The wind over the waters

A wind from God swept over the face of the waters...

For the last few years I had been a "mostly immanent" believer. Immanence refers to the nearness of the divine. In other words, being "mostly immanent" means to me that God is us, we are God, and we can look to God for micro-guidance as we plod through our days. On most days, this is fine. As I try to figure out my health insurance drug formulary, do I really need to know how creation happened 5 billion years ago (or, as some would estimate, 5000 years ago)? I'll save the "age of the earth" debate for some other time. For now, let's talk about transcendence.

My mostly-immanent self recently read Genesis 1 more carefully. The caption of my watery image above comes from Genesis 1:2. In my preferred Bible translation (NRSV), "wind from God" has a footnote for an alternate translation, which is, "spirit of God".

It occurred to me that this "spirit of God" makes many appearances in the Bible. For now, consider Luke 1:34-35: "Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?' The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'"

Aside from the fact that Mary just interrupted an angel of the Lord to explain the facts of life, we see that spirit again (this time called the Holy Spirit, but yeah, same spirit as in Genesis). The virgin birth narrative is a fulfillment of the creation narrative. This spirit is that of a transcendent God, existing beyond us and our universe. This is not to say that I need to define God as a supernatural being from a supernatural place called heaven, and indeed, there is no human who could know that it was a supernatural being that created the heavens and the earth. I don't have a succinct definition for a God that gives us both Genesis and Luke.

But, the recognition of the transcendence of God reminds me that my drug formulary is not a "micro" thing. The earth provided the raw materials and a whole lot of people worked out such a thing. Truly, now and forever, immanent and transcendent, amen.

Recent ponderings 2

This is an adjustment to my ponderings in my previous post. I hope to address my ponderings in detailed posts, but hey, it's complicated, right?

I had wondered how it was possible for Paul and the Gospel authors to use such similar technical language, such as "new covenant" in 1 Cor 14:24, a decade before the Gospels were written. In this particular case, ancient Scripture mentions the "covenant" with God repeatedly, then Jesus comes along and reworks the human understanding of a relationship with God. It was almost obvious to refer to this as a new covenant, to the extent that different writers might have invented the phrase independently.

For other phrases, there is an additional consideration. The authorship of the letters and epistles attributed to Paul is heavily debated. Without listing books here (easy enough to find even on Wikipedia), modern scholars agree that seven books were written or dictated by Paul himself, but the authorship and dating of the other six is heavily debated. If a follower of Paul actually wrote a letter and claimed it was from Paul, even in good faith, and if the letter was written a decade or two after Paul's undisputed letters, then the later authors would have been writing at the same time as the Gospel authors. If that's the case, the similar phraseology is more easily explained. To be clear, few modern scholars would claim that Paul himself unquestionably wrote all 13 letters.

This issue also raises a question of interpretation. Is an undisputed Pauline letter more authoritative than a disputed Pauline letter? In my opinion, yes. In particular, passages about women remaining silent are all disputed as to authorship. They were either written by someone else, or were intended to refer to common cultural practice and not to Paul's recommended practice.

Recent ponderings 1

Here are some questions I have been pondering recently, which I hope to address over the coming months. If you have any ideas or pointers for research, let me know!

- Acts 18:12 - When Paul was brought before the Roman tribunal in Corinth, who stood on the "bema" (the Greek word for the stone platform used during tribunal interrogations)? Was it the Roman officials looking down on Paul being questioned, or was Paul exposed on the platform for all to see? What officials would have been involved, if not just the proconsul Gallio? I addressed this in my personal blog, but I hope to come to a more definitive conclusion.

- Assuming (as scholars believe) Paul wrote 1 Cor 14:24 a decade before the Gospels were written, who coined the phrase "new covenant"? Did Paul plagiarize Mark, or did Mark plagiarize Paul, or was there some sort of collaboration in, say, Jerusalem? Scholars surmise the Gospels used information from eyewitnesses, of course, but also from unknown sources, now lost. Those lost sources are lumped together as the mysterious "Q" source. Is Paul part of the Q source, having been directly informed by the risen Jesus?

- "Called" versus "Commissioned": Let's say Paul did not internally feel called to go on his missionary journeys, but instead was (as the canon explains) commissioned by an external force (Acts 9:5). The commissioning was so sudden and shocking that Paul was temporarily struck blind. But if this was totally external, what does that say about God's immanence (and transcendence)? When Donald Trump says he was saved from an assassin's bullet directly by God so that he (Trump) could enact policies (assuming Mr. Trump is sincere and not just making it up), shouldn't God's intervention be described as a de facto commission (God saved Trump for something, therefore Trump must do it)? Similarly, do I (Gary) feel called to write this, or is this a divine commission?

- How do we respond to harsh comments about current world events? For example, since it's true that Hamas perpetrated a horrific surprise attack on civilians on Oct 7 2023 and hid in hospitals with "human shields", is collateral damage acceptable when Israel fights back? In other words, is the need to kill Hamas in self defense so fundamental that it's OK to kill nearby babies? Is it OK to starve a million people in order to get at a few thousand combatants? Even if such actions are justified, can Israel drop a bomb and reject accountability and claim that it's actually Hamas' fault that babies and other innocents were bombed? Is the killing of neutral aid workers simply "collateral", or a war crime? Does Hamas commit a war crime by waging war when aid workers are nearby, thereby endangering the aid workers, or are the shooters (Israel) also (or solely) guilty? Is Scripture (Hebrew / Christian / Islamic) relevant?

Another perspective on miracles

In The Acts of the Apostles, why could Peter and Paul and others heal and cure? A few people (then and now) acquire that much faith. Peter and Paul developed a spiritual maturity that allowed them to perform marvelous acts and nurture a religion that spread to multiple countries in their lifetimes, at a time when traveling long distances was very risky. The apostles and Paul and other leaders performed miracles and signs in Acts (the Gospels use only the word "signs"), and it occurs to me that any adult's faith needs signs once the lessons of Sunday School become insufficient. This need for signs is not a weakness; it is canonical. The shepherds and magi did not accidentally stumble on the manger; they were led by the proclamations of angels and a guiding star.

The signs are critical to the founding of Christianity. In John 20:29, "Jesus said to [Thomas], 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.'" It is easy to feel sorry for Thomas, to have been scolded by Jesus in that way. But, what of "those who had not seen [the risen Jesus]". Those others saw something, at some earlier time: the lame man walked, Lazarus rose from the dead, and Jesus' tomb was empty. Those who had not seen the risen Jesus saw those prior signs and came to believe. On a number of occasions in the Gospels, Jesus wondered how many more signs the apostles and Pharisees needed, before they would finally understand. Thomas was just one more doubter in a long line of doubters.

Yes, my faith is sometimes strengthened by a sunrise or a kind word, and that's nice. But, Jesus would be wondering why I needed to see the sun rise and why Thomas insisted he needed to touch the nail wounds. The empty tomb should have been enough for me and Tom. Even though I only see the signs through reading the Bible, it should be enough. Peter and Paul performed miracles and people believed.

Strong versus weak, tactics and strategy

Most of us, including me, are not experts at playing chess. We see a game in progress as a bunch of pieces positioned around the board. The beginner looks at the various moves each piece can make, and guesses at the ways the opponent will respond. The beginner looks a few moves ahead, but usually can't see as far as the end. I refer to this as a tactical approach. The beginner pokes away until the opponent can't hurt the beginner any more.

An expert at playing chess uses a strategic approach. An expert sees the positions of the pieces on the board in a high-level, abstract way. The expert's goal is to nudge the board into different states, eventually resulting in a state in which the opponent realizes the end is near. Physically, the beginner and the expert move one piece at a time, but the expert doesn't focus on the individual pieces. When one or the other expert loses a piece, a new high-level view results.

Hold on to these thoughts about short term tactics and long term strategies...

In 1956, Elie Wiesel wrote a memoir, "Un di Velt Hot Geshvign" (Yiddish for "And the World Remained Silent"), eventually resulting in an English translation entitled "Night". The memoir contains a passage that begins, "Never Shall I Forget". Wiesel would focus on this "never forget" theme for decades, and the phrase is now (2024) practically synonymous with activism against anti-Semitism.

There are pros and cons to the use of this phrase. It certainly is straightforward, and I agree we need to remember history when addressing new problems, especially broad issues such as genocide. The exhortation to "never forget" is easy to implement. Just do it. However, it is a tactic, rather than a strategy. Wiesel is moving a chess piece, but there is no high-level view of an end game.

Remembering the Holocaust does not proactively avoid future bad things. Also, there is no reason to interpret "Night" as a general treatise against bad behavior. It is a treatise about one bad behavior inflicted on Wiesel and Jews. For reasons that Wiesel could not have predicted, the phrase went viral, but "Night" is a memoir; it's all about Wiesel. It's OK to write a memoir, but memoirs have their limitations.

Consider Howard Thurman's 1949 book, "Jesus and the Disinherited". Thurman wrote as an African American living during a time when lynchings still occurred and Jim Crow laws were still on the books. Thurman explains that victims of extreme persecution (the disinherited) usually fear their situation, but also that the oppressors fear what would happen if they lost their power. The strong pretend that the weak need to be helped even while the strong abuse the weak, and the disinherited struggle within their own communities with domestic violence and substance abuse and more. The persecuted learn to hate their oppressors, and the oppressors develop a hatred for their victims because anything else would make them seem weak.

Thurman does not ask us never to forget what the strong did to the weak. Jesus and his followers were undoubtedly persecuted by the Romans, but the Gospels don't mention it. Jesus only talked about love and humility. Thurman asks the weak and strong to reset their relationship and end their segregation in order to build trust. Have faith that even the weak and the strong, the disinherited and the privileged, the good and the bad, can love each other and accept love from the other.

To prove a dogmatic miracle

In my previous post, I justified belief in "miracles", but what I meant are the "ministry miracles" found in the Gospels prior to the passion stories. A person is afflicted, the person meets Jesus, and the person is cured or healed. This is a historical, eyewitness account of a public event.

There is another sort of miracle in the Gospels, which I will refer to as the "dogmatic miracles". Here are three examples from Mark.

* "And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Mk 1:11)
* "Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them," (Mk 9:2)
* "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19)

Compare this to a typical ministry miracle passage, also from Mark:

* "When Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'You spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!' After crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, 'He is dead.' But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he was able to stand." (Mk 9:25-27)

All miracles are divinely enacted, but in my opinion, there are two notable differences between dogmatic miracles and ministry miracles. First, the two types of miracles have different beneficiaries. The dogmatic miracles are for God or for Jesus; Jesus is beloved, Jesus was transfigured, Jesus ascended. That's all well and good, but it is a mystery how my life would be affected by such miracles. Ministry miracles, on the other hand, were for humans. A boy was cleansed, a blind man's site was restored, and I can be healed through repentance and faith.

Second, the two types of Gospel miracles were witnessed differently. The dogmatic miracles were witnessed by people already known to be faithful, such as people being baptized or the closest followers of Jesus. The ministry miracles, on the other hand , were witnessed by crowds of everyday people, usually poor and oppressed, going about their everyday drudgery. The Gospel stories of ministry miracles are the first century version of a viral cell-phone video, in public and for all to see.

The dogmatic witnesses are more like the witnesses of UFO abductions or Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni. There are just a few people, probably drinking buddies, who are biased toward believing the vision. Just like the smelly fishermen from Galilee,

I am not saying the dogmatic miracles didn't happen or that the ministry miracles are more believable. But I would say, if you are hoping for a miracles in your own life, it won't help you much that Jesus was transfigured on some hill. But, for the sake of your own afflictions, you'd better believe that Lazarus was actually dead and actually walked out of that tomb.

To prove a miracle

It's hard for us modern thinkers, even theologians, to resolve the mystery inherent in "miracle" stories. Actually, the word "miracle" does not appear in the NRSV translation of the Gospels.

Many believers don't give it much thought. The stories say what they say, but deep down, the ways in which Jesus cures "the lame, the maimed, the blind, the mute" (Mat 15:30) are simply vague. From a practical standpoint, the Gospels were written decades after the crucifixion and the eyewitnesses available to the authors may have forgotten a few details.

To the determined unbeliever, the stories are scientific impossibilities, or fabrications. Even John 9's story of the man known to be blind from birth, with corroborating parents and a clearly witnessed cure, is denied. Unbelievers want proof.

The Gospels are the proof. Although we don't have the original, handwritten, first-century texts, we have copies believed to be legitimate copies from the next couple of centuries. The Gospels are largely eyewitness accounts, written some decades after the formation of the first Christian communities. Scholars debate the sources available to the Gospel authors. For example, consider how the authors knew details of the private interrogation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Well, Romans were good recorders of history, and there may have been a housekeeper who overheard the events. If my hypothesis is that John 9 is true, my evidence is the Gospel, an eyewitness account of the blindness and the cure.

The non-believer can't deny the Gospels out of hand. No matter how unscientific the texts may be, there is evidence of the events copied from to the first century CE accounts, and little or no comparable evidence to the contrary. Even presuming inaccuracies due to the passage of time before the Gospels were written and due to the messiness of oral accounts, the stories aren't complicated. A blind guy encountered Jesus and was cured. There are dozens of examples and verses claiming that hundreds more occurred.

It is not the responsibility of the believer to provide more proof beyond the eyewitness accounts. Canonical miracles do not need to be explained, although they are mysterious. It's OK that miracles are mysterious, but the stories say what they say. The man was blind and his blindness was cured.

UPDATE 18 November 2024 - it has occurred to me that there are two kinds of miracles. Above, I reflected on the ministry miracles; Jesus heals a person in front of a crowd. But there are also the dogmatic miracles; Jesus is transfigured, or Jesus ascends to heaven and takes a seat at the right hand of God. We recite creeds regularly to show our belief in this dogma. Typically, there is no crowd, just the close followers of Jesus. I am working on a new post on the topic of dogmatic miracles.

Evolution from Judaism to Christianity

I am in my second year of a four-year program studying the Bible, its underlying history and theological reflection ("think theologically"). Recently, we have discussed the historical, Biblical, philosophical and theological events surrounding the emergence of Christianity, including a discussion around the differences between Judaism and Christianity. The Old Testament contains the various Hebrew texts that are canonical for us Christians. The O.T. is foundational for Christians, so, what was it that needed to change in a way that required a new religion? The Torah already tells us to help the poor, so what's the big deal about Jesus? Seems like we need more than just another prophet, so I will poke at a few notions here.

Did Jesus believe all people are equal? Is justice the same as equality? I don't think so. Paul's analogy in 1 Cor 12 is that we are all different parts of a body, all necessary, but with different abilities (gifts) with which we can fulfill different purposes. For the moment, I am assuming 1 Cor 12 is consistent with Jesus' teachings. In a few weeks I will dig deeper into Paul's epistles and may have more to say.

Mosaic Law (Lev 23:22) states, "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien: I am the Lord your God." But, I claim, followers of the Law would typically distance themselves from the poor and aliens at "the edges". A follower of Torahic purity guidelines would likely consider those poor people to be shameful (see "Introducing the New Testament" by Mark Allan Powell). Jesus, on the other hand, says we must love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31, etc.); Jesus pushes Lev 23:22 beyond the generosity a subsistence community would normally practice. Jesus was born into the poorest of the poor and knew (as stated by Powell and Hillary Clinton), that survival in first century Galilee "took a village", but the village of Mary and Joseph was an extension of individual self-preservation (not the same as universal salvation). Judaism does not preclude Jesus' teachings, but Jesus' dedication to service and humility radically ignores the notions of honor and shame that were important to first century peasants under Roman rule. Today, we are not shocked at the idea of service and humility, but it was indeed radical at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Jews widely believed in resurrection (except for the Sadducees), although the canonical evidence in the Old Testament seems more abstract than in the New Testament. Jesus seems to have broadly developed the theology of resurrection in terms of whether one deserves resurrection or what salvation means to us during our earthly lives. Hebrew philosophers interacted with the Greeks and Persians and Romans and Egyptians and others; see especially the O.T. book of Daniel. However, it's not clear to me that any first century synagogue focused on eternity. One imagines Jesus' frustration with a holiday like Purim, which outwardly celebrates the cancelation of an edict to kill all Jews (Esther), but cannot be disassociated from the slaughter of tens of thousands of gentiles for almost no reason.

Jesus didn't invent any theology; resurrection and aid to the poor were well understood. Previous leaders claimed to be the son of one god or another, but the sacrifice of the divine Jesus (in fulfillment of the non-sacrifice of Isaac) provides the theology of a god who physically understands humans.

The church as a "system"

We church people can learn from Andreea Danielescu's essay, "The Many Shapes of a Computer Science Career", published in Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (CACM), November, 2022. Andreea writes:

The Key things I learned as a computer scientist were how to break down problems into smaller chunks, how to think at the systems level and how systems work - whether they be software systems or systems of people. People are never boxes; they are puzzle pieces that can fit together in more than one way.

My career has taught me it's BETTER not to try to fit in a box. Throw it out. Be a cloud, or a polyhedron, if you like corners and edges. Embrace breadth AND depth as they are not mutually exclusive. Learning how things fit together is a skill that can make you successful - no matter which puzzles you find yourself in along the way.

My (this blog's author) response is to ask, what is a Christian system? I suggest that a mainline denomination, such as "Episcopalian", is a system. The parts are the Bible, the liturgy, the music, and of course, the faithful people including lay and clergy. (And more, but you get my point.) Some of it is hardware: churches, organs, coffee, bread and wine. Some of it is software: Bibles, prayer books (and prayer), budgets, theology.

Maybe my priest/minister is a cloud (Danielescu's term), leading her flock and infiltrating all the goings-on. But I should watch my system for the polyhedron, like the guy who never brings food to a potluck but stays late to do the dishes.

Consider the breadth: Christianity as a whole, outreach to the larger community. Consider the depth: the early service versus the late service, the annual garage sale, the weekday Bible study.

My general point is to apply academic notions to your church life. Many smart people have spent centuries thinking about how to run organizations. We church people just need to squeeze in God. 😊

The wind over the waters REVISITED

Back in my first blog post I noted that my NRSV translation of Genesis 1:2 provides an alternative translation for "wind from God" which is, "spirit of God". I then went on to describe how this spirit in Genesis is the same spirit that comes upon Mary in Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you...".

But recently I have been using "The CEB Study Bible", that is, the Common English Bible, an annotated translation. CEB states that the alternate translation for "God's wind" is "God's breath". Then, CEB's note on Gen 1:2 says the author of Genesis is not referring to "the third member of the Trinity."

Is CEB saying that that the spirit (or breath) that swept over the waters is something different than what came over Mary to enable her to conceive the child? I don't think so.

In John 20:22, NRSV and CEB both provide the translation that Jesus "breathed" on the disciples so they would receive the Holy Spirit. I still believe it's the same spirit in all three spots.

CEB's note on Gen 1:2 reminds us that the author of Genesis would not have had a notion of a triadic unity that is a monotheistic God in three persons. For now, I am sticking to my story that there is no contradiction between "wind", "spirit" and "breath".

Educational settings, plus the hedgehog and the fox

In this article, I will adapt scholarly items from outside theological contexts.

----------

My first item is adapted from adapted from "Exploring Questions and Answers in Computer Science Education" by Sally Fincher & Kathi Fisler, published in Communications of the ACM, July, 2022.

No matter where you worship, or what your role is, education is important; important not only in WHAT is taught, but also HOW it is taught and WHO is taught. For example, what is known about how different groups of people learn Christianity? How does learning in a house of worship differ from formal education settings? What techniques have been shown effective for teaching or probing learners' knowledge about Christianity? What traditional approaches fail for modern Americans? Depending on different contexts, these questions will have different answers. Investigating those answers requires us to think (as individuals and as a community) about the methods that are appropriate for studying educational questions and, crucially, what problems do we most need to think about so that our education and training keeps pace with developments in Christian practice?

----------

Next, I will apply ideas from "The Hedgehog and the Fox" by Isaiah Berlin. This book expounds on the ancient Greek proverb, "A fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing". The fox uses many tactics to catch the hedgehog, but the hedgehog finally escapes by using its simple, prickly defenses. That's not to say that a simple approach always wins, just that we should be prepared to utilize the right tactic at the right time.

Consider a talent show in which the contestants are songwriters. A person trying to predict the winner might listen to the songs and pick the song that "sounds the best". That person is the hedgehog; it all boils down to one variable, catchiness. But another person might do some research: is any songwriter of the same ethnicity of any of the judges? Has any songwriter competed before? Do bagpipe songs always lose?

In other words, the fox looks at a range of objective variables instead of one abstract variable.

With respect to Christianity, are you a hedgehog or a fox? Do you attend your church because it focuses on the Immaculate Conception, feeling like that's the most important thing? Or, do you enjoy trying to figure out how Jesus fulfills the parting of the sea while also typing the weekly bulletin and also repairing the church boiler?

Neither the hedgehog or fox is "right" or "wrong", at church. Your God given purpose is not the same as mine. My example is simplistic, so it's safe to suggest you hedgehogs should not be too focused. I at least feel that I should always be on the lookout for new ways to mature, spiritually.

gocekBlogGary: In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece

gocekBlogGary: In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece: Thursday, June 6 - CORINTH!  Today provided me with a meaningful historical and spiritual experience. Susan and I visited Corinth, just west...

Please see my personal blog in which I recount a visit to ancient Corinth, where I stepped on the bema used by Roman tribunals. Paul came before the tribunal in Acts 18:12.

My letter to the Wall Street Journal

My letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal was published today, 16 May 2024. This was in response to an opinion essay entitled, "Methodists Keep Up With the Times". In that essay, the author's opinion was that Protestant churches give too much credit to current cultural trends and not enough to Christian tradition. For copyright reasons, I cannot post the original essay, but here is a link:

May 10 essay about Methodist church policy changes

My letter disagreed with the essay, and was published with another letter that was in general agreement.

May 16 letters to the WSJ

Here is my letter as published. Since I wrote it, I am taking the liberty of reposting it here. The WSJ wrote the headline of the letters. I do not repost the other letter here, see the link above for that.

__________

As published:
TRADITION AND CHANGE: A CHRISTIAN QUARREL

In “Methodists Keep Up With the Times” (Houses of Worship, May 10), Carl Trueman risks implying that theology is immutable and any deviation from tradition and orthodoxy is secular and wrong. He encourages us to “hold to a historic form of Christian faith that doesn’t affirm the predilections of the surrounding culture,” as if today’s Christians could somehow separate themselves from that culture.

Mr. Trueman suggests that “sacred” has no meaning outside traditional theology and fixates on the issue of nontraditional couples. My salvation, however, isn’t dependent on my national church’s budget, or what my church says about my gender identity or the sexual preferences of the couple in the pew behind me.

__________

My original submission to the WSJ was slightly edited. Here is my original letter:

The op-ed "Methodists Keep Up With the Times" (May 10) implies that theology is immutable and that any deviation from tradition and orthodoxy is secular and wrong. The essay encourages us to "hold to a historic form of Christian faith that doesn't affirm the predilections of the surrounding culture," as if today's Christians could somehow separate themselves from that culture. The essay quotes a reference that groups non-traditional couples with criminals, and suggests "sacred" has no meaning outside traditional theology. However, the likelihood and quality of my salvation is not dependent on my national church's budget, or what my church says about my gender identity or the sexual preferences of the couple in the pew behind me.

__________

My commentary:

There were some slight modifications by the Journal. My submission did not mention the essay's author's name, but the WSJ inserted that. The WSJ changed "implies" to "risks implying", which seems stupid; I used the passive "implies", and the WSJ made it even more passive. There is no doubt the essay states that the author's theology is the only correct theology; I could have been more insistent (see below). The essay equates same-sex couples with (criminal) pederasts, but I am OK with the modifications. The WSJ strengthened my comment about my salvation.

In my opinion now, the original essay and the Journal's headline in capital letters above are not part of a polite quarrel. The essay believes I need to get in line with Christian orthodoxy and tradition because the writer believes I will otherwise go to hell (whatever that is), and the Journal published the essay because the editor believes it is hell that we Christians argue about. It's a stupid, offensive argument, but I would not have had the letter published if I been that scathing.

Theology changes because we change. I could believe "God" (not defined here) does not change, but I change, and my relationship with God changes. My salvation is safe, and the essay's author is stuck in the 18th century. The author's salvation is up to the author and God, and the essay did not help anyone else.

Bottom line?

There is no hope for Christian unification between the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant denominations and Eastern (orthodox) denominations because the RC Church believes the others are not actually Christian. As far as the RCs are concerned, only RCs can call themselves Christian. Everyone else is not simply "non-Christian" (who might actually receive some mercy from God in the end), they (the non-RC Christians) are liars who must either repent (become RC) or be damned for eternity for committing the sin of falsely claiming to be Christian. Yes, that's what it's like when discussing Christianity with an RC.

As a result, an RC won't discuss Scripture with a Protestant because the Protestant is not Christian, which is the basis for how the original essay was written. The essay author wants everyone to accept traditional Christian theology because that would make us all RC.

What does the Good News sound like?

What does the Good News sound like?

Luke 2 verses 13-14:
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!"

But let us also listen to our hearts.

English philosopher R.G. Collingwood wrote, "Artists must prophesy not in the sense that they foretell things to come, but in the sense that they tell their audiences, at the risk of their displeasure, the secrets of their hearts."

Psalm 44 verses 20-21 have something to say about these secrets:
If we had forgotten the name of our God,
or spread out our hands to a strange god,
would not God discover this?
For he knows the secrets of the heart.

Jesus said to his disciples who would find themselves in the midst of wolves, Matthew 10 verse 26: "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known."

Let us pray to the Lord then, that our faith and work may plant marvelous seeds in our hearts, at first secret! Then, we can pray that the glorious artwork that is God's creation will cause those secrets to burst forth into the world, because again, what does the Good News sound like? It is the sound of all hearts bursting forth together with love for God and each other.

Interpret according to modern perspectives

Probers 5:3-5: "For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol."

If you're reading a theological blog post, you probably know that women are marginalized throughout the Hebrew Bible, aka the Old Testament. This quote refers to a loose woman, but rest assured there are no loose men in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, women can be loose, but men cannot. Men can be weak and be unable to resist those feminine wiles, but men are typically not held accountable. The great King David sent a soldier to his death so he could take Bathsheba, and David's infant child died for that, but David's horrific selfishness is ignored afterwards.

At worst, in the Hebrew Bible, men punish women for their tempting ways. Men who lose battles are insulted by being compared to women. Men inherit land, women do not (with a few exceptions that are notable because they are exceptions).

Before I go on, I must agree that the Hebrews valued the institution of marriage highly. The husband was in charge, but adultery was bad. Jesus was able to stop the crowd from stoning the adulterous woman because the men in the crowd were just as bad. Nevertheless, ancient Israeli society was patriarchal, sometimes to the point of misogyny.

In 2024, it is simply wrong to treat these verses as explicit wisdom for the ages. The Bible doesn't tell us that God wants men to rule over women even to the point of violence. Men seduce and men lie, as they always have, just like women and queers and every other homo sapiens. Act righteously, and justly toward other demographics.

And we wonder why church attendance is lower...

 

The Atlantic reported in 2023 that church attendance in the US is declining because that's "just how American life works in the 21st century." It's true Americans like to be seen as individualists responsible for their own destinies, but that has always been the case. Contrast that with the belief that after WWII, we Americans came to be believe our system is exceptional and we owe the world our leadership, although that has been tempered by recent isolationism. Still, I don't think isolationism is what is impacting church attendance. Covid had a catastrophic effect on attendance, so we must keep trying to get back to where we were back in 2019.

We churchgoing Christians certainly need to look inwardly, as well. Just as Christmas has taken on a materialistic life of its own regardless of its religious origins, churches have allowed the commandment to love our neighbors to be eroded by the desire for secular accomplishment. The kids participate in multiple activities and the adults are in constant contact with their work lives. Partisan politics infects all levels of community involvement. IT's hard to make time for church.

Adults have failed to instill a sense of mature moderation in our kids. I believe I am supportive of diverse gender identities and lifestyles, but we should push back a little when a person's only objective seems to be to support a fluid sequence of lifestyle choices. OK, so let's say a person spends a couple years, 24/7, proving it's OK to be queer ... now what? The person still has gifts that can be used to meet meets needs the person discerns. No one can fix everything, but it's always possible to find something that can be fixed.

Some people don't feel accepted at church, and that's painful. Churches need to start from a position of inclusiveness and acceptance. There is little Scriptural support for the notion that Jesus taught we should hate trans people in 2024. Individual members of churches need to get on board with the communal starting point of inclusiveness, and there is Scriptural support for that.

Sometimes, an individual encounters, at church, political and social perspectives that can't be reconciled. Churches need to do the best they can to publicize their positions so frustrated Christians can find a new church home rather than to stop attending.

Christians need to evangelize, not by Bible-thumping, but by doing God's work in the world. If I hide in my pew and don't use my gifts to help others, then that makes for a pretty boring religion.

If my clergy and hierarchical leadership have acted sinfully but are accountable only to civil courts, then I need to push for more accountability. If my church supports excommunication and the invalidation of baptisms, then I need to vocalize the lack of Scriptural support. Certainly, some people commit evils that are hard to redeem in civilized society, but there is no commandment that says, "Love my neighbor unless I decide the neighbor doesn't deserve my love." If my church assigns a different value to a fetus, the mother and the father, I have to realize those value judgments will push people away.

Churches communities are a rare sort of environment in which the successful can sit next to the up-and-coming, and help each other out.

Aunt Marie will be shown the way

 

My Aunt Marie passed away two days ago. Because that was the Wednesday of Holy Week, Marie must wait until Tuesday for her funeral. Of course, this is a path we will all travel.

But it occurs to me that Marie has received an amazing gift. In between her passing and her funeral, we will commemorate the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday.

As I write this, I have just returned from a Good Friday service at which we remembered the death of Jesus as the apostles and disciples looked on. They followers of Jesus then locked their doors with only faith and hope in something almost beyond belief.

Now in 2024, on Sunday we will be reminded of how the faith and hope of Jesus' followers was rewarded. Of course, in these crazy modern times, a lot can happen in two days. Come next Tuesday, will the Holy Spirit assure me that the risen Jesus found the path and showed Marie the way? Do my faith and hope really satisfy me today?

But wait, I have more than faith and hope. 1 Corinthians 13 tells me I also have the surpassing love of God (and the love of Aunt Marie, for that matter). "And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love." I believe Marie is gonna make it!

Risen, indeed.

Anointing, theophany and fulfillment, oh my!

 

God privately told Samuel, the revered nazirite priest, that David is the one to anoint as the future king. "The Lord said, 'Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.' (1 Sam 16:12). Admittedly, this is not a glorious theophany, but it is presented as a direct communication from God. David had been tending to the sheep (in the wilderness). Samuel then anointed David. "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the presence of his brothers; and the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward." (1 Sam 16:13). David is revered as the greatest king, with whom God makes a covenant to continue David's line. This "Davidic covenant" is the beginning of the hope for a messiah. "Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam 7:16).

Isaiah refers back to this anointing and life of David. "A voice cries out: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (Is 40.3).

At the beginning of Jesus' ministry on earth, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and a theophany occurred. "Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' But Jesus answered him, 'Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.'" (Mt 13-17).

Many New Testament verses point back to prior Scripture. The Jesus story in general is a Creation story, and Jesus fulfilled the messianic, Davidic covenant. So, when something really important happens, I wonder what old pattern is being repeated, or as we Christians like to say, "fulfilled".

After Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday, as we call it today), Jewish leaders were hatching plots against Jesus, and Jesus' followers were nervous. As Jesus spoke to his followers, a theophany occurred, "'Father, glorify your name.' Then a voice came from heaven, 'I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.' The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said, 'An angel has spoken to him.'" (Jn 20:28-29).

A theophany occurred, unaccompanied by an anointing by a human. When God promised to glorify God's name, the glorification would occur by exposing the divine nature of Jesus through the upcoming resurrection. Episcopalians accept two two dogmas: "the doctrine of the Holy Triadic Unity as the proper doctrine of God, and the doctrine of two natures in one hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ." [Education for Ministry, Reading and Reflection Guide, 2023-24, p.121]. Therefore, I am looking for the anointing of the divine nature of Jesus. John the B anointed the human nature of Jesus. While one could argue that God is monotheistic and John's one anointing is enough, I argue that the Holy Triadic Unity is pretty mysterious, and that it's reasonable to look for a second anointing.

My opinion is that this anointing happened at the empty tomb and immediately afterwards. Consider that it is well accepted that the ascension of Jesus after the resurrection is a fulfillment of, "The Lord says to my lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.' (Ps 110:1).

I argue that Mary Magdalene fulfilled the following Scripture verses by encountering Jesus and announcing this to the others:

Ps 40:1-3
"I waited patiently for the Lord; he inclined to me and heard my cry. He drew me up from the desolate pit, out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure. He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the Lord."

Ps 40:9
"I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation; see, I have not restrained my lips, as you know, O Lord."

Ps 110:3
"Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead your forces in holy splendor. From the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will come to you."

Here are the relevant Gospel verses:

Mt 28:1,10
"After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.'"

Mk 16:1-2,7
"When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." They are told, "'But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.'"

Lk 23:55-56, Luke 24:1,8
"The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest."

Jn 20:1-2
"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.'"

No human could physically anoint the divine Jesus, but Mary Magdalene came so close that Jesus denied her. "Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father.'" (Jn 20:17).

As an aside, Jesus later invited Thomas to touch him. I wonder what Mary M would have felt if she had been in that room, having been denied the opportunity to hold Jesus at the tomb, regardless of whatever Jesus meant by ascension.

Why talk about Mary at all?

 

What if we didn't know who gave birth to Jesus? Would the Sermon on the Mount be different if Jesus was not born of a virgin? After all, Mary isn't mentioned often; after the crucifixion she gets only a tiny mention in Acts 1.

However, let's look at the way Jesus fulfills Scripture. When Jesus says "destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days" (John 2), he is specifically referring to the exile of the Hebrews from Jerusalem to Babylon (Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.). The Hebrews, according to these prophets, had fallen away from God, suffered a metaphorical death with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and exile to Babylon, and enjoyed a restoration when allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Note that the events in the exile story parallel events in the Exodus story, and they both refer back to the Genesis 1 creation story. When Jesus is resurrected, we say he has "fulfilled" Scripture, in this case the exile story. Don't get distracted by thinking that Isaiah predicted the crucifixion; Isaiah was writing about the exile of his own time period, 500+ years earlier.

I will get to the "Mary" question; I just wanted to give an example of what I think it means to "fulfill" Scripture.

In Matthew 1, the genealogy of Jesus shows that Jesus is descended from King David, a critical character of the Hebrew Bible, through Joseph the carpenter. In 2 Samuel 7, God makes a covenant with David; the Davidic line will continue. This is the beginning of the belief in a messiah. If Jesus is descended from David, we have the first evidence that Jesus could fulfill the Davidic covenant. It is known to Matthew that Joseph is not the biological father, but from a fulfillment perspective, this is not a showstopper. As far as the canon is concerned, Jesus is a human who can restore the Davidic line.

Where did David come from? In fact, the mother of David is not named in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Samuel, the barren woman Hannah prays really hard, promises to dedicate any son she might bear to the service of God, and then bears a son, Samuel. Specifically, Samuel is a nazirite who doesn't cut his hair; another nazirite is Samson, remember the importance of Samson's hair? Hannah sings a song in 1 Samuel 2 which begins, "My heart exults in the Lord". Samuel grows up to become the high priest who "anoints" the young David to become the next king.

In Luke 1, Elizabeth is a barren woman who surprisingly conceives and gives birth to a nazirite son, who we know as John the Baptist. Mary is a virgin who conceives through the power of the Holy Spirit and gives birth to Jesus. Mary sings a song in Luke 1 that begins, "My soul magnifies the Lord". Hannah's song is indeed the model for the Magnificat. In the Jesus story, we have a barren woman who conceives, a conception through the Holy Spirit, a song, a nazirite, and genealogical research showing David. Mary helps to show how the Jesus story fulfills the messianic covenant. Without Mary, Elizabeth and John the B, the genealogy is a simple coincidence.

I do not mean to suggest that the Gospelists concocted a story to ensure the fulfillment. Either the Mary/Elizabeth/John connection was learned and then it was up to Matthew to do the genealogical research, or vice versa, and the pieces of the historical puzzle were all in place to show the fulfillment of Scripture. There is no record of how the Gospelists learned the details of Jesus' birth.

Again, Mary's role after the birth of Jesus is rather inconsequential. The same is true for Hannah. Certainly, Mary was tasked with raising the messiah, and the appearance of the young Jesus at the temple (Luke 2) resembles the anointing of the young David (1 Samuel 16), but the Bible doesn't give us many details about the relationship between Mary and Jesus, and Joseph disappears after the Luke 2 event. As a final comment, give Hannah credit; way back in 1 Samuel, she starts the fall of the dominoes that leads to Jesus' fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.

Where the meek meet the elite

People learn to succeed when they're able to interact with successful people. Diversity on its own does not ensure success, but no one starts out "successful". Everyone should be given a chance to succeed. It's OK to address failure, but don't discriminate against someone who hasn't yet had a chance to succeed.

People tend to live and work with others who are in a similar stage of life, so where can a person just starting to climb the ladder of success interact with successful people?

One of the few environments that welcome people from all walks of life is a place of worship! Are you looking for role models? Go to church, synagogue, mosque, coven, etc. Are you a successful person looking to improve your community? Go to your place of worship and welcome and mentor  others.