A CALL FOR A TRUE CHRISTIAN REFORMATION - Part II - Being True to Jesus

                                       We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
                                            the only Son of God,
                                            eternally begotten of the Father,
                                            God from God, Light from Light,
                                            true God from true God,
                                            begotten, not made,
                                            of one Being with the Father,
                                            Through him all things were made,
                                            For us and for our salvation
                                                he came down from heaven:
                                                     from the Nicene Creed

A true reformation of Christianity requires an examination of what are considered the basic, core beliefs of Christianity, and by core beliefs, I mean what we believe to be true about Jesus.   If one is Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or from a mainline Protestant denomination you will recognize the second article of the Nicene Creed quoted above.  Even if you don't recognize it or have never said it, this creed and these words have shaped how most (not all) Christians throughout the world understand who Jesus is.

The potency of this creed is such that reception into most mainline denominations is contingent on believing or at least professing this creed and acknowledging the premise established in its second article, but this creed has a less than stellar history.

This creed was intended to unify Christianity behind a common belief system that identified who was or wasn't a true Christian back in the early days of legalized Christianity in the latter part of the Roman Empire.  It's establishment as the standard Christian belief, however,  would result in the persecuted becoming the persecutors a few decades after its promulgation in 325 CE.  There are blood stains on its history.

The simple fact is that this creed tells us nothing.  It is a remarkably void of meaning and guidance.  It is a pathetic attempt to explain the truly mysterious and ineffable source of our being by couching the reality of who Jesus is in mystical terms in order to satisfy and protect the imperial visage and power of the Roman emperor, Constantine I, under whose watchful eye it was developed.  Most importantly for the early Church, it  managed to secure imperial patronage for the emperor  having forfeited the required title of "Son of God," an identity held by previous emperors. What wasn't forfeited was the title of pontiff maximus or acting as the divinely appointed high priest or from the Christian viewpoint, serving as Christ's regent on earth, a title later transferred to the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ.  If any reader would like to pursue this history further,  I recommend two books by Charles Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind" and "AD 381."

The potency of this creed is directly related to its use as the premise to maintain control over those claiming to be Christian and to give authority to the hierarchal structure of mainline Christianity.  It continues to be the agent by which mainline churches identify who is or isn't a Christian.  And even if it is not regularly spoken or used in worship services or strongly enforced today, it continues to define what orthodox (right-minded) Christianity is.  As noted above, in many denominations one cannot be received as a member, identified as a Christian, or become a pastor or a priest unless one can confess this creed and protect its authority as the Church's primary doctrinal position on who God in Christ is.

I'm an Episcopalian (until I'm thrown out) and fully recognize and understand the prevalence of this creed throughout the liturgies found in the Episcopal Church's "Book of Common Prayer."  I've heard people whole-heartedly stand by this creed even though I am fairly confident they don't understand it or know anything about it.  It's treated in most liturgical churches as a Church's Pledge of Allegiance said every Sunday, but this creed is so unlike the Pledge of Allegiance to the USA flag which tells one something about who Americans are and how they're supposed to act.  This creed does none of that.

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND THE TEACHINGS ABOUT JESUS

At this point, I need to differentiate between Christianity and what I understand to be the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  Throughout many of my posts, I have differentiated the teachings of Jesus as opposed to the teachings about Jesus as found in the canonical New Testament.  Let me be clear that I am not advocating throwing out the New Testament canon or throwing away the Nicene Creed, but rather I am advocating a need to understand them and learn what they are and what they are not in the light of the knowledge we possess today; knowledge about ourselves, our world, and the universe we live in.  In the case of the Nicene Creed, I would simply shelve it as a historical artifact amongst any number of documents associated with the bloody history of the Church.

Christianity and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are not exactly synonymous.  Christianity contains the teaching of Jesus, but most Christian teachings go far beyond them to the point of making them irrelevant.  Christianity puts on less than equal footing the teachings of Jesus with the teachings about Jesus.   One can easily differentiate between the teaching of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus in the Gospels, if one wants to. Thomas Jefferson notably did back in his day.  It is the teaching about Jesus in Christianity that have received the greatest attention and such teachings continue to dominate Christian dialogue. In my opinion, that needs to change if there is to be any hope for a reformation.  We must be able to differentiate between the two types of teaching and decide that the teachings of Jesus carry more weight than the speculative teachings about Jesus.

So the basic question at the heart of this call to reformation is the question that began to derail Christianity beginning around the start of the second century C. E. and brought us to the point of no return during the Council of Nicea at the start of the fourth century C.E.

WHO IS JESUS?

To even ask this question in the twenty-first century feels odd because if we were talking about anyone else the answer would be a simple and straightforward, "Jesus is a man; as in, Jesus is a human being."  That isn't hard to say unless you consider yourself a Christian; in which case, you are likely to add that Jesus is the Son of God.  But let's stick with the provable for the moment.

It is important to keep Jesus human.  Jesus is a human being.  Period.  Full stop.   

Let us stay with that because keeping Jesus human makes being a human a good thing.

As I said in my previous post, in order to sift through eighteen hundred or more years of doctrine and theology, I may inject some new or newly brought to light ideas that have been around for some time.

Allow me to inject and offer a much simpler creed for consideration as we start the sifting through process:

WHAT IS TRUE ABOUT JESUS IS TRUE ABOUT US.

                                                  Or let's try turning this around and say,

WHAT IS TRUE ABOUT OUR NATURE IS TRUE ABOUT JESUS' NATURE.

Compare those statements with the second article of the Nicene Creed. Are they in any way comparable?  If so, where do they connect?  Where do they disconnect?

Let's face it.  There are some glaring disconnects.  If I would have quoted the full second article of the creed, one could recognize being born, suffering, dying  and possibly resurrection as things Jesus experienced and that we have and will eventually experience.  Other than that there is nothing.

Which is easier to wrap one's head and heart around, a Jesus who comes down from heaven or a Jesus who is one of us and understands exactly who we are and, more importantly, raises us up to understand who we are and whose we are?

It might be easier to want to believe in a Jesus who came down from heaven, because in that sense, we're off the hook trying to act or be like Jesus.  The fact is one has to suspend a lot of what we know about being a human being if we want to keep Jesus in the "TRUE GOD" category of Christian doctrine.

I can hear the questions, but what about...?   You can fill in anything you like in that question: such as, what about the stories of his birth?  What about the miracles?  What about the resurrection?

These are all good questions; all necessary questions, and questions that need to be addressed, but in due time.

THE GOSPELS AS EDITORIALS

If I were to define Holy Scripture in the light of how we understand literature in the twenty-first century, I would define all of scripture, all writings considered holy, as "other," as being editorial in nature. They are commentaries on what people thought about God or the gods in relationship to us humans and why the human condition is such as it is.  Yes, they are, at times, based on historical or reflect common events.  Frequently they engage in creating speculative stories about why we exist to illustrate how we should relate to each other and to the source of our being, but fundamentally they are editorial and  they are largely editorials that have been edited throughout their existence by scholars.  There is nothing magical or mysterious about their being scripture or that any of them are the direct "Word of God."  They are, in fact, words about God and, more importantly, they are words about who we are in this vast universe.

All writing is inspired, including this post. I'm not claiming that God is directly inspiring me to write what I'm writing, but the topic of God is, the question who is Jesus is, the topic of Christianity is, the topic of religion as a whole is. Such topics are inspiring in themselves.  I believe in inspiration. 

And what I'm writing is editorial by nature.  That's what all human efforts at literature is; a way of expressing who we are, what we feel, what we think and a way of figuring ourselves out.

This only becomes problematic when, as twenty-first century individuals, we start trying to relate to the editorial perspective of someone who is writing from a first and second century perspective of their world and trying to make it relevant to the world we live in.

Admittedly, I am walking a theological tightrope here, but stay with me.

What I am not saying is that the Gospels are false or were written as an attempt to mislead us.  The authors understood why they were writing in the way they wrote.  They understood metaphor, the significance of applying  numerology and astrology in their world and they used them, editorially, to explain the experience of Jesus.  If they mislead us today, it is because of the way we were taught to understand them and to believe such indoctrinated understandings as truth.

Let's take the birth of Jesus as told in the Gospel of Luke and Matthew.

In the first century CE, very few people would have possessed an understanding that all humans are alike.  Civilization in any part of the world, at the time, would have been extremely stratified socially.  Slaves were the predominant social class of the day.  Slaves were dispensable.  Human existence was precarious at best and many lived by hook or by crook.

If someone was going to address or change the living conditions of the time, they had to be an extreme exception; especially, if they came from a class other than those in power.  Added to this was the view of human suffering based on sinfulness or incurring the wrath of the gods for some reason, which could only be appeased through sacrifice. A view that would shape Christianity's understanding of Jesus' death.   People didn't just raise themselves to a higher level of being unless the gods were involved. Look at any religion of the time. Any recognized founder or leader had to be raised up to that level by the god or appointed by God, and such resurrections were largely viewed as the result of direct, divine intervention.

Saying that Jesus was the Messiah after being born of a carpenter and his wife from the dusty Galilean outpost of Nazareth would have had little appeal if that is all that was known of his origins. So it stands to reason that there must be more, and these early sincere authors of the Gospels garnered speculative meanings from other known events of his life that could be useful, like being born in Bethlehem and spending some of his early years in Egypt.

Without any angelic embellishments or travels by seers from the East, these events are likely to have happened.  By themselves there is nothing mystical or mysterious about them.

The strange thing about the synoptic Gospels is that the earliest, Mark, makes no attempt to explain Jesus' origin but rather, in keeping with much of Hebrew scripture's depiction of notable persons, has him appear on the world stage when he starts his ministry. It would appear to me that is because Mark's audience was primarily Jewish and saw themselves as Jewish followers of Jesus.   Matthew and Luke both talk about Jesus'  birth but from very different perspectives and with an obvious agenda detected in the way they editorialize the event.  Did angels appear to shepherds?  Did wise men make their way to offer gold, frankincense, and myrrh?   Probably not and there is definitely nothing in the historical record or any other human experience to back any of those stories up.

The most disturbing feature of  Matthew's and Luke's description of Jesus' birth is that it is not a fully human birth at all.  And the reason, in their minds, was that Jesus just couldn't be exactly one of us at all.  Jesus had to have a direct  link to God, himself, if he, like other legendary figures in Greek, Roman and Egyptian lore was to find acceptance in the peoples of those regions and those religions.

Think about that for a moment; in terms of our understanding of things today.

What does this "necessity" of Jesus having to be a demi-god say about us?

It certainly paints the male of our species in less than a capable light.

Are we so unclean, so filthy and unsalvageable that God could  only "come down" and impregnate an innocent, young, virgin girl to make sure their offspring, his Son, would be the spotless Lamb of God portrayed in the Gospel of John?

That's the stuff of ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions of the day.  It certainly wasn't a Jewish notion.

It only makes sense given the time in which it was written and the audience that would have received such stories.  These stories are editorial commentaries; in that, if Christianity was to make any inroads into the pagan world of ancient Greece and Rome, there needed to be some semblance, some reference to their understanding of how a divine presence is manifested in a human being to make the story of Jesus palatable to the religious tastes of that audience.

Theologically speaking in the twenty-first century, it is vitally important to understand that reasoning and to understand and accept Jesus as having a biological human father who impregnated his biological human mother; that he is not the product of a divine tryst.  It makes no sense today, and we shouldn't try to act like it does.  That is not to say, we can't find meanings in these stories.  Mythic language is used to convey truths that are not readily explained by mere facts.  Myths are highly editorial about the human condition.

The true Jesus didn't come down from heaven.  He was raised up. He had to grow up just like the rest of us guys. And Jesus had to evolve into the person we know as the Christ.  There is nothing magical about or mystical about his origins other than the mystery surrounding our own existence, and that is mysterious enough.

The importance of Jesus being just like us and we being just like Jesus is that in Jesus of Nazareth God, that Being in which we live and move and have our being, re-establishes and shows who we truly are and how we ought to act.

IF IT IS TRUE ABOUT JESUS, IT IS TRUE ABOUT US.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm
       

         
                                       

A CALL FOR A TRUE CHRISTIAN REFORMATION - Jesus The Reformer

For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.  Isaiah 65:17

I have faith in a God whose delight is in creating and making all things new, whose minimalist nature rejoices in experiencing life as evolution and growth.   When things get too big, they collapse and so it is on earth as it is in the universe we find ourselves in.  All of this is said to put into perspective what I am calling for, a true reformation of Christianity.

Christianity has been fractalized and fractured into thousands of shards that has been the result of trying to guard and maintain control of Christian belief.   The irony in this fractalizing process is that all of the pieces basically look alike; are merely small mirror images of what they broke away from.  Although Christianity is considered the largest religion in the world, it is extremely fractured and is beginning to collapse under its collective weight.  Ecumenism, finding common ground, has not led to preventing this collapse as the relevancy of the Christian Church (as a whole) is what is giving way.

What leads me to consider the time is right for a true reformation to take place is that we are entering into a post-Christian era.  Scriptures frequently reference agrarian images to make a point about the minimalist nature of God.  Pruning comes to mind; as in, cutting trees and vines back to a manageable size in order to encourage growth.

A true reformation is not about trying to put all the fractalized shards back together again, but about creating a new way of communication between them; a new sense of communion, community, and solidarity within the multifaceted frameworks that exist.  There is so much old language that we try to hold on to and imbue with meanings that are hard to convey because such terminology maintains its original meanings.  For example, the term atonement comes to mind.  In some circles, atonement has been changed to at-one-ment.  It's cute but confusing as doesn't eliminate atonement's original meaning. The point is we cannot rid ourselves of the past, but we can shelve it and learn from it.

The Protestant Reformation was not a true reformation by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a grab for power by the various potentates of the time to wrestle control from the papacy.  It did not change the hearts and minds of people about God, Jesus, or the Church.  It merely broke up the Roman Catholic church.  It resulted in no change in understanding God or Jesus or our relationship to that which God loves, which is what a true reformation must result in.

JESUS AS REFORMER

The premise for reformation exists in all religions.  Every founder of a religion and every religious prophet was, at heart, a reformer of an existing religion.  Jesus was, at heart, trying to reform Judaism; to reclaim and bring to light its foundational truths about God.  There is nothing new in what Jesus taught.  Everything Jesus taught was based on the foundational truths he saw in Judaism and are found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  What was new in what Jesus taught was Jesus' application of them.  They appeared new because they were not being applied and hadn't been for generations; a fact that generates most, if not in all, true reformation movements.

What was also new is that he did not attempt to keep everything in the Hebrew Scriptures as relevant and sidestepped what he saw as unhelpful. Like most reformers of an existing religion, Jesus was viewed as a threat.  Not much has changed in that respect.

Fundamentalism finds fertile soil in every type of religion.  Jesus was no fundamentalist.  He didn't try to make everything that appeared to be fundamental to Judaism as being foundational to Judaism. 

On the other hand, Jesus did not throw things out.  He sidestepped them. He dealt with them only if people brought them up and then would redefine their meaning as rooted in what he saw as foundational to Judaism and being essential to one's understanding of God and our relationship to each other.

Christianity, the religion that emerged from Jesus's attempt to reform and reclaim the religion that was close to his heart, has followed the same problem he was trying to get away from; the cumbersome rules and regulations that divide us and prevent personal and communal growth; that encumber access to our common creator, our father (to use Jesus terminology) for God.

Christianity has become weighted down by its institutional structures and is finding it difficult to help its adherents adapt to a changing world.  Frankly, it is sinking in a world of new information about who we are and the universe we live in.  It is finding it difficult, if not incapable, of throwing things overboard in order to keep things afloat and sail on the winds that are driving our times. It is time to revisit who Jesus is and what God is about.

WHAT'S THE POINT?

After eighteen hundred years of indoctrination and orthodox dogma, is there any hope that things can be turned around?

Yes.

When we see a lessening or decline in something, there is a chance for new growth.  Decline does not mean defeat or an end, but rather it can provide a time of flexibility and reflection.  Personally, I see a need for Christianity to get things right and set things right because the world needs to enact what Jesus taught and to emulate what Jesus practiced during his time on earth.

I can only hope and pray that the Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being, God, uses this relatively obscure blog of mine in a creative process that results in a true reformation of the followers of Jesus and offers a connection between the innumerable people who love God and recognize God's love for them.  I undoubtedly will end up saying things that will be viewed as heresy by some and mindless rambling by others.  I can only beg forgiveness on both accounts and ask that you bear with me.

In what is likely to be several post, I wish to convey that a true reformation is about seeking and embracing what is true about God and, for Christians, what is true about Jesus.  I also wish to convey that a true reformation is about entering into a kenotic act; of a willingness to let go of long held beliefs that profit no one or fails to bring anyone closer to God.  A true reformation is about allowing God's creativity to shape our hearts and minds.

What I am talking about is sifting through roughly eighteen hundred years or more of Christian theology, some of which I will undoubtedly ignore and some I will sided-step.  Ironically, perhaps the best way to start sifting through things is by injecting new ideas in order to flush out old ones.  Here too I am mindful that what I'm injecting as new may, in fact, be ideas that have been around for centuries which, in the light of more information about ourselves and our universe have taken on greater luster.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

WAKING UP - A Homily

As we are at the advent of a New Year, I want to share the last homily I gave in 2019.  It was written as a New Year's homily for the  new Church Year, but it applies to any new year.  This homily was delivered at Christ Episcopal Church, Yankton, South Dakota on December 1, 2019

WAKING UP

+ In the Name of our loving and life-giving God +

“Wachet auf, ruft uns die stimme…” is the clarion call of our first hymn in its original German language.

Waking up is the perennial theme associated with the first Sunday of Advent, the beginning of a new Church Year. Equally perennial is that the scripture readings at the end of a church year and the beginning of a church year focus on the continuum of end times as beginning times, as an eschatological bridge completing the old in the new.

Although the end times are the focus of these readings, they ride on a rail of the present.  When Jesus talks about the end times, it is usually in response to someone’s question about knowing when such things will happen or when he sees his disciple being distracted by the wonders of the Temple, the context in which this morning’s second lesson from the Gospel of Matthew is set.

When the Gospels were written, the early Christians were expecting the Second Coming of Christ to happen in their lifetimes.  Before today’s reading from Matthew, Jesus says, “Truly, I tell you.  This generation shall not pass, till all things are fulfilled.” [1]  Jesus goes on to say, however, “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”[2]  When reading all the accounts of Jesus talking about the end times in the Gospels, it becomes clear that Jesus uses the end times to awaken us to what we’re doing right now, today.

Two thousand years have passed since these scriptures were written and for two thousand years the call to awaken has not diminished in the context of the times of each and every successive generation.  While some today continue to focus on getting ready to jump this planet at the first sign of Christ’s Second Coming, Paul pulls us back from that theological cliff.

In our first reading, the apostle Paul picks up this theme of paying attention to the here and now: “…it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep …the night is far gone, the day is near.”[3]  We are always living in this cusp of completion, “…the night (the time for sleep) is far gone, the day is near.  Now (the present) is the moment to wake from sleep.”

One might ask, “What is this wakeup call all about?  Do we really need one?” 

Perhaps the best way to answer those questions is to personally and sincerely ask ourselves what we find difficult to open our eyes to.  Jesus addresses such questions by causing us to take a deeper look at our daily lives in the dawning light of the nearing day.

Jesus literally goes on a two chapter tirade about the end times in the Gospel of Matthew when his disciples go dreamy eyed on him about all the glittering, man-made wonders of the Temple. Within Jesus’s non-stop discourse is included not only today’s reading, but also the parable of the “Wise and Foolish Virgins,” about staying awake because the Son of Man, the Bridegroom comes when least expected, in the dead of night.[4]   It includes the parable of the “Talents,” the coins the head of a household gives his servants while he’s away and returns to find two of the three servants used them to make a profit for the head of the household, but one buried the one coin he was given; doing nothing with it, leading him to cursed and cast out;[5] a reminder that there is never a time for apathy, as there will be work to be done until the very end.

Jesus’s discourse ends by bringing his disciples back to the present time and how we treat one another.  He does this by ending with the Day of Judgment; with the story how the Son of Man as the King of Glory will divide the sheep from the goats.  He ends by telling that those considered the sheep are the ones who fed the King when he was hungry, clothed him when he was naked, visited him when he was in prison and because of such deeds, they will inherit his kingdom.  He ends by telling that, in their sheepish state of surprise at inheriting the kingdom, the sheep ask the King, “But when did we do these things,” to which the King replies, “When you did these things to least of my brothers and sisters, you did it to me.”[6]

What really demonstrates how asleep we are, is the consistent dismissing the needs of others as their problem, not ours.  What really can bore us into a coma-like slumber are the judgmental and polarizing efforts that plague us today; where we are being led to perceive some as clear winners and others as clear losers. 

Advent, this new Church Year [this New Year 2020], begins with its perennial wake-up call; a call to becoming what God has always intended us to be, his children; to live into being just that, as Jesus did with eyes wide open to the present. 

Advent is a prophetic season.  It is a season to get us to look at today and see things for what they are and what they are not.  It is a season to let go of the past, the darkness of the night long gone. It is a season to awaken to the hope of a dawning day. It is a season to watch faithfully for the light of the nearing day.  Above all, Advent is a season to allow the ever present love of God to embrace us in the soon to be born in us.[7]

Let us pray:

Most gracious and loving Father, awaken us to the light of the nearing day, and grant us the courage to let go of the day long past, that in this time of becoming we may serve you faithfully in service towards others through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen

* * * * * * * * * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

---

[1] Matthew 24:34

[2] Matthew 24:36

[3] Romans 13:11b&12b

[4] See Matthew 25:1-13

[5] See Matthew 25:14-30

[6] See Matthew 25:31-40

[7] The concept inspired by the hymn, “O Little Town of Bethlehem” by Phillip Brooks and the line “…cast out our sin and enter in, be born in us today.”

LIVING GRATEFULLY - A Homily

At the end of 2019, I am posting two homilies I gave during the close of the Church Year that centered around the theme of thanksgiving. This homily was presented at Christ Episcopal Church, Yankton, South Dakota on November 10, 2019.

LIVING GRATEFULLY

+ In the Name of our gracious and loving God +

One of the legacies Fr. Jim Pearson established for our church family was to use the short period between All Saints Day and the First Sunday of Advent as a season of Thanksgiving.  In keeping with that legacy I invite us to reflect on what it means to live a life of gratitude as the deepest expression of our faith, hope, and love in God.

Like so many things in life, developing a life of gratitude begins at home.  So this morning I give thanks to God for my wife, Kathy; for the love that binds us together, for her love that sustains me, that keeps me in check, and in so many ways has shaped me to be the person I am.  I am grateful for our children, our daughters Andrea and Elizabeth, who bring us much joy.

Gratitude is an essential feature of a healthy home environment, and it is also an essential feature of a healthy church environment.  And like a family, we don’t get to choose who becomes a member of it.  As Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, “We must always give thanks to God for you brothers and sister beloved by the Lord, because God chose you…”[1]    God has chosen all of us because God has created all of us.  Like Paul, we are to be grateful to God for those who come through our church doors and into our lives; seeing them and treating them as a gift from God.

It is easy for me to be grateful for this congregation and grateful to it; for the opportunity to serve as your organist and to be able to stand here this morning and deliver this homily.  I thank God for all of you, who by your very presence here today is a service to all who are here because all of you, in your own and various ways, are gifted by God to contribute to the overall ministry of spreading the Gospel of Christ in your daily lives.  

Living life in gratitude readily dismisses the attitude of taking anyone or anything for granted.  Living life in gratitude requires a dogged determination to seek and to find the goodness inherent in all of God’s creation; including those who would treat us badly and those who might be considered an enemy, as we heard in last’s week’s Gospel.[2]  That type of gratitude and grateful living always seems to be in short supply.

When we think about giving thanks, it is helpful to keep in mind that throughout our nation’s history this practice; this dogged type of giving thanks has been woven into our nation’s fabric through various proclamations from the time of the pilgrims to during and after the Revolutionary War until Thanksgiving was proclaimed a Federal holiday by President Lincoln in 1863; a time when our nation faced its greatest existential threat, the Civil war; a time when there seemed so little to be thankful for.

It is against the backdrop of uncertain times that giving thanks as a nation has always been juxtaposed.  It is against the backdrop of uncertain times that our forefathers and foremothers remind us that we are completely reliant on the blessings of a benevolent and loving God; that gratitude is to be woven into all our endeavors to help create a better world for ourselves and our posterity.

  

It is against such backdrops that giving thanks becomes more than a momentary nod of appreciation; that living thankfully is to be a persistent attitude that we, as individuals, as a community of faith, and as a nation aspire to carry with us at all times; for it is in thankful living that we are enabled to see and to seize the opportunities in which to exercise gratitude as kindness and to pay forward the benevolence of God without exception or expectation of a return in kind.

And grateful living begins with me, it begins with you, it begins in our homes, and it begins in our church home because gratefulness cannot be mandated by proclamation or law but must come from the truly grateful hearts of each and every one of us.  So this morning I ask that we express our gratitude for each other as we share the peace of Christ with one another (something you’re good at doing very well) because there is no peace without gratitude.

In closing, I want to share a prayer with you that I have used at family gatherings on Thanksgiving.  I found this handwritten prayer in the back of a book of poetry belonging to Kathy’s great aunt, Esther Taskerud. 

Aunt Esther was a remarkable woman born and raised in this state, ahead of her time, a trailblazer, and a pioneer in establishing 4-H programs in her adopted state of Oregon and serving for a time as a trustee for the National 4-H foundation.  Esther eventually became the Director of the Home Economics Extension Program at Oregon State University; a person I was blessed with getting to know and a person who knew the value of living a life in gratitude.

This is her handwritten prayer.  Let us pray:

Eternal and ever loving Father, we remember before Thee, the weaknesses and sins which so easily betray us in the relationships of the home; but we remember also in gratitude the depth of Thy mercy and the renewing power of the forgiveness which is born of love.

We would be strengthened by Thee that Thy desires for our homes may have fulfillment, that the richness of Thy love may find expression in us and in our children.

We dedicate to Thee the homes which Thou hast blessed us:

                Our daily life in those homes;

                Our words and deeds;

                Our hopes and aspirations;

                Our hearts and wills;

Beseeching Thee to transform them with the touch of Thy divine power, and to bring them into harmony with Thy will. Amen.

               

* * * * * * * * * * 

 Until next time, stay faithful.  

Norm

---

[1] 2 Thessalonians 2:13

[2] See Luke 6:27

THE CONSERVATION OF SOUL

In my previous post, I reflected on spirit being an essential element of life from a theological perspective. In this post, I want to reflect on spirit from a more scientific perspective.  To be upfront, I am no scientist in any sense of the word, but science in all its various disciplines intrigues me because in my opinion they validate the wisdom found in so many of our ancient scriptures.

I think any difficulty in the discourse between science and theism resides in the focus of what science and theism are trying to explain and the language used to explain it.  Science is detailed orientated, using the language of math and scientific symbol to seek specific answers to the what, where, and how of things and establishing rational formulas (laws) based on fact to render them applicable.  On the other hand, various forms of theism are primarily geared to answer one question, the why of human existence and human experience; the answers to which are expressed in various forms of sacred scriptures which are then distilled into religions doctrines or teachings.

Where religion and science meet, in my opinion, is in the rare speculative fields of science known as theoretical math and physics.  Speculation is the junction where theory and theology meet; the gray area of uncertainty, the realm of possibility that borders probability.  The fact that theory and theology share the same Greek word for God as their root is serendipitous if not by design.  Both explore the fundamental ontological questions regarding our existence and both find themselves wrapped in an enigma.

Where science seems to have the advantage in this exploration of said enigma is in its acceptance that it does not know everything; that it is okay in dealing with uncertainty because obtaining certainty is a perennial challenge; a sought after but unattainable goal, because for every question answered, new questions arise.  Christian theology, on the other hand and in particular, has been slow in accepting the importance of uncertainty, but it is changing and even though Paul was there long before others started pouring concrete on their theologies, Christian theologians are starting to embrace the idea that uncertainty provides greater flexibility to our understanding of existence and human experience than an unquestionable certainty.  [See 1 Corinthians 13:12]

In my last post, I identified spirit as the essential element of life as we know it; that spirit bonds with  necessary physical elements to create a living being, as in a human being.  Accordingly, I speculated when a person dies, the physical breaks down to its chemical elements and the spirit/animating element returns to its source, the Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being, God which I described in other posts as a nominal/pronominal verb. [See Acts 17:28]

In my last post, I suggested that in the resurrection story of Jesus there occurred an inverse of the incarnation; that the resurrection was not a physical resuscitation of the incarnated Word, but rather the creation of a new spiritual being that enveloped (carried with it) the human experience of Jesus as the resurrected Christ. [See 1 Corinthians 15:42-49]  Given this speculative view, the question becomes how does this relate to theoretical physics.

At a very fundamental level if we were to take the language of theism and science and find equivalent terms applicable to both, one might better understand the link that exists between the two. The language of theism divides the components of being as we experience it into two general categories, the physical and the spirited.  Science divides the components of being into two general categories also, matter and energy which roughly correlate to the notion of the physical and spirit. What fascinates me with these equivalencies is that science has two laws governing matter and energy; namely, the Conservation of Matter and the Conservation of Energy, which roughly states that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated environment and, likewise, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Theisms also support this concept in terms of the physical and spirit.

When researching these laws, a word associated with both when combined in a "happening" was referred to as "soul" as the durable part of such a happening.  I'm not clear on what "happening" and "durable" mean in a strictly scientific context, but that the term soul appeared in the context of a discussion of these laws resonates with where I was headed in this post.  Although I found nothing to explain the term "soul" as it relates to the Conservation of Matter, it serves as the juncture in which science and theism meet; the durable part of being that comes from these two uncreated and indestructible sources in an act of creation, scientifically understood as a happening in which something becomes existent.

I believe it was the 18th century chemist, Antoine Lavoisier who concluded that given the Conservation of Matter, the universe, being a macro-isolated environment unto itself, must have a constant weight; that whatever is happening in the universe does not change the weight of the universe no matter how much it expands or contracts; as such, its incalculable weight necessarily was present in the singularity that gave way to the universe before its realization.  The same rationale also be applies to energy; that energy is a constant that never diminishes, that it too was present the moment the universe exploded into being.

What we experience as something new emerging is, theoretically speaking, something constantly being recreated from uncreated and indestructible sources; a view consistent with an understanding of God in Abrahamic theisms, as a God who does not slumber or sleep but is constantly recreating all things because all things are not in essence changed on an elemental level, but are being  recreated by an uncreated and indestructible constant expressed as God. [See Psalm 121;3 and Isaiah 65:17-18]

In common usage, soul and spirit are treated as synonymous terms, but used here, they are not.[See 1Thessalonians 5;23]  Soul is what happens when matter is infused with energy to become an entity in the universe or, theistically speaking, when physical elements are infused with spirit to become a living soul.  Both science and theism see the soul as the durable part of an existent being.  This is demonstrable in the macrocosmic universe.  Stars and galaxies are made up of light and matter of various types.  When stars die and galaxies are sucked into dark holes, their presence endures as an energy that can be seen by the naked human eye (with the help of telescopes), centuries and millennia after their real time disappearance.

Light and energy travels with the imprint of the matter it infused. It's ending is only comprehended in our time when, over time, this energy completely passes us by.  The imprint will continue as long as the universe exists and will collapse into a singularity when it doesn't, but the weight and energy of its presence never goes away.

On the microcosmic level, one can speculate that the creative happening of The Big Bang continues to resonate at the most fundamental subatomic levels; a view indicated in what is known at Chaos Theory. This broad theory suggests the existence of an extremely fluid, nonlinear cause and effect relationship between things and events that has no distinct pattern, but when applied in particle physics suggests that at an infinitesimal small level, discernable only as theory, the fluid state of the universe's origins continues to reside in everything that exists in the macrocosmic universe.  This is a speculative hypothesis that can be distilled from theory and to some extent from theology [See Genesis 1:1-2].

Bringing all of this back to a theological application, the human being is a result of an ongoing creative process at the most fundamental level which is not discernible without the aid of speculative  theory and, in this case, speculative theology.  Once again, the difference between these two disciplines is in how they work and what they work with.

Science is fact based.  It's laws are based on facts that can prove how things occur and its theories are based on formulae that is derived on factual knowledge that allows one to speculate on the possibility how things work. Theology is more ancient than science and less concerned with fact and more concerned with truth as it relates to the human experience.  Theology is a rational approach to knowledge largely obtained through intuition and speculation garnered from experience.

This intuitive approach, however, is not dismissed or displaced by a pure scientific approach to what it means to be human.  This being said does not dismiss the fact that science is far superior in identifying and addressing many of the current problems we humans face, but rather there are other things at play in the human experience that are better viewed from a sense of faith and intuition.

What we do and what happens to us has a durable effect on ourselves and the universe. That this durability of experience, the soul, will continue after our this current existence ends is within the realm of possibilities that border probability.  The physical returns to its elemental nature, and the spirit to the source of all being. Death is nothing more than the cessation of the current. Time has no meaning to God. Time is only an intuitive device derived from human experience to measure the decay of the things we experience. The soul, theologically and theoretically, becomes recreated as a new spiritual creation imprinted with the experience of the current and is ever-present in that Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being. [See Luke 20:38]

Admittedly, all of this is highly speculative, but such speculation sparks the imagination as to its possible applications.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

COMMENDING ONE'S SPIRIT

Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Having said this, he breathed his last.  Luke 23:46

* * * * * * * * * *

I find the most intriguing story about Jesus is the passion story, the final days of Jesus' physical life on this planet. Of all the other things in the New Testament that are said about Jesus, the story of his suffering and death affirms Jesus being one of us, a human being.  Human beings die and so did Jesus.  

Jesus saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" is only found in the Gospel of Luke.   The Gospels of Matthew and Mark merely say that the at end of Jesus life he cried with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. This final crying out is given meaning in Luke, and Luke's account is what has stuck with me because it offers a possible explanation to what occurs at the moment of one's death.

THE EXPERIENCE OF SPIRIT

As a faith-based agnostic, I make no presumptions about will happen when we die.  I can only speculate, at best.  My faith in God (that Being in which we live and move and have our being) is not based on what will happen when I die, my faith in God is based on the experience of God in the present. 

Any thoughts I entertain about an afterlife is simply based on this present life which, in my opinion,  suggests the probability of there being more to existence than the physical life I am currently experiencing.  What also suggests this probability comes from my personal observation of people who have just died prior to any cosmetic make-over by a mortician.  

The one thing that strikes me about someone who has just died is the overwhelming sense of absence; as in, the lights are out and nobody is home.  It's this absence of being that brings into question what happened to the life, the energy, that animated this person's physical body at the moment of death.

We tend to treat life as a purely physical phenomenon, that begins at conception and ends at death, but is that accurate?  On a purely observational level it would appear to be, but the human experience lends itself to understand there is more to being alive than merely being an animated physical presence.  Spirit is the driving force, the energy, the marker that identifies all living matter, including the entire universe.

We do not see spirit; however, we experience its presence and it's absence.  It is experience that suggests there is more to the universe, more to the animated physical world than the physical eye can observe.  The concept of spirit is frequently related to the personal experience of an acquired feeling.

Feeling, as used here, is the inner experience we obtain through our physical senses; in that, what we see, touch, smell, taste and hear result in forming an immediate inner feeling (good, bad, pleasant, unpleasant, etc.) about those sensations, and I would also add that our inner thoughts and inner conversations result in acquiring feelings.  It is those feelings that result in and define our experiences, and it is our experiences that stick with us and shape who we are. It is experience that gives credence to the concept of spirit.

It is the moment of both conception and death that the rational mind struggles with the notion of one's ability to experience as a necessary component of existence.   Is conception and death, strictly speaking, experiential on the part of the person conceived or dead or are they merely experiential on the part of an observer; as in the case of conception, the woman who becomes impregnated or in the case of the deceased, the deceased's family and friends?

Was there a me before the me I am?  Will there be a me after I die?  Is there something that is essentially me or does my existence present a current expression of a fundamental, over-arching existential essence?

To such questions, I can provide no answers beyond the speculative. Instead, I will turn to theology which will not answer these questions, but may give clarity and definition in asking them.

THE SPIRITUAL ESSENCE OF CREATION

The theological proposition presented in the Gospel of John as the Word, the creative utterance, that brought the universe as the essential nature of Jesus is suggestive.  Because if this is true about Jesus, then it must be true of us also, because according to the biblical scriptures, we are necessarily the result of this same creative utterance.

The first chapter of John is a summary rewrite of the creation story found in the first chapters of Genesis in which all creation comes into being through the Word.  The difficulty with the Gospel of John is that it attempts to make Jesus the one and only incarnated being, a view that is inconsistent with the creation of humankind described in Genesis and with Luke 3:38, "... Adam which was the son of God."

Genesis presents a broader view of the spirit or wind of God as the creative force that brought about the universe.  In another post, I suggested and described this spiritual force as the desire to be; that in essence the singularity that became the universe was spirited, activated, animated, released with spirit to take shape; to experience and be experienced.

I defined creation as a kenotic act in which that "Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being," commonly known as God,  is constantly expending "being" in order to expand "being."  It seems to me that this expanding while expending trait of God is imprinted on all that God creates, including us.

As such, when Jesus cried out with his last breath it was his final kenotic act on earth; a complete emptying of his binary self as God incarnate.   In Luke's account of this moment, Jesus commends his spirit, his essential self to that Self we all embody; the creative breath, wind, and spirit of the living and life-giving God.  If this is true, then the resurrection seems possible, if not probable.

THE PROBABILITY OF RESURRECTION

The apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Church at Corinth writes:

"There are celestial (spiritual) bodies and bodies terrestrial (physical); but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.  So also is the resurrection...  It (the physical body) is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body, and there is a spiritual body.  And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul (incarnated spirit); the last Adam was made a quickening (life -giving) spirit.  [1Corintians 15: 40, 42a, and 45 - KJV]

Paul presents a dichotomous understanding of creation; as there being two separate types of created beings; one physical (by nature thoroughly corrupt) and one spiritual (by nature incorruptible).  In this sense, Paul seemingly dismisses, as being dichotomous, the binary elements of the "natural" human as being.  A view that is in contrast with the first and second chapters of  Genesis and the first chapter of the Gospel of John:

In the first and second chapters of Genesis we find:

" So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [Genesis 1:27 KJV] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (an incarnate spirit). [Genesis 2:7 KJV]

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John we find:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  And the Word was made flesh... . [John 1:1-2, 14a KJV]

The point is that Genesis and the Gospel of John present creation as being a paradox that one can identify as binary unification; the combination of a necessary (physical) and essential (spiritual) element in order to bring about the living creatures we currently are, the present us.

What these various scriptures suggest to me is that at the moment death is realized, the physical element remains in the present to be absorbed back (decay) to its original elemental states, while the essential element of one's being, the breath, the wind, the spirit that animates the entirety of the universe returns to its essential form, God.

One can deduce from this theological premise that the resurrection of Jesus is the prototype of a new creation; the "last Adam, is the converse of the first Adam, but instead of bearing the incarnated image (the essence) of God, the resurrected Jesus is a new spiritual creation; the essence of God bearing the experience of humanity.

At best, I can only present this as pure theological speculation, but I am intrigued by its implications.
As a person in the present and a person of faith, I can only hope that at the end of this terrestrial journey I will say with Jesus, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

* * * * * * * * * * 

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI - Inwardly Digesting Holy Scriptures - A Homily

This homily was delivered by this blogger on Sunday, October 20, 2019 at Christ Episcopal Church in Yankton, South Dakota.

* * * * * * * * * *

Let us pray:  Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."
("The Book of Common Prayer," The Church Hymnal Corporation, New York. Pg. 236)

This collect (prayer) will be the Collect of the Day on Sunday, November 17th.  It immediately came to mind while I was reading through the lessons for today; in particular, Paul's second letter to Timothy:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." [2 Timothy3:16]  

Why this collect came to mind is that it is something I remember from my late childhood when, as a Lutheran, I found it fascinating that you could digest Scripture.  Being taught at that time that the Bible had to be taken literally word for word, my imagination went wild thinking about tearing pages from the bible and literally eating them, as God instructed some of the prophets to do. [See Ezekiel 3:1-3].  Fortunately, since that time, I have gained a deeper appreciation for metaphor, and this morning I invite us to briefly consider what it means, metaphorically, to inwardly digest "all holy Scriptures."

What makes the Holy Bible unique amongst the religious literature found in the world is that it is a collection of very diverse writing and literary styles that roughly spans nine centuries; from the late eighth century BCE to the beginning of the second century CE.

For me, the bible is a study, in itself, of the ever-evolving relationship between humankind and God.  Inwardly digesting holy Scriptures becomes vital to a healthy spiritual life, and our understanding who we are and whose we are; regardless of one's race, gender and gender identity, or where one is coming from culturally, economically, and ideologically.  Furthermore, these scriptures teach us that in the God who created the diversity we see in all creation, the diversity we represent, all are one.  As the psalmist reminds us, "The river clap their hands with us, and mountains shout for joy with us." [See Psalm 98]

This collect teaches us how to approach these scriptures and get to the point of inwardly digesting them; that we need to hear them, read them, mark them, and learn them.

HEAR

At the time when this collect was written, most people could not read.  They had to listen to the scriptures being read to them by a priest or lector.  The advantage of having to hear something being read is that it forces one to pay attention to what is being spoken.  Today we use inserts of the lessons to help those of us who can't hear well in following along, but if you can, try setting them aside and just listen to the lector read the lessons for the day.  Hearing them read can make them feel current and fresh.

READ

Reading scripture as a personal endeavor takes hearing the scriptures to a deeper level of apprehension.  Reading allows one to pause, to think about what one is reading and ponder its meanings.  Holy scriptures are not meant to be an exercise in speed-reading.  We need to remember that those who wrote these scriptures were deliberate and economic in what the wrote and how they wrote; often choosing words that created layers of meaning.  As such, one cannot grasp the richness of these scriptures by taking them literally; in the sense that every printed word comes from the mouth of God, but rather understanding that God speaks to the reader and listener through these scriptures in the context in which live - in the present.

I find the best approach to reading any scripture is to read it literarily and critically, as literature, in order to understand the type of literature one is reading and get into its flow.  Reading scripture as any other form of literature frees the mind to question what is being read.  Questions are an important part of the digestive process, as they result in a hunger for fulfillment and resolution.

MARK

As one chews one's way through the scriptures, one's taste for it will expand.  One will find much that is appealing; much that make one feel full of assurance, comfort, peace, joy hope, faith and love.  Those are the things one needs to mark; to take note of and keep filed in one's heart because they will come in handy in times of need and in times of healing.

One will undoubtedly run into things that are hard to chew; things that can make one feel uncomfortable, question one's self, and one's motives, or Paul said to Timothy that serve as a reproof or a correction to set one straight.  These are things one also needs to mark and take to heart.

You don't have to agree with or like everything you hear or read in these scriptures.  In fact, Jesus didn't agree with everything that was written in the scriptures.  One of the lines Jesus used which establishes this fact is "You have heard it said... but I say..."; such as, "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye...  but I say turn the other cheek" or "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbors and hate your enemies,' but I say love your enemies." [See Matthew 5:38-43, Exodus 21:23-24, and Deuteronomy 19:21]  Jesus isn't talking about hearsay or gossip, he's talking about something that is found in the Holy Bible or that can be derived four it.  Jesus was taking issue with what is found in our scriptures.

LEARN

All scripture is written for our learning, and by learning is meant that we are to take what we hear, take what we read, take what we find nourishing and instructive and apply it.  The greatest way to to learn is to utilize what we have been taught.  As the saying goes, "If you don't use it, you lose it."

If one wants to know how to build something or bake a cake, one can read every instruction manual and every recipe book there is, memorize the instruction, the right material an, the right ingredients, the right measurements, and the right baking time, but unless one actually puts that knowledge to use, one will not have learned anything except a bunch of word about to put something together or how to bake a cake, but you won't end up with something useful or end up having a cake to eat. Holy scriptures serve as a guide to living a righteous life, and being proficient in all good works.

DIGEST

If we hear, read, mark, and learn from the scriptures we read, we will digest them.  They will become part of who are just as the food we eat becomes a part of who we are.

How can we tell if we've digested scripture?

Again, metaphorically speaking, we will find ourselves belching it up from time to time; that it bubbles up and comes to mind when something triggers its emergence.  If one is not belching scripture from time to time, one may be spiritually malnourished and need to take more of it in.

Holy scriptures are not only inspired and inspiring, they're refreshingly honest about the relationship we have with each other in the light of our relationship with a loving and faithful God.  When I read scripture, I study it, I struggle with it, and at times I spend a good amount of time arguing with it; trying to figure it out, and I come away with a sense of gratitude, joy, and being loved.

One of the purposes of a church is to afford the members of its congregation and the members of the community which that church resides the opportunity to dig into the scriptures beyond a short Sunday morning homily.  There is joy to be found in sharing a mutual feast on the smorgasbord of the holy scriptures together.

If you haven't spent time with our Bible, I encourage you to find some time with it and then take your time because it will feed you spiritually and embrace you everlastingly.

Amen.

* * * * * * * * * *

Until next time, stay faithful.