Franciscan at Home

“Life is what happens when you are making other plans.” How often people have said this with a wry smile as they cope with an untimely interruption to their well-ordered (or not-so-ordered), scheduled events.

En el número anterior de The Catechetical Review,[1] miramos la luz que da la Sagrada Escritura sobre el movimiento transgénero moderno, en particular los relatos de la Creación y de la Ley de Moisés. Ahora queremos ver específicamente algunos textos relevantes de los Evangelios y del Nuevo Testamento en general.

Las enseñanzas más claras de Jesús en cuanto a los asuntos sexuales se dan cuando los fariseos lo presionan sobre el divorcio en Mateo 19,3-6:

Y los fariseos lo pusieron a prueba,

“¿Es lícito al hombre divorciarse de su mujer por cualquier motivo? El respondió: ¿No han leído ustedes que el Creador, desde el principio, los hizo varón y mujer; y que dijo: ‘Por eso, el hombre dejará a su padre y a su madre para unirse a su mujer, y los dos no serán sino una sola carne’? De manera que ya no son dos, sino una sola carne. Que el hombre no separe lo que Dios ha unido.”

Jesús reconoce sólo dos géneros, masculino y femenino, y afirma que han sido creados por el mismo Dios. Además, Jesús afirma que la unión física / sexual entre hombre y mujer en el matrimonio es sagrada, habiendo sido establecida por Dios: “Que el hombre no separe lo que Dios ha unido”. ¿Cómo deriva esto desde Génesis 2,24, que describe a la unión de hombre y mujer utilizando la voz pasiva: “se une a su mujer… se hacen una sola carne”? Jesús interpreta esto de manera autoritativa como un pasivo divino, un recurso literario de la literatura bíblica y judía por el cual el escritor no nombra a Dios por reverencia religiosa, sino que pone en el pasivo a la acción de Dios. Por lo tanto, el significado verdadero de Génesis 2,24 es, “un hombre…es unido por Dios a su mujer… y los dos son hechos una sola carne por Dios”. En relación con la controversia moderna transgénero, por lo tanto, Jesús reconoce solamente dos géneros, e identifica a Dios – no a la sociedad, ni a una construcción social, ni a la psicología humana, etc. – como el Autor y Él que establece esos dos géneros, además de la institución del matrimonio.

La Ley judía, basada en la Ley de Moisés (Lev 18,1-23), rechazó a toda actividad sexual entre personas del mismo género, o entre personas en toda relación fuera del matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, y no existe la menor sugerencia que Jesús haya disputado esa enseñanza. Al contrario, Jesús avanza la enseñanza tradicional judía mucho más lejos, dándole una interiorización radical:

“Habéis oído que se dijo: ‘No cometerás adulterio.’ Pues yo os digo: Todo el que mira a una mujer deseándola, ya cometió adulterio con ella en su corazón. Si, pues, tu ojo derecho te es ocasión de pecado, sácatelo y arrójalo de ti; más te conviene que se pierda uno de tus miembros, que no que todo tu cuerpo sea arrojado a la gehena. Y si tu mano derecha te es ocasión de pecado, córtatela y arrójala de ti; más te conviene que se pierda uno de tus miembros, que no que todo tu cuerpo vaya a la gehena.” (Mateo 5, 27-30).

De acuerdo a la enseñanza de Jesús, entonces, las prohibiciones tradicionales de la inmoralidad sexual aplican también a actos interiores del corazón y de la imaginación. Tener fantasías acerca de actos malos ya de por sí es un acto malo, y el estándar ineludible de la santidad (“sed perfectos como es perfecto vuestro Padre celestial” Mateo 5,48) nos exige, si es necesario, tomar medidas radicales para evitar el pecado – lo cual se expresa de manera hiperbólica con “sácate el ojo” o “córtate la mano”.

Todo esto en realidad no deja espacio para que el discípulo de Cristo se imagine que él o ella tenga algún género distinto del de su sexo biológico. El sentimiento que uno sea de otro género distinto al de su sexo biológico quizás no sea algo que uno mismo elija, pero los discípulos de Cristo tienen que evaluar la verdad de sus sentimientos y sensaciones contra el estándar de la Revelación Divina y de la enseñanza de la Iglesia. La sensación de atracción erótica hacia su compañero de trabajo quizás tampoco sea elegida por uno mismo, y quizás sea “natural” en un sentido biológico. Sin embargo, no justifica que una persona casada actúe sobre esa sensación; más bien, el discipulado cristiano requiere que la persona casada reconozca ese sentido de atracción como un peligro que debe de ser rechazado y suprimido. Del mismo modo, una atracción física hacia un menor de edad quizás no sea algo que uno mismo haya elegido, y quizás sea “natural” biológicamente, sin embargo, el discipulado cristiano nos exige rechazar esos sentimientos y sensaciones, y ni sucumbir a ellos, ni actuar sobre ellos. Del mismo modo, el mero hecho de que tengamos sentimientos o sensaciones hacia el vestirnos, identificarnos o comportarnos de maneras asociados con el sexo opuesto, no justifica el consentir o actuar sobre esas sensaciones. Tenemos que actuar de acuerdo con lo que es verdad acerca de nuestros cuerpos y la verdad revelada en la Escritura.

Jesús enseñaba y llevó a cabo su ministerio entre el pueblo común de Judea a quienes les faltaba la riqueza y el tiempo libre como para consentir formas inusitadas o exóticas de comportamiento sexual. Sin embargo, San Pablo llevó el Evangelio a regiones de gran riqueza en el Imperio Romano, donde formas exóticas de actividad sexual extraconyugal eran comunes y populares. El emperador que condenó a muerte a Pedro y Pablo – Nerón – de hecho, practicaba una forma de transexualismo. Él y su amante de sexo masculino se vestían y se presentaban como jóvenes mujeres cuando mantenían relaciones sexuales juntos. Sin embargo, no era Roma, sino Corinto que tenía la mayor fama por el comportamiento sexual extravagante. El templo de Afrodita (alias Venus), la diosa del sexo, empleaba hasta mil prostitutas sagradas. No es coincidencia que las cartas de San Pablo a los corintos contengan su enseñanza más explícita sobre la sexualidad.

In the previous issue of The Catechetical Review,[1] we took a look at the light Scripture sheds on the modern transgender movement, especially the creation narratives and law of Moses. Now we wish to look specifically at relevant texts from the Gospels and New Testament generally.

Jesus’ clearest teachings on sexual matters arise when the Pharisees press him on divorce in Matthew 19:3-6:

"And Pharisees … tested him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So, they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Jesus only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and asserts that these have been created by God himself. Further, Jesus asserts that the physical/sexual union between man and wife in marriage is sacred, being established by God: “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” How does he derive this from Genesis 2:24, which describes the union of man and wife using the passive voice: “be united to his wife … the two shall become one flesh”? Jesus authoritatively interprets this as a divine passive, a literary device in biblical and Jewish literature in which the writer does not name God out of religious reverence, but phrases God’s action passively. Thus, the real meaning of Genesis 2:24 is, “a man … is joined by God to his wife … and the two are made one flesh by God.” In relation to modern transgender controversy, therefore, Jesus acknowledges only two sexes, and identifies God—not society, social construct, human psychology, etc.—as the author and establisher of those two sexes, as well as the institution of marriage.

Jewish law, based on the law of Moses (Lev 18:1-23), rejected sexual activity between persons of the same sex, or persons in any relationship outside of the husband-wife relationship, and there is not the slightest hint that Jesus disputed this teaching. On the contrary, Jesus pushes traditional Jewish teaching much farther, radically interiorizing it:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Mt 5:27-30)

According to Jesus’ teaching, then, the traditional prohibitions of sexual immorality apply also to interior acts of the heart and the imagination. Fantasizing about evil acts is already itself an evil act, and the inescapable standard of holiness (“You must be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect” Mt 5:48) requires us, if necessary, to take radical measures to avoid sin—hyperbolically expressed as “plucking out the eye” or “cutting of the hand.”

All of this really leaves no room for the disciple of Christ to imagine that he or she is some other gender than his or her biological sex. The feeling that one is a different gender than one’s biological sex may not be self-chosen, but disciples of Christ have to evaluate the truth of their feelings and sensations against the standard of Divine Revelation and the Church’s teaching. The sensation of erotic attraction towards one’s co-worker may not be self-chosen and may in fact be “natural” in a biological sense. Nonetheless, it does not justify a married person acting on that sensation; rather, Christian discipleship requires the married person to recognize that sense of attraction as a danger that needs to be rejected and suppressed. Likewise, physical attraction toward a legal minor may not be self-chosen and may be biologically “natural”, but Christian discipleship requires us to reject those feelings and sensations, and neither indulge them nor act on them. In the same way, the mere fact that we have feelings or sensations toward dressing, identifying, or behaving in ways associated with the opposite sex, does not justify indulging and acting on those sensations. We have to act in accord with what is true about our bodies and the truth revealed in Scripture.

Jesus taught and ministered mostly among the common people of Judea who lacked the wealth and leisure to indulge in more unusual or exotic forms of sexual behavior. However, St. Paul brought the Gospel to areas of great wealth in the Roman Empire, where exotic forms of extramarital sexual activity were common and popular. The emperor who put Peter and Paul to death—Nero—did, in fact, practice a form of transgenderism. He and his male lover dressed and presented themselves as young women when engaging in sexual activity with each other. Yet it was not Rome but the city of Corinth that was most famed for extravagant sexual behavior. Corinth’s temple of Aphrodite (aka Venus), the goddess of sex, employed as many as a thousand sacred prostitutes. It is not coincidental that Paul’s letters to the Corinthians contain his most explicit teaching on sexuality.

To find out more about the Discipleship Quads or to download your FREE Starter Kit click here

This is a paid advertisement in the October-December 2019 issue.

This is a paid advertisement in the October-December 2019 issue.

La necesidad en la Iglesia

El discipulado es una palabra que muchos comprenden solo parcialmente. Si la gente está familiarizada con la palabra, generalmente la definen como ser seguidor de Jesús. El problema es que muy poca percibirá que el discipulado también abarca el ser formador de discípulos. Al responder a la Gran Comisión en Mateo 28, 19-20, somos llamados no solamente a seguir a Jesús y todo lo que Él enseña, sino también a ir y hacer discípulos.

Click here for Spanish translation of article.

The Need in the Church

Discipleship is a word that many only partially understand. If people are familiar with the word, they will usually define it as being a follower of Jesus. The problem is very few will see that discipleship also encompasses being a disciple-maker. In responding to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, we are called not only to follow Jesus and all that he teaches but also to go and make other disciples.

Understood in this way, discipleship solves many of the challenges we see in the Church today. Authentic community results from disciples making other disciples, because in order to form other people, you must be in a relationship with them. Our church communities frequently suffer from a scarcity of interpersonal, vulnerable, intimate relationships. Without these types of relationships, loneliness ensues, which then brings with it a temptation to cover up the pain of isolation through a variety of sins. The Church needs followers of Jesus who are willing to invest their time and vulnerability in relationships with others and teach them how to follow Jesus.

Although some people are willing to share their faith with others in a casual environment, many of them do not know how to start an intentional discipling relationship with another person. They may get past the basics of sharing that they are Catholic, but then what do they do next? The Church needs clear processes to help the average parishioner respond to the call of discipleship—processes that will help them grow in their own faith and give them the confidence and structure to share their faith with others. While there are a plethora of organizations and programs inspiring people to develop a closer relationship with Christ, they may not necessarily inspire the same people to share that relationship with others. Simply giving people a particular book, showing them a video, or sending them to a conference won’t accomplish this.

For example, the organizers of the “Steubenville Conferences,” which help nearly 60,000 teens and adults throughout North America to encounter Christ each year, believe that the conversion experience of participants at a single conference needs to be followed through on a parish level. Even the most joy-filled Catholics need help with this next step of discipleship. In 2017, the Conference Office at Franciscan University of Steubenville embarked on a year-long research project to determine a discipleship model that results in forming disciples who are also disciple makers (spiritual multiplication). This article will share with you their findings and propose a specific model of two-fold discipleship. (Spoiler alert: it’s Jesus’ very own method.)

The Research

The study examined best practices from both Catholic and Protestant organizations, in order to find a model that resulted in spiritual multiplication, not just in the short term but substantively proven over a period of time. The goal was to find something that could be used on a parish level or by an individual who wanted to go home after a conversion experience at a conference and start growing and sharing.

Being a popular topic across many denominations, there are a lot of people doing good work in discipleship. But most of those researched had not yet figured out how to keep the momentum going to generate real spiritual multiplication, that is a disciple teaching a disciple how to make another disciple. Within the Catholic Church, college campuses with discipleship models are demonstrating the most success today, more so than in parishes.

The research concluded that a successful model, proven over time, does not exist in a non-campus environment within the Catholic Church. This does not mean that there are not some very good things happening in Catholic communities within specific dioceses (e.g. bible studies, small faith sharing groups, conferences with dynamic speakers, even online course offerings), but none of the programs examined in a parish environment were found to have resulted in spiritual multiplication over a long period of time.

A Model That Works

The second phase of research revealed a model of discipleship that utilizes micro groups (3 to 4 people) and intentionally creates a culture of expectation of reproduction within the process. The results were overwhelmingly better than any other approach, and not surprising considering micro group discipling is rooted in Jesus’ example of ministry where he discipled closely the Apostles Peter, James, and John.

Over 35 years ago, Greg Ogden discovered the powerful potential of micro groups while completing his Doctor of Ministry degree. Although he originally believed the way to make disciples was the one-on-one model demonstrated by Paul and Timothy in the New Testament, his advisor suggested that he consider a variety of other models. He did so, testing the micro group of 3-4 people, one-on-one discipleship, and small groups of 6-10. He discovered that the environment created with 3-4 people provided for a powerful “hothouse” of growth that was not present in the one-on-one model or a traditionally-sized small group. He documented all of this in his book, Transforming Discipleship.[1]

The fruits of the micro group have been substantiated for over three decades, with approximately 60% of those participating in the micro group discipleship process continuing on to develop their own groups and, therefore, generating a process of spiritual multiplication.

Some non-denominational churches had similar results using the small group model (i.e. 6-8+), but their success depended on a small group culture being central to their church’s life, and such a culture does not exist in most Catholic parishes.

Characteristics of the Micro Group

One benefit of this process is that it can be done within a variety of contexts. It does not depend on strong parish support, as many of the other successful small group models do. This micro group process has also proven to work well in the lives of people with full-time jobs, families, and a host of other responsibilities. It’s a model of spiritual multiplication that works within the context of the average person’s life, empowering him or her to disciple others.

Ogden has identified five points that indicate why micro groups are effective:

I have come to see groups of three or four as the optimum setting for making disciples. Why do I believe that a triad or quad to be superior to one-on-one?

1. The one on one sets up a teacher-student dynamic. The pressure is upon the discipler to be the answer person or the fountain of all wisdom and insight. When a third person is added, the dynamic shifts to a group process. The discipler can more naturally make his or her contribution in the dynamic of group interchange.

2. Triad discipling (micro groups) shifts the model from hierarchical to relational. The greatest factor inhibiting those who are being discipled to disciple others (spiritual multiplication) is the dependency fostered by one on one relationships. The triad/quad, on the other hand, views discipleship as a come alongside relationship of mutual journey toward maturity in Christ. The hierarchical dimension is minimized.

3. The most startling difference between one on one and threes or fours is the sense of “groupness”. The sense of the Holy Spirit’s being present in our midst occurred much more often in the group versus the one on one.

4. There is wisdom in numbers. The group approach multiplies the perspectives on Scripture and application to life issues, whereas one on one limits the models and experience. By adding at least a third person there is another perspective brought to the learning process. The group members serve as teachers of one another.

5. Finally, and not to be minimized, by adding a third or fourth person who is being equipped to disciple others, the multiplication process is geometrically increased.

If three is better than two, why isn’t ten better than three? The larger the group, the more you water down the essential elements that make for transformation.

1. Truth - learning occurs in direct proportion to the ability to interact with the truth, which becomes more difficult with an increased number of voices contributing. It also becomes increasingly difficult to tailor the rate of learning to the individual, the larger the size of the group.

2. Transparent relationships - self-disclosure is integral to transformation, and openness becomes increasingly difficult in direct proportion to the size of the group. If we are not free to divulge our struggles, then the Spirit will not be able to use the group members to effectively minister at the point of need.

3. Mutual accountability - the larger the group, the easier it is to hide. Accountability requires the ability to check to see if assignments were completed, or commitments to obedience were maintained. Greater numbers decrease access to a person’s life.[2]

Discipleship Quad Development

After studying Ogden’s methodology and process, and then consulting with him personally to determine the essential elements of two-fold discipleship, the Conference Office at Franciscan University developed a process called Discipleship Quads. [3]  We will now explore its essential elements.

Formation through Content

According to Ogden, the micro group process is the container and the curriculum is the content to the container. Therefore, the process can be used with a variety of different curricula. One of Ogden’s books, Discipleship Essentials, includes his particular curriculum for micro groups. After consulting this book, as well as specifically Catholic discipleship resources, the Conference Office created its own discipleship curriculum that is rooted in Catholic teaching and geared toward the structure and process of Ogden’s ideas. This curriculum begins with the kerygma (the basic proclamation of the essential glad tidings of Christianity) and then goes into the disciplines of a disciple, concluding with the call to go forth and share the faith with others in a discipling relationship. The content focuses on forming disciples through catechetical content, practical application, self-assessment, and accountability.

The length of the study is another element of the micro group that makes it effective. In following Ogden’s plan, groups typically take about 12 months to complete the curriculum. The time spent together is important because it provides the required time to develop intimacy with others, as well as provide the opportunity for a long intellectual and spiritual soak in the transforming power of the content within the curriculum.

Prayerful Invitation

Once a person has decided he or she wants to start a group (as the coordinator), the next step is to pray. Ogden suggests a process that begins with asking God to place the names of the people you are to invite on your heart. Consider writing a list of all the names that come to mind and then spending time praying with that list to ask God to pick out the specific three people you are to invite. The fruits of this prayerful process of inviting others is powerful, as it gives God the ability to lead the coordinator to unexpected people and prepare their hearts and minds for what God has in store for them.

Intentionality of Spiritual Multiplication from the Outset

“The covenant” is also an important element of the Discipleship Quad process. Upon inviting others to be a part of the Quad, they receive a written covenant, which details five points that they are asked to agree to when committing to the group. One of these points is that they would give serious consideration to continuing the discipleship chain by committing to invest in other people for another year following the completion of the group. Therefore, the expectation and intention of reproducing the groups is made clear from the beginning. Also, within the process, the group comes back to the points in the covenant at various times to keep reminding the members of what they have committed to and to start discussing and praying for those they will invite to be a part of a new group in the future. This creates a cultural expectation of reproduction.

Rotation of Facilitation

Some people are intimidated by the idea of leading or coordinating a group of people in a discipling relationship. In order to address this insecurity, Ogden included within the process  an opportunity for each member of the group to take a turn leading the discussion. Therefore, upon completion of their time together, each person has experience leading, which empowers them and minimizes the fears associated with going forth to lead their own groups.

Genuine Fellowship

With a group size of four people, genuine fellowship and vulnerability comes very easily. At the first two meetings, the members share their spiritual journeys by following an outline to reflect on what God has done in each of their lives up to this point, thereby creating a foundation for discussing the rest of the curriculum. Having no more than four people in the discussion is important, because it provides enough people to increase accountability and fellowship but not so many people that intimacy would be lacking.

Conclusion

Now, more than ever, the Church needs people to commit to living a life of discipleship in the fullest sense of the word. The approach of micro groups or discipleship quads answers this need by providing an easy to follow format for individuals to grow in their own faith and become disciple makers themselves.

We are living through a remarkable social revolution in the area of gender and sexuality, one that would have been very difficult to foresee thirty years ago. In the 1980’s, it was taken for granted that in athletic competitions, men competed with men and women with women. Various communist regimes at the time were under continuous suspicion of entering biological males into international or even Olympic women’s competitions. There was a universal consensus that this was unethical. Now, thirty or more years later, three female high school athletes in Connecticut have filed a federal discrimination complaint against the state’s interscholastic athletic association, which allows biological males who “identify” as females to compete in female athletic competitions. Unsurprisingly, these males are winning competitions and ousting female athletes from awards and scholarship opportunities.

What are we to make of these ideas that one can be a “woman” trapped in a man’s body, that one’s gender identity is fluid and not necessarily attached to one’s biological reality? Philosophy, psychology, biology, sociology, and other disciplines all have a contribution to make to this discussion; but in this article, I will be exploring what light the Scriptures have to shed on the issue.

The Goodness of Difference
“Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start,” in the words of Maria von Trapp in The Sound of Music. Sexual difference is introduced into the biblical story line from the very first chapter. We read in Genesis 1:1-2: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” In Hebrew, the phrase translated “without form and void”, is tohu wabohu, a Hebrew phrase referring to a kind of chaotic state, where things are not distinguishable from one another, either through destruction or—in this case—because they have not yet been shaped. It is noteworthy that in what follows, God shapes the world typically by making distinctions and separating one thing from another. By doing so, different creatures and aspects of creation become identifiable. It is, after all, distinctions that create identity. If there are no distinctions between one thing and another, it is difficult to tell them apart, and if there were absolutely no distinctions, the two would necessarily be one and the same.

So, we read that God “separated the light from the darkness,” enabling both the light and the darkness to be identified, and then given the names of Day and Night.

Likewise, God makes a “firmament” to “separate the waters from the waters,” creating the sea, the sky, and the clouds. Later he makes the heavenly bodies to distinguish the passage of time, enabling the days, months, and years to be identified, and “separating the light from the darkness.” Finally, he makes man, and separates man into two sexes: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply …’” (Gen 1:27-28). Here we see that there is a certain unity between male and female in that both together make up “man” that is in the image of God. And yet there is a distinction between them too: they constitute a “them” in two parts. Finally, we see that the maleness and femaleness of man is directly related to the very first command God ever gives to humanity, “Be fruitful and multiply,” which can only happen when male and female unite as one. Many principles are entailed in these two verses: male and female are both good. They are integral to man’s imaging of God. Both are necessary for the fulfillment of the vocation that God has given humanity. The account of the creation of man concludes with the statement, “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). This includes the distinction between male and female, as well as all the other distinctions God has introduced into creation in order to create different identifiable creatures: the distinction between light and dark, day and night, sea and sky, one kind of animal from another kind, man from the animals, male from female. All these distinctions are good and given by God, not by creatures themselves. Yet, we see throughout the Bible that the forces of evil—and the Evil One—are intent on undoing the God-given distinctions and returning the world to an undifferentiated chaos. Evil rejects the goodness of distinctions God has introduced, starting with the most fundamental distinction—that between Creator and creature—but continuing down the line with the other distinctions as well.