:  The contemporary understanding of freedom, rests on a conclusion that there is no relationship between freedom and commitment, because it is believed that freedom and commitment are incompatible to one another  The contemporary notion is that freedom is the inverse proportion of commitment o The less committed you are, the more free you are o Freedom means having more options o Whereas commitment stifles your ability to choose, since you are sealed to only one option  Although, it is important to understand that the contemporary understanding of the incompatibility between freedom and commitment does not exist at all b.) The True Relationship between Freedom and Commitment:  The real relationship between freedom and commitment rests on the understanding that a free person is able to make a formal choice for itself 1.) Freedom is for Commitment: A person who has made permanent, irreversible commitments, is going to experience greater freedom than those who deliberately refrain from doing so 2.) Commitment creates an avenue for the person to exercise its freedom: it is important to remember that no one’s freedom exists apart from a particular context; our freedom takes place in an increasingly complex and dense set of circumstances, in which we are all subjected to

C.) One cannot be free and be uncommitted at the same time: 1.) Making formal choices in life and entering into a commitment shapes a person’s identity a. When a person is uncommitted, this results to having no identity at all b. When a person is undetermined, other people will determine for him or her, which shall result to incompleteness c. The person also loses its subjectivity when they are not able to commit d. Our choices in life shape our identity as free individuals e. Being always in a state of indecision, a person shall not grow and will remain static 2.) Freedom is actually exercised when we make choices (choices that are considered to be permanent) 3.) Without a commitment, the relationship relies completely on spontaneity, mutual interest, and the convenience of circumstances a. A companionship or a friendship in which there is a commitment can withstand distances and long periods of absence b. A commitment begins to be shaped as a spontaneous relationship becomes more fully chosen and more consciously cultivated 4.) George Gilder in his book Naked Nomads: withholding oneself from committing oneself has not proven beneficial a. Depression, addiction, disease, disability, psychiatric treatment, loneliness, insomnia, institutionalization, poverty, discrimination, unemployment and nightmares are the result of not having a solid formal choice in one’s life b. Gilder findings suggests that non-commitment is destructive of the individual, that meandering is a refusal of life c. Matthew 7:13-14  entering by the narrow gate: which is the symbolism for entering into commitment i. Life will be found when a person is willing to particularize his choices in life ii. He chooses to enter the kingdom of persons and does so through particular people 5.) Failure to make decisions is turning away from one’s role as God’s co-creator

a. The failure to commit, results to God’s creation being unfinished or incomplete 2.) Discuss the dynamics of primordial commitment. What is the goal of primordial commitment? A.) Definition of Primordial Commitment: 







  

Primordial Commitment: the mysterious basic direction of our lives, which manifests a rather consistent personal identity, and establishes a “horizon” within which we realize ourselves through our individual acts of freedom o Our conscious primary and secondary commitments are symbolic of this deeper direction one has chosen to take in one’s life o The more we become aware of this subterranean and pre-thematic intentionality, the more we are free and true to ourselves and choose the authentic direction of our life A person’s primordial commitment can flow in only one of two directions: o Self-donation which leads to salvation o Self-absorption which leads to damnation Though more tendential than volitional, primordial commitment naturally evolve (horizontal freedom), or can be radically changed (vertical freedom), that causes a complete horizon shift that creates new commitments and affect previous ones According to Rollo May, primordial commitment is our intentions underlying all of our intentions, even before we act it out: this gives us a sense of direction (provides guidance)  conscious commitments are grounded by primordial commitments Primordial commitment encompasses much of our own; it involves more than our conscious commitment The very core of the primordial commitment is the self (“I”) It is the unconscious and pre-thematic aspect of the person: it refers to the person’s dynamism and is largely a mystery

B.) The Dynamics of Primordial Commitment:  Primordial commitments is considered to be a mystery, since it is the person’s deepest desires: it is only triggered by the unconscious  The person’s conscious commitments are grounded by its primordial commitments: it makes it more explicit and is materialized by it









Rollo May: the intentionality of our being underlies all of our intentions o It is prior and undergirds all of our decisions o One’s intentionality is the direction one is going in; it is one’s response to the structure of one’s world o It determines the experiences we have, and to some extent, gives them the meaning we tend to impose upon them Haughey’s observation about commitment as a mystery in relation to primordial commitment: the person who is attempting to resolve question about commitment for himself should not focus exclusively on the level of conscious choice but should seek to understand the dynamism and flow that underlie his behaviour patterns The primordial commitment faces one horizon: this horizon gives one a field of vision which opens out to a number of possibilities and closes out the others o The horizon that one is facing into is the source of the potential objects of one’s conscious formal commitments (both primary and secondary) o Each of these conscious commitments contracts the horizon and deepens it o The range of perceptions come in various ways: some are close and some are far o The horizon can be disharmonized in two main ways:  Sin by excess: brittle or fanatic (overcommitting)  Sin by defect  This results to the person being burdened by shallowness The shift in the horizon is possible: it deals with the question as to whether or not one was right in yielding towards a new horizon o We call this a horizon shift because one’s previous perspective is transcended: this means that the whole way one perceived reality, the principles and judgements one took to deal with the reality one found oneself in, has changed o A horizon shift is more radical than the natural evolution of a person’s horizon o The breakthrough from the old to the new can come at the level of one’s emotions, one’s mind or one’s values o It can be religious, affective, or intellectual; it can be a combination of all of these, but with one of them predominant

    





 



Horizons are important determinants of commitment because they create new forms of direction Sometimes the freedom one feels about his choice of the new horizon seems minimal, and it is caused by various factors Every individual has to actively participate in shaping their own horizon (not passive) Accepting a particular horizon means that a certain decision has been made Distinction between vertical and horizontal freedom by Joseph de Finance (Belgian Philosopher): o Vertical Freedom: when the person chooses to make the new horizon his own  Creating a new horizon requires the person to withdraw his previous commitments, in order to select new symbols to express oneself o Horizontal Freedom: Making choices within the given options o Many changes of commitment come about because of a prior exercise of vertical freedom Three different ways in which breakthroughs to new horizons occur in people’s lives: o Primarily in the area of meaning that the new horizon comes about o Another horizon shift could be primarily one of value: the new value would have been either ignored in the previous horizon or given considerably less attention o A third way for horizons to change comes from what appears to be a religious experience, a conversion (metanoia) The danger of overcommitment is grounded on the person’s selfishness: it is the result of investing more of the self in the object of one’s commitment than the object can or should deliver o Unfreedom is a result of overcommitment Overcommitment occurs when people pursue a commitment so exclusively that their lives become brittle and their horizons narrow Overcommitment places the person in isolation and leads to the person’s foreclosure o Example: entering into marriage for practical reasons o Overcommitment = careerism Reasons for overcommitment: o Interpersonal commitments due to deficiency needs



o Lack of faith in God Overcommitment leads to no growth as well

C.) The Goal of the Primordial Commitment: Primordial commitment seeks to answer this question: ano ang hangad ng puso mo?  it seeks to discover the deepest desire of the person (vocation) It seeks to examine oneself in terms of whether or not our actions are directed towards God and salvation It also aims for the person to have a sense of indwelling: a radical shift from “being” to “being in love,” and from “I am” to “we are” In indwelling, the person no longer faces into his or her new horizon as a solitary, but, to some degree, feels, think, plans, and acts from within the new existential reality of being in love In indwelling, we start off as solitary people; but when we “indwell,” it is a result of falling in love The most common indwelling is the union between a man and a woman (marriage) Indwelling can be intramundane or between God and human beings as well o It can also take place at great depth between two persons who do not relate to one another in a sexual way o Example: Gregory of Nazianzen and his friendship with Saint Basil How does indwelling relate to commitment? o Indwelling completes the being and is its “raison d’etre”  it does not operate in a fully conscious manner, but it does operate and materialize due to this desire for love o It could be a potential union, between a man and a woman (marital form); this also does not exclude God’s relationship with human beings or our commitment to God: the spousal image can be a symbolism for the covenant between God and man as well o Other uses of the word “commitment” are analogous to the paradigm of indwelling o The relationship must be formally and fully chosen and pass beyond the spontaneous attraction for each other o The ideal condition for the living-out of an interpersonal commitment is for it to take place within the existential reality of indwelling  The experience of being-in-love need not be disruptive of one’s prior commitments  it

can even prove to be a source of rejuvenation for them Example: An individual may be in love with someone other than his or her spouse and, at the same time, find that this indwelling is the instrument through which the spousal relationship is renewed Indwelling is a dynamic reality that cannot remain long in the intimistic stage that involves only two parties; it must flower into, and become part of, a larger communion 3.) Is conscience a tyrannical social construction or the subjectivistic self set against a ruthless world? What is conscience, then? A.) According to Gaudium et spes, conscience is the secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. a. Conscience as core and sanctuary: i. According to Bretzke, Sanctuary can mean: 1. A holy, sacred place, the most privileged place where one meets God (coram Deo) 2. Inviolable refuge: the medieval right to seek refuge in the church and be immune from arrest, since God is the last Judge of every person (1 Cor. 4:3-5) b. The subjective pole: (Joseph Fuchs, S.J) conscience “concerns not simply the realization of one deed or another, but also, the same time and very profoundly, the realization of one’s very self c. The Objective pole: In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience i. This means that there is a transcendental law that is not imposed upon him, but rather, he is obliged to follow ii. God’s presence in every man’s conscience: unwritten law inscribed in every person’s heart iii. Example: Antigone  obeyed the gods and let her brother have a proper burial d. God’s presence in the depths of conscience means that the human person can ground oneself only in the transcendent God, the intimior intimo meo i. Merrrigan: conscience is best understood as both the consciousness that one exists in relationship to God as a responsible subject,

ii.

iii.

iv.

v. vi.

vii.

or self, and the summons to act in accord with this consciousness Merrigan: More realized that the transcendental is in the discovery of selfhood, that God is indeed intimior intimo meo such that the journey toward selfhood will be religious, or it will be futile 1. It is through conscience that the person establishes ‘the self’ (you are your real self if you follow your conscience) Merrigan: The God disclosed in conscience is the God whose presence is always mediated, whose voice is never heard directly but only as it is “echoed” in the chasms of our hearts and minds Bolt: “It may be that a clear sense of the self can only crystalize round something transcendental” 1. Only through conscience that you shall have a true understanding of yourself Conscience is a subjective reality, which is grounded on an internal forum with oneself and with God Thomas More: “I would . . . for mine own self follow mine own conscience, for which myself must make answer unto God, and . . . leave every other man to his own conscience” Newman: There are “two and two only absolute and luminously self-evident beings, myself and my Creator . . . if I am asked why I believe in God, I answer that it is because I believe in myself, for I feel impossible to believe in my own existence (and of that I am quite sure) without believing also in the existence of Him, who lives as a Personal, All-seeing, All-judging Being in my conscience”

B.) The primacy and inviolability of a human person’s conscience. Each “is bound to follow his conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience” a. Lewis: The primacy of conscience has never been understood in a radically subjectivistic sense, as though conscience were a law unto itself independently determining moral good and evil or a purely arbitrary judgement tailoring the morality of one’s actions to one’s personal wishes. In arriving at a judgment of conscience one must search for objective truth b. Lewis: Objective truth thus has a certain primacy, but “it is upon human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force”

c. St. Thomas Aquinas: “a correct conscience bind absolutely and intrinsically . . . whoever believes that something is a command (of conscience) and decides to violate it wills to break the law of God, and, therefore, sins” d. Fuchs: What makes us morally good is not the actual right act performed in itself, but primarily the sincere effort and commitment to do what we honestly believe to be the right thing e. Conscience as the “proximate” norm of morality: conscience is the proximate and formal measure of morality because an action is moral or immoral, not only the nature of the act itself, but in the intention identified by conscience C.)A correct conscience must be obeyed above all else under God in order for the human person to realize one’s authentic self through concrete actions that conform to the objective divine moral order a. True self = being in communion with your conscience which is grounded in God’s teachings and deeds b. There is such a thing as an irreducible self D.)The Four Points on Conscience: a. Conscience as the inner subjective core of the person i. Always present in every human self-realization ii. Realization of one’s very self iii. It is a mode of being  a way to protect oneself as a moral being iv. John Crosby, Conscience and Super Ego 1. Conscience  inner sanctuary of our personhood 2. Violation of the self if one compromises their conscience 3. Being true to conscience  respect for people b. John Henry Newman: “conscience is nearer to me than any other means of knowledge” i. Because I have conscience, therefore I exist ii. God’s existence “is more intimately connected with the nature of the human mind than anything else” iii. God’s presence is embodied and experienced through conscience (our experience with God is not direct  it is an echo) iv. Only two absolute and luminously self-evident beings: myself and God

c. Conscience as a core and sanctuary: conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary d. Conscience as the “proximate” norm of morality i. While divine law, through universal and material, is “pre-morality;” the goodness or badness of an act in the abstract is goodness or badness only “potentially” ii. Conscience is the proximate and formal measure of morality because an action is moral or immoral, not only the nature of the act itself, but in the intention identified by conscience E.) Stages of Conscience Formation (Louis Monden, S.J.): a. Instinctive: decides on the basis of fear of breaking taboos or desire for affection (external) i. Doing the good due to the fear of punishment ii. Super ego: instinctive level b. Moral: chooses the good that leads to self-realization i. Internalized; the law becomes the path to selfrealization c. Christian-Religious: living out the moral good as a yielding to indwelling with God who is intimior intimo meo which leads to a higher and deeper self-realization, a real divinization of man i. Inter-personal relationships ii. Indwelling with God: conscience in the religious level would be a dialogue with God iii. The “law” is no longer an “obligation,” but “vocation,” a yielding in love to God 1. Obligation: the person is pushed 2. Vocation: you are inspired and driven (indwelling with God) d. Conscience: a living relationship with God (indwelling with God) i. Not just following a command, but entering into a relationship (relational) 4.) What is the meaning of the primacy of conscience? Does it mean that conscience is superior even to the Church and its moral teachings? 

The primacy of conscience: o St. Thomas: “a correct conscience binds absolutely and intrinsically . . . whoever believes that something is a command (of conscience) and decides to violate it wills to break the law of God and therefore sins” o Benedict XVI: For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. Over the pope as the binding claim of ecclesiastical



authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of the ecclesiastical authority o The primacy of conscience is considered to be of importance and it should be respected (inviolable sanctuary)  Each “is bound to follow his conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore, he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience”  Lusvardi: Conscience must be respected because it touches upon all that gives man dignity, his deeply personal relationship with God. It is in virtue of their ability freely to obey the divine law – to relate justly to God – that human beings possess their exalted dignity. Thus conscience has an interior and personal dimension, which gives rise to civil rights Even if conscience is considered to be of utmost priority, it is valid to say that conscience and the teachings of the Church work hand in hand in order for a person’s conscience to be correctly shaped o The Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth: it is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself o Anthony Fisher, O.P.: Freedom from conscience is never freedom from the truth, but always and only freedom in the truth  A well-informed conscience will seek to be both more objective about morality and truer to the Christian tradition than any morality based on sincerity or balancing acts can deliver o Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium:  The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, in order to help it avoid the doctrines being proposed by human deceit and to attain the truth

5.) What does it mean to identify Jesus as the ultimate norm of moral life? 

It is important to remember that to regard Jesus as the norm of the moral life is to enter the way of discipleship, to faithfully and creatively live under the reign of God as he did (imitation Christi or to copy Christ)

o Discipleship is a matter of answering the invitation of Jesus to take an adventure to live under the reign of God as he did o To regard Jesus as the norm of the moral life is to enter the way of discipleship: living as a disciple necessarily entails forming a Christian imagination and converting our loyalty to God in Christ into a way of life o The way of discipleship is the way of the imitation of Christ  But to imitate is not to mimic Jesus: mimicry forgets the strategies and responses of Jesus were based on the developmental influences of his life 

To be a disciple is, like Christ, to be caught up in God’s love, which enables the person to let go of all forms of self-made securities (renunciation), especially power that promotes superiority/inferiority as the paradigm of human relationships, in order to find true security in God and God’s love. The love of God strives for inclusion and not exclusion o The call to be a disciple is the call to radical dispossession: we become disciples by following the way of renunciation o Mark 10:17-27  The story of the rich man: “Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” o Not until we surrender to the gracious offer of divine love will we be able to experience the fullness of life under the reign of God (the only rival to God is money) o To be a disciple then, demands letting go of whatever occupies our hearts so that we may have room for divine love o Jesus called for his disciples to have a radical break from what the world says gives us power over ourselves and over others o The call to discipleship is to leave everything and to follow Jesus  It includes giving up family and its affection (Mt 10:37), property (Mk 10:21), ambition (Mk 10:43), and even life itself (Mk 10:45)



In sum, the disciple is to let go of all forms of self-made securities in order to be secure in divine love o Stanley Hauerwas: points out that the more we possess the more violent we have to become to protect what we have o The non-violence of Jesus is rooted in the freedom of his being dispossessed and filled with divine love

o Wealth: the offensive abundance of the few; creating separation and dominance 

Jesus told them, in short, that they must become like children if they wished to share in the reign of God o The child holds the lowest possible status in relationships based on the superiority/inferiority structure o The child’s worth and security are constituted not by its status or achievements, but simply by the generous love of the parents o Children does not care about achievements and success: the love that their parents give is already sufficient enough for them to feel complete



Jesus constantly challenged any use of power that promoted superiority/inferiority as the paradigm of human relationships o His miracles are signs of liberating power  Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50  the conflict between Jesus and his disciples who return to him after meeting a man casting out demons in Jesus’ name  The disciples want to use their power to control the good and to make themselves superior to another who is not one of their company  Arrogant power creates exclusion  Luke 13:10-17  scene of healing the bent-over woman  Jesus calls to a woman who has been bent over by an evil spirit for eighteen years  The power which liberates by making the weak strong is too challenging to the community  Arrogant power of superiority wants to control the good by keeping some weak while other remain strong  that is why Jesus wants us to radically dispossess, because He wants to have a society wherein everyone is equal o His parables are judgements about reversals in power relationships: the first become last; the last, first o The great reversals of structures of power which Jesus reveals is especially evident in the famous conflict between Jesus and Peter in the foot-washing scene in the gospel of John (13:6-10)



Peter accepting his feet washed by Jesus  accepting the radical reversal of the very structures of domination

o When Jesus deliberately reverses social positions by becoming a servant, He witnesses to a new order of human relationships in the community whereby the desire to dominate and establish superiority has no place  Jesus and his disciples: avoiding all techniques which would secure positions of superiority in their social structure  They were not allowed to use religious dress  Not allowed to take reserved seats in religious assemblies  They were not to use titles such as “rabbi,” “father,” or “master”  Not to dominate in the name of service  Jesus tells Peter to forgive seventy times seven time (Mt 18:21-35)  reversal of the image of power and superiority  The reign of God ushers in a new way of life whereby power is not for cruel exclusion, but for hospitable inclusion 6.) Discuss the ethical demands of the Sermon on the Mount. Why is it said that the Sermon on the Mount “turns the justice of the world ‘upside down’?” A.) General points about the Sermon on the Mount:  The Sermon on the Mount is not a law in terms of form, spirit and dynamism  The Sermon is a call to faith (vocation), to “Indwell” with God through Christ in the power of the Spirit who gives the believer the capacity and power to live the demands of the Sermon  The Sermon is valid for all Christians and for all times, not just a counsel which one is free to follow or not: everyone is invited to follow the sermon o It is not only inviting the elite members of the Church, but it is also inviting the whole Christian community (and non-Christians as well)  The Sermon is seen as an opportunity to experience Jesus by following His deeds and His teachings o This can only be done if the person undergoes the process of conversion: experiencing God in miraculous ways o It gives us an idea as to how totality should be like



o It is not a set of laws, but it paves a certain direction on how to live life fruitfully It asks us to listen to Jesus’ words and to accept them wholeheartedly

B.) Ethical Demands of the Sermon on the Mount: The Beatitudes: it reciprocates the common notion of what it means to be “blessed” o The Beatitudes are considered to be a proclamation: Matthew shows his awareness that only God’s promise of grace and mercy, which evokes right conduct on the part of man, can stand at the beginning o “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3)  refers to the marginalized, the weak, the abandoned; they are blessed because the only thing that they have is God’s divine love which is the foundation of their dignity as human beings o (Matthew 5:12) “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you”  for the marginalized and the true believers of God, their justice shall be claimed at the end of time; it may not be the justice that they shall seek here in earth, but it is the real justice that shall come from the kingdom of God Teaching about the Law: in this section, Jesus is saying that the Sermon is not a replacement of the law, but rather, He emphasizes that the Sermon fulfils the law o Jesus wants His followers to have fidelity towards the commandments (Matthew 5:19) Teaching about Anger: in this part, Jesus tells His followers to be conscious about their anger, most specifically towards their brothers (or neighbours) o (Matthew 5:21)  “You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgement”  It has to be kept in mind that killing is grounded in anger  being angry at someone is also like killing the person o (Matthew 5:22)  “. . . whoever says to his brother, “Raqa” (blockhead), will be answerable to the Sanhedrin . . . and whoever says ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna”

This passage connotes that anger (even with the use of derogatory words) can make a person liable and commit a great sin o (Matthew 5:24)  “Leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift”  Jesus is telling His followers to first reconcile and make peace with their neighbours before offering sacrifices to God o (Matthew 5:25)  Jesus tells His followers to settle their differences aside before entering into court  Jesus wants people to forgive rather than let the law settle their arguments 

o Jesus also talks about adultery and divorce (Matthew 5:27-31)  He is saying that husbands should not abandon their wives and let divorce be the solution, because their wives will also end up committing adultery o Jesus also talks about oaths (Matthew 5:33), and tells His followers not to take false oaths, and have a solid disposition when it comes to making decisions (a solid “yes” and a solid “no” o Teaching about Retaliation (Matthew 5: 38-42)  Jesus reciprocates the whole notion of retaliation: instead of throwing a stone to your enemy when they throw one to you, you throw them bread  Jesus tells His followers to not let anger dominate their thoughts and actions o Love of Enemies (Matthew 5:43-48)  Jesus tells His disciples to love their enemies and their neighbours  this is turning the justice of the world “upside down,” because even if a person’s neighbour did something wrong to them, the person should still love the individual who committed a sin against them C.) Sermon on the Mount in turning the justice of the world “upside down”:  The Sermon is not a “law” in the sense of one is morally obliged to follow it using one’s own resources. It turns the “justice of the world upside down: it tells us not to insist on



our own rights but on unlimited concern for the good of others The beatitudes turn the so-called justice of the world upside down o The antithesis (Mt 5:21-48)  They tell us not to insist on our own rights and refer us to unlimited concern for the good of others o It is telling us to think of our enemies first, before our own good and self-interest o Think of the other  there is no boundary in terms of how we see rights (it also includes enemies) o They do not allow us to close ourselves for others while hiding behind the law o The saying “my rights end when another person’s rights starts” is not valid at all  there are no boundaries

7.) Is the Sermon on the Mount practicable?   

Yes, the Sermon on the Mount practicable: the only way in which the Sermon on the Mount can be practiced is in the trust and obedience of faith Trust: Father in the center, and experiences the whole life as a gift Summons to way of life: grounded in joy



There is a common misconception that the Sermon on the Mount cannot be practiced or even applied in real life, because it is too ideal (it is too much of a task – the expectation is high) o One has sensed the tension between Jesus’ demands and those of the world and has found a way out, but only via a capitulation o We ordinary human beings cannot, and, therefore, have not to live up to these demands



A practicable way will be found only if one realizes that the Sermon on the Mount is part of a greater reality o It tells us that Jesus has come to set people free, to lift them out of their sin, their weakness, their despair, in order to open a new future for them



The Sermon should always be preceded by the proclamation of the gospel

o It was preceded by conversion, by a being overwhelmed by the good news that God has turned definitively to man in unrestricted forgiveness and love 

The Sermon on the Mount is not an abstract doctrine: it is not a theory but a message



Jesus is the authority of the Sermon on the Mount o Without him it would only be a merely utopian philosophy o With Jesus, the Sermon becomes a message of promise and a demand from God who speaks in and through Jesus



The Sermon tries to deliver this message to Jesus’ followers: “You are saved by Jesus, and therefore things can start changing, you can adopt new priorities in your life” o The Sermon calls us to join Jesus on the Mountain o It contains signs and examples of what is implied in the breakthrough of the Kingdom of God o The Sermon on the Mount does not give a total picture, but is a picture which is clear enough to suggest what the totality is supposed to be like



The Sermon on the Mount is not a collection of commandments or laws o It is rather the expression of the (hidden) dynamism of the kingdom of God which progresses to the same extent as the demands of Jesus are accepted and obeyed with more love



The central question: do we really give priority to “seeking the kingdom of God” in all decisions of our life?” o Goal: the realization of God’s reign on earth



We cannot practice the Sermon on the Mount on our own: we have to practice is it as a community o The Sermon is not addressed to an individual, but to a community o It is addressed to a group of people who are ready to listen to Jesus’ words and to accept them o Central question: as a group can we time and again try to commit ourselves to the priorities of the kingdom? Can we do it, and do we want it?

8.) Discuss sin as primarily a religious reality by means of a specific biblical passage or narrative

A.) General Points on Sin: The loss of the sense of sin: the rise of the secular spirit with its moral relativism, sending to irrelevance religious faith and reducing sin to a psychological or social disorder o The secular, therapeutic perspective tends to look on persons more as victims of unconscious or sociocultural influences than as agents of free actions Sin marks the failure to be fully responsible of one’s actions o It is important to remember that we are never alone in every action that we make t God is actin in all our actions upon you. So respond to all actions upon you as to respond to his action o Sin is the result of the individual breaking his or her fidelity towards the covenant between him or her and God Sin is rooted in the violation of relationships o In the Old Testament, “hattah” is the most common term  it means “to miss a mark” or “to offend”  it points to a purposeful action oriented toward an existing relationship o “Pesa” means “rebellion”  a deliberate action violating a relationship in a community o The New Testament: “Hamartia”  a deliberate action rooted in the heart and missing the intended mark In a Biblical perspective, Israel broke the personal bond of love of which the law was an external expression o Sin is breaking or weakening the God-given bond of love which gave Israel its worth, solidarity and entrustment Sin is against people and, in and through people, against God o Sin is an offense against God, not in the sense of harming God, but in the sense of failing to respect what God loves o It is a violation of the covenant by introducing disorder and strife into the interdependence of covenantal relationships Human solidarity is one piece of our relationship with God. To betray a social commitment demanded by justice is to betray God and to perpetuate social sin B.) Sin is fundamentally a religious reality:  Three common analogous uses of sin:

o Original sin: a theological code word for the human condition of living in a world where we are influenced by more evil than that which we do ourselves o Material sin: transgressions of the law or acts of wrongdoing such as killing o Social sin: the consequences of individual choices which form oppressive social structures such as sexism Transcendent dimension: saying a selfish ‘no’ to the invitation to live with God in love; which in turn results in o Our sin is our way of rebelling not only against God but also against the living images of God (His children (our neighbours)) Immanent dimension: saying ‘no’ to others o Sin is always a type of self-absorption Sin as selfishness is first a matter of the heart, before it ever becomes manifest in external actions Arrogance of power is grounded in the emptiness of a person, and the failure to believe that God’s divine love is sufficient enough Sin is a spirit of selfishness rooted in our hearts and wills which wages war against God’s plan of fulfilment Since is a rejection, either partial or total, of one’s role as a child of God and a member of his people, a rejection of the spirit of sonship, love and life Sin starts from the heart of the person, which leads to sinful actions Sin refuses to believe that we are lovable apart from our virtue  Instead of grounding our worth in divine love, sin attempts to establish worth on the basis of surrogate loves o We create an idol (instead of just hanging on to God’s divine love for us) o Creating surrogate loves is the sin of idolatry When we so fill up our lives with these self-created loves, we have no room for divine love o The rich, the filled, the happy and the praised have no room in their lives for such divine love o The rich gets their security and worth from their own achievements and earthly possessions, and are unable to surrender to divine love We hang on to these surrogate loves out of fear that if we let go, we will lose our worth and no longer be valued or valuable o Yet surrendering is the only way to allow God to secure us in divine love

Those who establish their worth and security on their own achievements are ultimately not free o They are trapped in the self-absorbing fear: this fear and its unfreedom drive them to strive for qualities and achievements with which to exalt themselves to oppress others (leads to dehumanization) Not until we open ourselves up to the source of our worth in God will we overcome our sin of idolatry and be open to the wide values of God’s creation and God’s people Sin is a religious reality that tries to break the bond between God’s followers and Him. One example which brings about this, is the story of the Garden of Eden God entrusted the earth to the care of Adam and Eve and entrusted them to each other Entrustment: to allow one’s life to be in the hands of another person Humanity is empowered with the capacity to influence creation and one another by being entrusted with gifts: human beings as co-creators The serpent enters to sow seeds of distrust: the serpent suggests that God cannot be trusted, and so tempts the creatures with power (the knowledge of good and evil)  Adam and Eve chose to believe the snake: they miss the mark of their proper role in the covenant relationship o Their fall is the result of their abuse of power by seeking self-serving ends  The moment Adam and Eve refuse to believe that God can be trusted and abuse their role in the covenant, they refuse to trust each other, and so imprison themselves within their own defences o This is symbolized by Adam’s and Eve’s hiding in the bushes to protect themselves from God o To stand naked before another means to leave oneself vulnerable to the other o Adam and Eve has fallen to a point of betrayal due to the abuse of power  The story of the Garden of Eden shows that sin is the power-play of infidelity: Adam and Eve failed to show fidelity towards their covenant with God o Sin abuses the power we entrust to each other, because sin cannot let go of the fear and suspicion which keeps us from knowing the other as a gift  In sin we are unable to live in the freedom of being entrusted by God with personal worth and with the gifts of one another

o Sin abuses the power we give to one another when we entrust another with something of value to ourselves: a personal secret, our health, our property, our bodies