The Staton Jones Report

June 08, 2006

Further comments...

on my article "A Question of Terminology".

The following was recently put up on Bishop Spong's website. I enjoyed reading Spong's answer, as it seeks to change the public useage of the term "Christian" instead of abandoning "it to the Falwells, the Robertsons and the Ratzingers of the world".

Remember: Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. While I agree that he is the leader of the Catholic Church and carries the autority that gives, he represents the more conservative constituency of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI has alienated many North American Catholics and caused them to seek spiritual answers in denominations such as the Independent Catholic Church or the Episcopal Church. The problem of "spirituality" and "Liberal Christianity" that Francis Salmeri poses needs to be addressed by clergy if they are going to provide spiritual, moral, ethical and political support to members of their congregations. The clergy and Church leaders can no longer ignore the paradigm shift which is occuring in Liberal Christianity.

Francis Salmeri via the Internet writes:

"If we accept the fact that Jesus was a man with a beautiful and powerful teaching and not a Savior, Messiah or the Christ, is it not time to make the shift away from calling ourselves Christian? Perhaps Jesuian or Jesuist, something more affirming of Jesus the man and not as Christ and away from the Almighty Father God toward what you describe as a non-theist ground of being? As I move enthusiastically and rapidly to this new and wonderful horizon that you and a growing number of others point toward, I find I can not call myself Christian or even a liberal one any longer. Isn't it time to differentiate this new religious sense with a new name that affirms the new direction and the new way of being in the world?"

Dear Francis,

I treasure the word Christian and refuse to abandon it to the Falwells, the Robertsons and the Ratzingers of the world. The word Christ translates the Hebrew word 'maschiach,' which means literally 'the anointed one. Originally it was the Jewish title for their king, but when there was no Jewish King (from 586 BCE on) it began to stand for the coming messiah who would restore the throne of King David. Eventually it came to mean a life in whom the voice of God is heard or the will of God is lived out. That is exactly how I view Jesus of Nazareth. God's voice of love is the voice I hear in Jesus. God's being is the being I see lived out in Jesus. I see him calling us beyond tribe, prejudice, gender differences and even religion into a new humanity. I see him acting out the divine purpose to enhance the life of this world. I see God as the source of life revealed when we live fully. I see God as the source of love revealed when we love wastefully. I see God as the Ground of Being revealed when we have the courage to be all that we can be. When I look at the portrait of Jesus as he was remembered in the scriptures and in the Christian tradition, I see the fully alive one, the totally loving one and the one who lives out all that he was destined to be, even as his life was betrayed, forsaken, denied, tortured and killed. That is why I have no problem joining St. Paul and saying, "Yes! Yes! God was in that life," or joining St. John and saying, "If you have seen Jesus you have seen God."

Later theology turned this experience into stultifying creeds, irrelevant doctrines and controlling dogmas. I can sacrifice those. The God experience I find in Jesus I cannot sacrifice. So he is Christ for me and I claim the title Christian and work to transform its meaning into what I think it was originally designed to communicate.

Hope you find this helpful.

-- John Shelby Spong

Posted by Sister Weasle at 11:03 AM | Comments (0)

May 21, 2006

A question of terminology...

In response to the question of what a proper term is for the Rightist Christians of the current American political scene, I propose the term:

Let me explain why I feel this terminology is accurate socially, politically and theologically.

As a Liberal Christian (Anarchist neo-Marxist actually), I, like many other believers and non-believers, am offended by the way that the rightist elements within the Body of Christ have taken over political and religious discourse in America.

A vocal minority of believers have taken it upon themselves to claim to speak for an entire faith... while excluding most of the members of that faith by claiming they are “apostate”, “heretical”, “blasphemous” and “idol-worshippers”.

These individuals, who are mostly of the Fundamentalist, Nondenominational and Evangelical denominations – but can be found within the Roman and Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox and Episcopal Churches in minuscule numbers – are destroying the very faith that they claim to be a member of.

Much like the Sadducees, the Pharisees (or P'rushim) and the Herodians of Jesus' time, these Christians, by being complicit with the establishment of the status quo, are corrupting the teachings of the God and the Messiah they claim to follow.

Much like the Jewish parties mentioned above, today's American Rightist Christians claim that they are the “true voice” of God and that to speak against them, their social, political or economic systems or religious teachings is to speak against God himself.

Let us look briefly at each of the Jewish Parties of Jesus' time – and we will see that there are parallels among the current Christian Fundamentalists in America.

First, the Sadducees – who are of unknown/uncertain origin. They probably come from a group established in ~200BCE as the High Priest's Party, but claimed to be the descendants of Zadok, the High Priest of Dawid. This claim was made to help them claim that Israel's existence depended on their existence and forms of worship. Without the Sadducees, Israel would not and could not exist. Socio-politically, the Sadducees were members of the Aristocracy – the rich and powerful descendants of the high-priestly line – but not all were actively priests. They viewed their economic position as further sign of their blessedness in the eyes of God.

In modern America, Evangelicals and Nondenominationalists who preach/believe in “The City on a Hill” and “the Gospel of Prosperity” are the spiritual descendants of the Sadducees.

Next come the P'rushim. This party likely was established by the Hasidim and represent the spiritual and political descendants of Judah Maccabee and his band of religious freedom fighters. This was the largest socio-political sect in Israel at the time of Jesus, and as such were composed of educated middle-class individuals (scribes, lawyers, teachers/Rabbis, businessmen, traders, etc.). They were responsible for the theological development of “Oral Law” and the shift from sacrifice to observance of the Law in public worship.

In modern America, this represents the majority of Christians Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Nondenominationalists – these are individuals who simply want to believe in God, worship as they feel is right, and follow their pastor's teachings because they think their pastors honestly speak for God.

Finally, there are the Herodians. This group is the hardest to nail down theologically, as it was not a religious group as such, but rather a political one composed of individuals from both the Sadducees and the P'rushim. What united these individuals was their wealth and political views. They supported Herod (and any descendant of Herod the Great that gained power). They also unquestioningly supported anything that would help them to implement their religio-political views – even if it meant complicity with an occupying force at the cost of their own people.

The modern American version of the Herodians are “Republican Christian” leaders such as Tom DeLay and others who seek to implement their religio-political vision at any cost – even that of their own honesty and morality.

Another religio-political parallel with the Israel of Jesus' day is that there was no place for the vast majority of Jews in political discourse. The above parties denied membership to the vast populace of the land because they either lacked the proper ancestry, education or wealth. These individuals were literally outsiders in a society they formed a majority of. This is the reason that there were so many “messiahs” and “revolutionaries” in First Century Israel. The people were literally crying out and looking for salvation from religious, political and economic oppression. This is why Jesus, as itinerant teacher, preacher and wonder-worker was able to gain crowds of followers. He spoke to the people in their language about their concerns . He challenged the status quo by stating that all persons had equal access to the “Kingdom of God”.

As in first-century Israel, Christians who speak out against the status-quo, especially from “the left” are derided as being “immoral”, “atheists”, “subversives” or “against the unity of the state”. For example, Liberation Theologians have no place in the current “rightist” political discourse. They are rejected as being contrary to the “true message of Christ” and “perverters of the Gospel”. This is ironic given that in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 18, verses^1-5, we see Jesus teaching the crowds what it means to be part of the Kingdom of God.

At that time, the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?”

He called a child over, placed him in the middle of the crowd, and said, “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like this child, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this, it as if he receives Me.

Jesus did not hold this child up as a model of Christian behaviour because he felt that children were any more “innocent” or “pure” than adults... rather he holds up a child as being the greatest in the Kingdom because in the ancient world, children were the least of the people. Animals and women were of greater importance (in that order) than children. Children, until they were able to contribute labour and defence to a community were a drain on resources. Because of the high infant mortality rates in the ancient world, children were viewed as being a drain on the economic, social and political resources of the community of which they were a part. Jesus held up a child as being the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven precisely because they were seen as “costly” and a “burden”... they were totally dependent on and trusted fully in their families and communities for support. Without that support, they, who were unable to defend or provide for themselves, would surely die.

By making a child the Greatest in the Kingdom, Jesus said that true disciples of his teachings must also have complete dependence on and trust in their religious community.

Christian Nationalists turn this view on its head by stating that they are to be in charge of and in control of the community itself. By doing so they think that they can bring about a manifestation of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Rather than being in the world, but not of it, while changing it through love, they seek to overcome the world by force and to establish a Dominion over it. This is contrary to the teachings of the Jesus of History as well as the Christ of Faith.

If you want to read more about what Jesus taught about the religious sects of his day and their various attempts to establish a theocracy contrasted with His vision of the Kingdom of God, read: ; Matthew 21 ^12-17; Matthew 22 ^{15-22, 34-40}; Matthew 23 ^1-39. None of these passages seem to indicate that Jesus would have supported Christian Nationalists' quest for a “Christian America” founded on the political, social and economic policies of the Neo-conservatives.

How can the Christian Nationalists' forget that Jesus himself was executed by the religious nationalists of his day – the Sadducees, Pharisees and Herodians all agreed that Jesus needed to eliminated – for his insurrection and revolutionary teachings? The religious establishment was worried that Jesus' teachings would incite a rebellion. The fact that Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem before the Passover feast only added to their fears... he had all the signs and portents of being an actual Messiah... if he got the people behind him, he could endanger their political and religious stronghold on the region.

Unfortunately, the Revolutionary Jesus of History has been lost in some people's version of the Christ of faith. Their Christ died for their sins only. Their Christ supports unjust wars. Their Christ supports the exploitation of non-Christians. Their Christ has no problem with his followers not being faithful stewards of the environment. Their Christ is a white American. Their Christ, probably just like their pastor, drives a SUV and votes Republican.

One final irony of the Christan Nationalists is this: if you talk to them about the Orthodox or Catholic Churches they will at some point likely deride these ecclesiastical bodies for the historical unity of Church and State for most of their history. The problem they have is not what they espouse it to be: a theocracy as a violation of individuals' religious and civil rights; rather, their complaint lies in the particular faith practiced. If these states had their National Churches based upon the Fundamentalist, Evangelical or Nondenominational doctrines/practises, they would not complain. They would see it as a manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

Convenient.

As for how Jesus views the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth:

If those who lead you say, “Look, the kingdom is in Heaven,” then the birds of heaven will precede you.

If they say, “It is in The Sea (of Galilee),” then the fish will precede you.

Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside you. When you know yourselves, you will be known, and you will know you are children of the living father.

But if you do not know yourselves, you live in poverty and you yourselves are the poverty.

The Gospel of Thomas, 3

Ironic that the Christian Nationalists who speak out against social programmes, welfare, and socialised medicine are the poverty of the Kingdom they seek to establish on Earth.

Update: adding a trackback to tristero's round-up of news topics on Hullabaloo, which includes a discussion of the "Christianist" term.

Posted by Sister Weasle at 01:36 PM | Comments (6)

March 17, 2006

The Just War Doctrine MUST be Re-visited!

Today's Saint:

St. Patrick, Bishop (Commemoration)

Today's Meditation:

Holy Spirit, in communion with you, even when we seem to have received no answer to our prayer, through it you have already accomplished something within us.

From the book:

Peace of Heart in All Things by Brother Roger of Taizé published by GIA Publications

Today's Readings:

First Reading: Genesis 37:3-4, 12-13, 17-28

Psalm: Psalm 105:16-21

Gospel: Matthew 21:33-43, 45-46

Yesterday President Bush released The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,2006. This document has recieved much news (as it should!) because it says the United States of America can launch a 'pre-emptive' war.

This document came as a total shock to me; any leader who claims to be "Christian" but advocates attacking other countries and peoples 'pre-emptively' is a hypocrite. Throughout its history, the Church has stood against such an attitude.

I have begun reading the paper, as well as reviewing Church Teachings (the writings of Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Aquinas and others) on war - and the "Just War Doctrine" in particular. As I am still taking in data, praying and meditating on it, and trying to make sense of Bush's latest ethical hypocrisy - I have not had time to write an article for this Friday in Lent. I will comment on the document fully, with commentary from Scripture, Church Writings and the Catechism - but it is going to take me a bit... please be patient!

Here are links to some pages I have found that outline the "Just War Doctrine" well for laymen:

• Article on "War" at newadvent.org
• Benedict XVI's speech for World Day of Peace, January 2006.
• PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD GAUDIUM ET SPESPROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7,1965
• "Just War" doctrine at Catholic Answers - this is good because it is written with the "War on Terror" in mind.
• "Hawks, Doves, and Pope John Paul II", America, August 12, 2002. By Father Drew Christiansen, S.J.
• A Just War Primer, with citations from the Catechism.
• Is is acceptable for Christians to lay ambush during war?

For those who live in the Dallas area, there is a Peace Rally this Sunday - March 19th 2006 to commemorate the Third Anniversary of the War and Occupation of Iraq.

2 PM, St. Paul United Methodist Church, 1816 Routh Street, Dallas, Texas. The rally begins at 2 PM and will conclude with a march to the Federal Building Downtown Dallas. People of ALL FAITHS are encouraged to show their support!

MORE INFO:

• Walt Harrison, 1-800-490-8161, ext 103

• Trish Major, Dallas Peace Center Communications Dir. 1-214-823-7793

Posted by Sister Weasle at 04:19 PM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2006

Jesus didn't make cabinet appointments...

Today's Meditation:

Many people would like to attain union with God but they cannot bear the contradictions he sends them. They hate the sickness which strikes them, or the poverty they suffer, or the insults they receive. Since they cannot be resigned, they never succeed in reaching total union with God.

-- St Alphonsus de Liguori

Today's Readings:
• First Reading: Jeremiah 18:^18-20
• Psalm 31:^{5-6, 14-16}
• Gospel: Matthew 20:^17-28

Today's gospel reading consits of the third prediction of the passion and the request of James and John .

Verses 17-19 are quite similar to the Marcan source Matthew uses throughout his gospel, but contains extra details that point to its later date of composition (circa 80-100 CE). Mark (10³⁴) speaks only of Jesus being killed, but Matthew specifically states that he must be "...scourged, crucified and raised on the third day".

Jesus (interestingly) in this passage states that it is the Gentiles who will kill him in Jerusalem - the Temple authorities and scribes will allow him to be apprehended and executed - but they are not the executioners. This is important to remember when later we read other gospel accounts that are more anti-Semitic in tone.

Another interesting fact is that this passage speaks of Jesus' death in a revolutionary and reforming context - not in a redemptive or soteriological sort of way. This is so surprising for some readers that they try to impose their own christological ideas on this passage.

The request of James and John was meant to be read in a revolutionary or reformationist light. The sons of Zebedee approached Jesus and asked him to give them a cabinet position. Jesus was going to have a "kingdom" and they wanted to be a big part of it.

Jesus tried to explain to his disciples that they had failed to understand what he has just told them in verses 17- 19... i.e that Jesus' teachings and social protests will lead the spiritual and political leaders of Jerusalem to kill him. James and John made the mistake of taking the words of Jesus about "The Kingdom" (13^10-16)literally.

Rabbis use stories, parables and metaphor/allegory to teach their students. This is seen in Jesus' many stories and parables. Jesus had just given the teaching of the workers in the vineyard and made the third prediction of his Passion, and still his students did not apprehend his message.

Jesus' kingdom was not and is not of this world - to ask for a cabinet positon was stupid and presumptuous. It showed that the disciples, despite spending so much time with Jesus, still did not understand him, his message or his mission. As a great Rabbi said in the Talmud "Only an idiot or a child interprets Scripture literally."

Posted by Sister Weasle at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2006

2nd Sunday in Lent, Year B

Today's Meditation:

There are people for whom God is so dazzling that they are blinded and consider themselves to be agnostics. What they know of God is above all his silence. --Brother Roger of Taizé

(From his book Peace of Heart in All Things. GIA Publications.)

Today's Readings:

• First Reading: Genesis 22:1-2, 9-13, 15-18
• Psalm: Psalm 116:10, 15-19
• Second Reading: Romans 8:31-39
• Gospel: Mark 9:2-10

Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice. -- Psalm cxl. 2

Today's first reading comes from Genesis, and constitues one of what I refer to as "the hard stories of the Bible". The Great Test as it is sometimes refered to is for me (and many other believers of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths) a shocking and disturbing story.

How are we, as believers in the 21^st century, to look at this story? With suicide cults and parents who murder their children a reality in our world, how are we to understand and integrate this story into our modern faith experience? How does this affect our experience of God?

When reading these verses to write this entry, I felt the same thing I always feel when reading this story in Genensis - I feel a total loss of words. I have difficulty describing this passage, as it is hard for me to identify with the way that God is described in this passage.

I know God as love, peace and many other things... this reading however evokes in me a feeling of nausea and disgust. It makes me think of people like Jim Jones, Charles Manson and David Koresh who spoke of God in very different terms. It also brings to mind Andrea Yates and other women who have killed their children out of their sincere faith that God told them to do so. Was this passage a possible contribution to their crimes? (They honestly believed God was telling them to kill...) In light of such events, what is a believer to do with this passage?

Because this passage is so disturbing, I will share with you one of the Biblical Commentaries I use in my study of the Scriptures to help deal with difficult passages.

The Shocken Bible, Volume I: The Five Books of Moses has this commentary accompanying today's reading:

The Great Test (22):

This story is certainly one of the masterpieces of biblical literature. In a famous article by Eric Auerbach, it is remarked how biblical style as exemplified here, in contradistinction to that of Homer and other epic bards, eschews physical and psychological details in favor of one central preoccupation: a man's decision to follow God. The result of this style is a terrible intensity, a story which is so stark as to be almost unbearable.

Chap. 22 is a tale of God's seeming retraction of his promise (of 'seed') to Avraham. The fact that other issues may be involved here (i.e. Israel's rejection of local and widely practiced ideas of child sacrifice) may be quite beside the point. Coming just one chapter after the birth of the long- awaited son, the story completely turns around the tension of the whole cycle and creates a new, frightening tension of its own. The real horror of the story lies in this threatened contradiction to what has gone before.

Most noticeable in the narrative is Avraham's silence, his mute acceptance of and acting on God's command. We are told of no sleepless night, nor does he ever say a word to God. Instead he is described with a series of verbs: hurring, saddling, taking, splitting, arising, going (22.^{3, 6, 9f}). Avraham the bargainer, so willing to enter into negotiations with relations (13), allies (14), local princes (20), and even God himself (18), here falls completely silent.

The chapter serves an important structural function in the Avraham cycle, framing it in conjunction with 12... There he had been asked to give up the past (his father); here he is asked to give up his future (his son). Between the two events lies Avraham's active life as man of God, ancestor, and intecessor. After this, God will never speak to him again...

After Moriyya, we can breather easier, knowing that God will come to the rescue of his chosen ones in the direst of circumstances. At the same time, we are left to ponder the difficulties of being a chosen one, subject to such an incredible test.

The story is also the paradigmatic narriative of the whole book. The Patriarch passes the test, and we know that the fulfillment of the divine promise is assured. Yet there is one ominous note: love, which occurs here by name for the first time, leads almost to heartbreak. So it will be for the rest of Genesis.

Fortunately, our second and Gospel readings are much more positive!

God our Father,help us to hear your Son. Enlighten us with your word, that we may find the way to your glory. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,for ever and ever. Amen.

In Romans, in interesting contrast to the Genesis selection, we find that we are children of God by adoption. We are children in and through the Spirit of God. This passage states that all persons are children of God, and as such, brothers and sisters of Christ. This passage then is calling us to treat all others like family.

Romans also gives encouragement, like the Genesis story, but in a much more positive and love affirming way, that God will come to the rescue of his chosen ones in the direst of circumstances. We, as believers and children of God are to rejoice because we are set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of being the children of God.

In Mark, we see that the Mystery of who Jesus is beginning to be revealed. In today's story we see the turning point in Mark's narriative of Jesus' ministry and life. The people of the day (including his disciples) already recognised him as an itenerant Rabbi, teacher, and prophet.

The events described in the Gospel reading showed (to his special disciples, the Apostles) that he was The Messiah. Jesus confirmed this, but also admonished them on revealing this to the general populace.

Modern biblical scholars think that Jesus did this, not because he did not want to be recognised by the people as the/a messiah, but that he did not want to be limited by the contemporary religious and cultural ideals of what and who a messiah was. Jesus did not want to be limited by cultural boundaries surrounding the labels "The Moshiach" and "The Christ".

Just like Peter, who wanted to build tents for Moshe, Jesus and Elijah - so that they could stay around and hang out - we too need to be sure that we are not limiting our view of Jesus' message and messiahship by our own social, historical and cultural boundaries. We also should not let our "dogmas" and "congregational beliefs" limit our view of the Wisdom and Truth of God... to do so makes us miss the whole point (and the beauty of) the message and life of Jesus, the Christ.

Father, all-powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord. On your holy mountain he revealed himself in glory in the presence of his disciples. He prepared them for his approaching death. He wanted to teach them through the Law and the Prophets that the promised Christ had first to suffer and so come to the glory of his resurrection. In our unending joy we echo on earth the song of the angels in heaven as they praise your glory for ever: Holy, holy, holy Lord...

Posted by Sister Weasle at 09:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2006

"Original Sin" is just a guilt trip...

Today's Saint: St. Simplicius, Pope, died on this day in 483 CE and was buried in the Vatican. He educated the faithful on the sacraments saying they were important by themselves. The church they were administered in did not increase the level of grace received.

Today's Readings:

• Ezekiel 18:^19-29
• Psalm 130:^1-8
• Matthew 5:^43-48

In today's Hebrew Bible selection, we find personal responsibility emphasized.

Original sin was first defined by Pope Zozimus I, in 418 CE and "the total depravity of man" was defined by John Calvin in the seventeenth century.
In this passage, we find that the Jews of the sixth century BCE, like modern Jews, did not believe in the doctrine of "original sin" or the "total depravity of man". These concepts had to be invented by later theologians.

According to Ezekiel, only the person who sins is responsible. Sin is a personal matter between the individual and God. Also, this passage indicates that an individual is perfectly capable of living a good, sinless life.

In the Gospel reading, we hear Jesus' words on how we should treat those who are our enemies. When it comes to our enemies, "the terrorists", would Jesus support American policy?

Posted by Sister Weasle at 08:26 AM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2006

Jonah was a Bigot

Today's quote:

Great patience occurs in two ways: either when one patiently suffers much, or when one suffers things which one is able to avoid and yet does not avoid.

-- St. Thomas Aquinas

Today's Readings:

First Reading: Jonah 3:1-10

Psalm: Psalm 51:3-4, 12-13, 18-19

Gospel: Luke 11:29-32

Today's Hebrew Bible reading is from the book of Jonah. This book was written in the fifth century BCE, after the people of Israel had been subjected to exile. The story of Jonah is told in a didactic style that is meant to help convey its important theological message of inclusiveness, forgiveness and equality for all people.

While most readers focus on the story of Jonah being swallowed by "a large fish" which God prepared for the task, they ignore the true message of the story.

Nineveh was the traditional enemy of the country of Israel as well as the Jewish faith. Jonah was very surprised when he was told to go to this "wicked" city to preach a message of doom and repentence. When everyone in the city humbled themselves and made ammends for their wrong behaviour and bad deeds, God saw that they were truly changing and did not carry out his punishment. This made Jonah angry - so he threw a temper tantrum.

In the story, Jonah represents a narrow, bigoted mentality; a mentality which was representative of the Jewish people of the fifth century BCE. According to this view, because the Jews were chosen, they had a right to be nationalistic - intolerantly nationalistic. The problem is that this was a direct violation of the Torah, and it also acted to limit the mercy of God within thier nation.

Jonah's prophecy was meant to strike at this nationalistic, fear-based view. Jonah is a prophecy and parable of mercy; this book shows that noone is outside of the love of God.

Marcus Borg wrote of the story of Jonah:


"The genius of this author lay in the fact that his readers would immediately see the distortion of Jonah's character and because the story was being read in a public setting, they would laugh at his rigid, prejudiced viewpoint. They would comment to one another as the story developed, publicly ridiculing Jonah's attitude. Then with a resounding thump, it would hit them that the stupidity of Jonah was their own stupidity. The narrow-minded bigotry of Jonah was their own narrow-minded bigotry. Their judgement of Jonah was applicable to themselves... Slowly the had to see that God's love is unlimited. God's embrace is not restricted by thier embrace. God's grace is not circumscribed by their prejudices and by their definitions."


We should let today's readings call us to repentance and inclusiveness. Even though it may be easier to act from our prejudices and to retreat to a "safe place" of bigotry, we are to remember that:


"God beckons us out of our confining lives to a place where we are able to grow into more sensitive and open people, people capable of reflecting the infinite inclusiveness of the God whose invitation is not selective... The call of inclusiveness has always been part of the heritage of the Christian Church, whether heeded or not."


(The next time you run into someone who has questions about who God includes, tell them to read the last sentence of Jonah)

Take action against HR 4437!

Verses to remember while taking action:
Exodus: 22^20f;23⁹

Leviticus: 19^32-34

Deuteronomy: 10^17-19


Posted by Sister Weasle at 07:33 AM | Comments (0)

March 05, 2006

Religious News and Commentary...

Today's quote:

The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in His Divinity, assumed our nature, so that He, made Man, might make men Gods.

-- St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusculum


Readings for Monday:

Leviticus 19.^1-2,11-18

Matthew 25.^31-46

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has finally
offered words of criticism about Guantanamo Bay. He also spoke
out against Muslim extermists, and the violence that has been
launched by Muslims during the past couple of weeks.

Archbishop Williams correctly sees these actions as "an insult
to God and man" and in no way indicative of the religion of Islam as a whole.

To read more.

The Archbishop's page.

An especially interesting article by the Archbishop.

And in other news...

President Bush's recent trip to India and Pakistan demonstrated once again his Cultural and Religious ignorance. While previous occupants of the White House have been very careful when visiting foreign countries (especially when visiting shrines and holy sites) to be respectful of the host culture's mores and taboos, Bush committed such a faux pas that it was called "a national shame" by Tushar Gandhi, Gandhi's great-grandson.




Posted by Sister Weasle at 08:40 PM | Comments (0)

Why Christians don't need the Ten Commandments

Today's quote:

Some Christians are utterly disconcerted when they hear that their faith is illusory. Then doubt can creep into the soul. But there is nothing alarming about doubt. Inner freedom will open a way from doubt towards trusting. The Gospel will always tell each one of us: “Seek, seek and you will find.”

-- Brother Roger of Taize


Readings:
Genesis 9. ^8-15
Psalm 25. ^4-9
I Peter 3.^18-21
Mark 1.^12-15

The first reading consists of the Noachide Covenant. This is a very important covenant, not only because it applies to all of mankind, but also because it shows that civilization and culture are to be constructed by human beings to ensure that the dignity, worth, liberty and equality of every man are realised.

This imperative follows the misuse of power and destruction we saw in the previous six chapters of Genesis. The murders committed by Cain and Lamech are representative of the wrongdoing which had become so commonplace (6.⁵). Yet, even with all of this present, God still longs to make a universal henotheistic covenant with not only Noach, but all of his descendants - even the whole earth. All creatures and all manner of created order are included in the Noachide covenant.

In the Jewish tradition (Talmud - Sanhedrin 58b) the Seven Laws given to Noach here are:

• Honor the One, the creator, the god(s) as revealed to your ancestors and your people.(Deut. 4.^19-20)
• Do not deny the supernatural by saying the material world is all that exsits; do not place yourself above the gods.
• Do not spill blood needlessly, nor murder.(Gen 9.^4-6)
• Do not steal; respect other's property as your own
• Do not misuse your sexuality
• Do not be cruel to animals; respect all of creation and nature
• establish courts and a justice system that ensures the freedom, liberty, and equality of all

This is the covenant which we, as followers of Jesus, must follow. The 613 precepts of the Torah are for the Jewish people... included in those 613 are the Ten Commandments. We are not bound to those laws, so we should not weigh ourselves down with them. The seven of the Noachide Covenant are enough for us.

In the reading from Peter, we also read of how the New Covenant is an appeal to God for a clear conscience, rather than simply being a removal of dirt from the body. Once again, we are being called into a covenant relationship with all of creation that allows true freedom and liberty. It is our responsibility to use this freedom and liberty to assist others in their path rather than to weild power over them or to judge them.

In the Gospel for today, we see Jesus going into the desert for forty days. Here he was forced to look deep within himself. He was forced to choose between the path of good or evil; both sides of the moral equation were present.

By choosing to do what was good and right, Jesus gave an example for all who are in "a desert place". When we are faced with the opportunity to be exploitative, egotistical, greedy - or any abuse of our true freedom and liberty - we should think of Jesus' example. We too are able to stand because we are people of the Covenant of Justice and Love.

"God's covenant gives us the opportunity to become His people - in reality His "priests" bearing witness to His eternal covenant of truth and righteousness. But too often we think and act according to the spirit of the age. If we follow our own inclinations we are likely to create oppression, sometimes in the name of fighting oppression. Only by understanding God's requirements and covenantal mercy toward us can we look at evil squarely and thus see the need for a change of mind and direction. As justice and peace come about, they will stand as a token of the coming kingdom."

--Marvin Olasky ¹


¹ Olasky, Marvin. Is there a way out? Freedom, Justice and Hope: toward a strategy for the poor and oppressed. Turning Point Chrisitan Worldview Series.Crossway Books : Westchester, Il. 1988.





Posted by Sister Weasle at 05:12 AM | Comments (0)

March 03, 2006

True Fasting sounds a lot like Liberation Theology...

Saint of the Day, St. Katharine Drexel
(a Philly saint!)

Quote of the day:

There are many who say to the Lord, "I give myself wholly to Thee, without any reserve," but there are few who embrace the practice of this abandonment, which consists in receiving with a certain indifference every sort of event, as it happens in conformity with Divine Providence, as well afflictions as consolations, contempt and reproaches as honor and glory.

-- St. Francis de Sales


Today's reading in Isaiah talks to us about true fasting.

Fasting is more than just not eating meat during Lent. True fasting according to Isaiah includes:



• the release of political prisoners,


• advocation of workers' rights,


• feeding the hungry,


• clothing the poor,


• giving the homeless shelter,


• shedding of our egotism,


• and the acceptance of our human shortcomings.

Let us each try our utmost to be a true believer keeping a true fast instead of an egotistical hypocrite this Lent.

Posted by Sister Weasle at 02:04 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2006

Thinking about thinking...

Today's quote:

What does it avail to know that there is a God, which you not only believe by Faith, but also know by Reason: what does it avail that you know Him if you think little of Him?

-- St Thomas More

Today's reading in Luke emphasizes the true cost of speaking and living the truth. Remaining true to the words of Christ, even when it challenges the status quo is not easy, and Luke states that sometimes one must pay the ultimate price for doing the right thing.

Right now there is a price for being a liberal Christian - ridicule from our Political and Religious leaders.

During the last election we heard leaders say that liberal believers were not moral. Even now, any interpretation of Christianity other than that of the evangelical, fundamentalist Right is called heresy.

For too long we (liberal believers of all faiths) have allowed this to happen. If we continue to let others think about Him for us, if we continue to let our leaders dictate the attributes of our faith, if we continue to think about Him on their terms - there will soon be no truth left. We will be left with an American State Religion devoid of Faith, Reason and Truth.

How do you think of Him? Do you listen to the still small voice inside? Do you heed its call - no matter what the cost?

Today's Taize meditation:

How vigilant we must be not to stick any labels on anyone’s forehead! Having a rigid image of another person can paralyze the whole evolution of their personality.

Posted by Sister Weasle at 09:54 AM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2006

Christianity as an Inner Affair

In his article, Stiff Right Jab: Public Christianity, Steve Farrell intends to show that privacy advocates and other individuals who make the assertion that “religion”, especially Christianity, should be a private affair are morally corrupt and ignore the true nature of their faith.

Privacy advocates contend that Christians and Jews have no right to express and defend their religious and moral convictions in the classroom, in the work place or at the seat of government, because faith is sacred, and thus private.

Prohibiting public religious speech under the guise of “protecting one’s private religious rights” ignores the very public, evangelical nature of religion — especially of Christianity.

This assertion forms the thesis for his article which asserts “Christianity is by nature public”. Obviously, Mr. Farrell has ignored key Gospel scriptures as well as church history in order to reach this conclusion. He also does not understand the nature of major world religions other than his own. I hope to address both issues in this installment of my theological ramblings.

The gospels as historical documents

The scriptures of the Jewish and Christian faiths cannot be taken out of the social, political and faith context in which they were written — to do so isolates them from their true meaning. An even worse effect of ripping scripture from its anthropological and historical context is that a believer of any time period can create a “Christ” which betrays the historical Jesus’ message. This has occurred in the past to support Christians’ participation in slavery, colonialism and genocide. Currently, Christians are misusing Holy Scripture to justify war, greed, materialism and the abrogation of the civil rights of all Americans. Whenever we hear of someone using the gospel narratives to support the actions or policy of a government, we need to ask ourselves one question:
Are the words of Jesus being used to further an agenda or philosophy that the itinerant, activist Rabbi would never have held?

Unfortunately, in this case, our answer is:
Yes.

So what happens when we begin to analyze how Jesus would have felt if he was asked about the role of religion in public life? What happens if we try to find out what Jesus of Nazareth would have to say on this subject?

Well, first off, we would not want to do what Farrell has done, which is to grab blindly at citations from the bible without considering the historical context. Ironically, the “sources” which Farrell cites are not, in all likelihood words that Christ even uttered. All of the sources he cites were written decades, if not generations after Jesus of Nazareth taught in Israel. Biblical scholars agree that by the time the faith documents contained in our New Testament were written, the teachings of Jesus had been interpolated to be more accommodating to Gentiles and the Heathen culture of the Roman Empire.

Mark was likely composed shortly before 70CE by an anonymous Hellenistic Jewish Christian writing for a Gentile audience. Also, due to the political climate, Jewish Christians were seeking to assimilate into Hellenistic culture. Matthew dates to circa 80CE with Luke being of the same period. John was composed last, probably 90-100 CE but as late as 120CE.

Farrell’s gospel citations are taken for the New Testament book of Mark. The Gospel of Mark, while likely being the first gospel written, still had undergone extensive editing and revising before it entered the New Testament canon. Mark, like the other synoptic gospels, contains several accurate sayings of Jesus placed within a context that would help to make the message they contain more acceptable to Gentiles.

When reading Mark, it is important that we understand where these interpolations occur — so we can decide for ourselves if they affect how the message of Jesus is presented. How can we know where these emendations occurred? In order to answer this question, we must understand the cultural context of the faith community which produced each of the gospel narratives.

The gospel Mark was written shortly after 70 CE, following the First Jewish Revolt. The entire Jewish world was in upheaval from 66-70CE. The very existence of Jerusalem hung in the balance. Everything seemed to point to the end of times as foretold in the Jewish Scriptures. Apocalyptic literature had been gaining popularity during the previous two centuries. Sectarian movements such as that of Khirbet Qumran were teaching that current events were part of a war between forces of dark and light. Social reformers such as Jesus of Nazareth had been killed by the Roman occupation forces for acts of political and religious sedition. Jews were being slaughtered throughout the Empire for rejecting the symbols of cultural polytheism. Christianity was regarded as an aberrant sect of Judaism. The zeitgeist of fear, persecution, and destruction color the entire narrative of Mark.

An example of how Mark comments on the events of the time is found in Chapter 13 where the end of Jesus’ ministry (30 CE) is linked with the destruction of the Temple and all of Jerusalem by Titus (9 Av 70CE; 7 Sept. 70CE).

The gospel narrative I selected to support my thesis is the Book of Matthew. According to the documentary hypothesis of biblical scholarship, the gospel of Matthew was likely written a decade after the Gospel of Mark and the suppression of the First Jewish Revolt by the Roman Army. The gospel document was likely composed for a faith community in Antioch, the Roman Capital of Syria. This prominent Roman province had a Greek-speaking population composed of Gentiles and Jews living side-by-side in a Hellenistic cultural milieu. When the Gospel of Matthew was written, the Church community producing the letter was experiencing a major demographic shift. The number of Gentile church members was swelling while the number of Jewish members remained static. New converts to the faith were Gentiles who had previously been of the Roman Religion . As such, these individuals were largely ignorant of the Jewish cultural background of the faith narratives about Christ. In Antioch, tension was beginning to build between the four cultural groups of: traditionally observant Jews, Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, and Heathen Gentiles. This cultural dissonance accounts for the conflicts between Jews and Gentiles which are portrayed in the gospel narrative of Matthew.

By stating they were of the Roman Religion, I mean that they largely observed the civil polytheism of the Roman Empire. Members of mystery cults and other faith movements are included here for simplicity.

Viewing the gospels as historical documents does not minimize their validity for a believer. It allows modern scholars and believers to discern the layers of meaning and truth within the documents. The historical approach also allows modern readers to understand that the gospels are ancient faith histories, not modern historical documents that are literally true. Does this analysis mean that the New Testament narratives are fairytales that must be rejected? NO! It just means that when we use gospel narratives to support our beliefs, politics - or whatever - we need to consult other written sources (such as the writings of the Church Fathers) as well as archaeological and historical works about the classical world to tell us what the reality of the first century church was. Scriptures are written in a particular culture for a particular culture, and a failure to understand that culture will result in a failure to understand the Scripture. Only by learning about the cultures of the Bible, can we have the teachings of Christ inform our opinions without using Jesus to support our own socio-political beliefs.

The Scriptures on Privacy of Religion

The beginning of Jesus’ ministry is the first time Matthew contrasts the idea of exterior, public religion with inner, personal faith. Following the arrest of John by Herod, Jesus withdraws to Galilee. It is only by withdrawing that he is able to fully become the teacher and Rabbi he was meant to be. Matthew 4²³ states:

Και περιηγεν ολην την γαλιλαιαν ο ιησους διδασκων εν ταις συναγωγαις αυτων και κηρυσσων το ευαγγελιον της βασιλειας και θεραπευων πασαν νοσον και πασαν μαλακιαν εν τω λαω

He (Jesus) went around all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness among the people.

While one could assert that this verse (as well as 9^35-38) means that Jesus was conducting a public ministry, historical context seems to indicate otherwise.

The story of John the Baptist, is a good example of life as a dissident under Roman occupation forces.

The period when Jesus was active as an itinerant Rabbi in Galilee was not a good time to be preaching publicly — especially if the message which you were spreading was hostile to the Roman occupation forces. Jesus preached in all Jewish communities. In these villages, Aramaic and Hebrew were spoken, Jewish traditions and rites were followed carefully, and religion was a private rebellion against pagan occupation forces. When Jesus was in a homogeneous culture, he was able to preach openly and perform healings. Later, in mixed company, he will use ‘signs’ and ‘parables’ to teach his message covertly, so that those who are not Jewish will not understand.

To Jews of the first century, religion that was conducted in public was either a) pagan or b)done as a concession on the part of individuals who were succumbing to the Hellenizing forces. True faith was having the conviction to reject participation in public rites which compromised the morals or ethics of the believer — no matter what the cost. True faith also meant keeping the precepts of Torah while resisting the yoke of Roman occupation.

It is in this context that Matthew 6¹ states:

Προσεχετε την ελεημοσυνην υμων μη ποιειν εμπροσθεν των ανθρωπων προς το θεαθηναι αυτοις ει δε μηγεμισθον ουκ εχετε παρα τω πατρι υμων τω εν τοις ουρανοις

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

This teaching unequivocally states that one should not do good before others in order to be seen. Continuing the sermon, he (Jesus) commands that:

… σου η ελεημοσυνη εν τω κρυπτω και ο πατηρ σου ο βλεπων εν τω κρυπτω αυτος αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω

let your giving be in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

This teaching is not unique to the New Testament — Judaism also teaches that individuals should give freely and lovingly without accolades; the need for a public thank you or acknowledgement negates any good deed. During the second temple period a system had been worked out by Temple authorities so that giving and receiving of charity was completely anonymous. Both those in need of food, money or goods and those giving items were unknown to the rest of the community. Jesus is saying that the idea behind this system of anonymous charity should extend to all areas of religious life.

The most blatant teaching of Jesus that our faith should not be tied to public religiosity or egotism can be found in Matthew 6^5f:

Και οταν προσευχη ουκ εση ωσπερ οι υποκριται οτι φιλουσιν εν ταις συναγωγαις και εν ταις γωνιαις των πλατειων εστωτες προσευχεσθαι οπως αν φανωσιν τοις ανθρωποις αμην λεγω υμιν οτι απεχουσιν τον μισθον αυτων συ δε οταν προσευχη εισελθε εις το ταμιειον σου και κλεισας την θυραν σου προσευξαι τω πατρι σου τω εν τω κρυπτω και ο πατηρ σου ο βλεπων εν τω κρυπτω αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Jesus says here that one is to go to a private place to pray to their heavenly Father. Not on a street corner, not in a school, not in a boardroom. Nowhere that is public. Nowhere their egotism can be fed by people lauding their observance. Faith is a private matter. Even a synagogue is listed by Jesus as a place where egotism can be fed. How you ask? Do you know someone who goes to “the right church” or attends “the right services” just because it’s the “only way to get plugged in” to the “in crowd”? Bingo.

Further on in Matthew, we find another case where our actions among fellow believers can be a form of egotism. In verses 6^16-18, Jesus states:

Οταν δε νηστευητε μη γινεσθε ωσπερ οι υποκριται σκυθρωποι αφανιζουσιν γαρ τα προσωπα αυτων οπως φανωσιν τοις ανθρωποις νηστευοντες αμην λεγω υμιν οτι απεχουσιν τον μισθον αυτων συ δε νηστευων αλειψαι σου την κεφαλην και το προσωπον σου νιψαι οπως μη φανης τοις ανθρωποις νηστευων αλλα τω πατρι σου τω εν τω κρυπτω και ο πατηρ σου ο βλεπων εν τω κρυπτω αποδωσει σοι

Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face 18 so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

So what’s the big deal with fasting you ask? Think about it like this: suppose one day you were going to fast… but when you get to the office you discover a co-worker is having a baby, so you’re all going out to lunch together… and someone down the hall is having a birthday, which means cake. How can you gracefully get out of those situations without mentioning your faith or denying your faith? For Jews and Christians of the first century, problems like that came up at every meal — and since meals were public affairs, it was especially tricky… so the admonition of these verses is that in public one should choose the middle ground between bragging about one’s faith and denying faith to fit in. In private one may worship freely because all expressions are made only for the believer or the Father, and are free of egotism.

The word κρυπτω (crypto) and “privacy”

Oh, and one thing that is most interesting in the above verses is the use of the word κρυπτω. In English traditional translations of the scriptures, the word κρυπτω is always translated “secret” — which does fit the idea of “hidden” and “concealed” that κρυπτω usually connotes — but it misses the additional idea of “private”. In these verses, translating κρυπτω as “private” would be best because it would convey the cultural idea that true faith should be done in κρυπτω, where it can be conducted without egotism or wilfulness.

The evangelical nature of world religions

Not all religions practise proselytization. Hinduism, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism come to mind… but I will cover that next time. I’ve typed enough for one rambling.

Posted by Sister Weasle at 01:29 PM | Comments (0)