IS THIS THE END ... OF MARRIAGE?

Today marks a historic occasion.  The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against upholding the ability of states to ban same-sex marriages based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  This amendment prohibits states from denying individuals equal protection under law.  I am not going to weigh in on how the justices will act, nor will I offer pointless advice on how they should act.  Whatever their decision, this topic will not go away any time soon.

Religion and politics are very much in a state of matrimony with each other and have been for some time.  A true divorce of the two has never occurred in this country.  As I have pointed out in other posts, human beings are both political and religious animals.  Those of you who have read my post on "Senseless Sex in the Bible" have rightfully ascertained that I am no social conservative.

THE ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN KERFUFFLE

At first I was baffled by the kerfuffle being made by social conservatives who tried to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman in order to prevent two people of the same sex entering into a legal sanctioned relationship, which for all practical purposes seemed to be the socially responsible thing to do.   I considered that attempt and the more recent attempts at state levels completely unnecessary.  Something in the move to define marriage intuitively struck me as threatening religious freedom in this country.  

Religious freedom and the right to think freely is being placed at risk by those who want to define  and protect religious freedom.

I must admit that when the issue of same-sex marriage first became a controversy, I was mildly intrigued by same-sex couples wanting to marry.  I was never against same sex marriage, but I didn't fully appreciate or had given much thought, at the time, to how marriage would be beneficial in their case.

Being in a committed, legal marriage for a number of years I didn't have to think about the  legal ramifications of being married.  I had taken them for granted.  What the same-sex marriage issue brought to the forefront for me is how important being responsible for the wellbeing and happiness of the person one loves truly is. 

The fact is I don't have to think about being responsible for the wellbeing and happiness of my wife nor does my wife have to think about being responsible for my wellbeing and happiness because we're married.  It's a given.  If we weren't married and I wanted her to have any legal say or rights to myself and my property, she and I would have to engage in all sorts of legal undertakings to do so. Marriage automatically confers those rights and responsibilities to both of us and therein is the essence of this controversy.

MARRIAGE

To have responsibilities to and for the person you love and to have that person in return love and be responsible to and for you is the ultimate perk of marriage.

A mutual loving and responsible relationship between two individuals is the definition of marriage, or it should be. 

Marriage is not about sexual orientation.  For an individual to say to two people who deeply love each other and want to care for each other, "You can love each other, but you can't have a legal responsibilities towards each other because of your sexual orientation" is cruel and inhuman and stems from and is a reflection of the potential for the mindless cruelty inherent in all religious belief systems.

THE FEAR OF LOSING CONTROL

I was not surprised by the ardent religious reaction by some to same-sex marriage.  One of the defining roles of religion has always been the regulation of  the masses by regulating their sexual behavior.  At the root of religious opposition to same sex marriage is the pervasive fear of losing control and influence over to its followers. 

If so, the question becomes what are they losing control of?

Protecting religious freedom by social conservatives is nothing more than a ruse to protect the marriage between politics and religion and the power base it affords both of them.  The fear is that if certain religious ideas are rendered impotent, political social conservatives will also lose a power base.  Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, this controversy will not die quickly. 

THE END OF MARRIAGE

There is a principle that Jesus taught which can apply to situations like this.  There is a sense in some of Jesus' parables that trying to save or protect things that seemingly have their own intrinsic value is a lost cause.  The parable of the servant who hid the coin his master gave him comes to mind. 

Applying that parable to this situation shows that holding tightly to the view that marriage only applies to heterosexual couples is like holding onto and hiding that one coin for dear life when the intent of the master was to invest it and to increase the value of what it represents.  So too, the effort to define marriage narrowly; to keep it pristine by insisting it be defined as one man and one woman  and thereby refusing to extend its value to same sex couples has the potential of undermining the institution of marriage itself.  In the parable, control of the coin was taken from servant, so too, the institution of marriage as the legal form of a civil union could become a thing of the past.

The perception of any social injustice in this country and in the free world has a way of motivating people to avoid situations or institutions that reflect or endorse the injustice.  If the institution of marriage is perceived as or becomes the symbol of social injustice, it could very well become the ultimate the victim in this controversy. 

When it comes to relationships, religions throughout history have stressed marital responsibility.  It's ironic that religious and social conservatives are trying to prohibit same sex couples from forming responsible, legally sanctioned relationships; that by their lack of willingness to extend the blessings and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples, they are not only undermining the institution of marriage they are seeking to protect, but also are inadvertently endorsing the very "lifestyle" they are purportedly against.

Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of same-sex marriage, social and religious conservatives will undoubtedly continue looking for other ways of depriving these couples the blessings and responsibilities of marriage, but should the court decide against same-sex marriage, the nation's demography regarding married couples will likely shift and the role of marriage may well become relegated to a religious ceremony only as a way to avoid giving it a legal definition, but in so doing marriage may well become a thing of the past.

Until next time, stay faithful

 


 



   

ETERNAL LOVE INCARNATE

It's time for an interlude.  As a church organist, I sometimes compose music and write hymns.  Here's a hymn I wrote in 2005:

Eternal Love Incarnate

 

                                   

                                                          Eternal Love incarnate

                                                          And living Word divine,

                                                          The source of every being

                                                          Born in mortal time.

 

                                                          I cannot probe the depth

                                                         Nor comprehend the height,

                                                         Nor measure the mystery

                                                         In which I find my life.

 

                                                         I see, but very dimly.

                                                         I grasp, but cannot hold

                                                        The very Truth which holds me;

                                                        The truth I long to know.

 

                                                        I seek that I may find it,

                                                        That which holds my life.

                                                        Your Truth I feel surrounds me,

                                                        The very source of light.

 

                                                        Eternal Love incarnate

                                                        And living Word divine,

                                                        Your Truth, Your Light, illumines me

                                                        Beyond the span of time.         

 

 

                    Norm Wright

                    August 12, 2005    

 

 

Until next time, stay faithful.             

 



THE BIBLE, MYTH, MYSTERY, AND THEOLOGY

THE HOLY BIBLE

The Holy Bible is an unique collection of diverse writings that contains the story of  humanity's journey with the God of Abraham.  Some of these writings are almost three thousand years old.  The Christian Bible is divided into two parts, the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) and the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).  There is, in my mind, a considerable difference between the diverse literary styles found in the Hebrew scriptures and the more thematic style found in the Christian Scriptures.  For example, the Hebrew scriptures contain stories, laws, history, wisdom literature, poetry, and prophetic writings.  All of them rich in meaning.

The New Testament's canon appears more contrived.  It too contains stories of Jesus' teaching and stories about Jesus.  It also contains letters from the apostles and prophecy, but all these writings appear carefully selected.  This became obvious with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents in 1945. The Christian world was shocked to find there existed actual writings regarding Jesus and Christianity that were thought to be destroyed and lost forever.  Prior to this discovery any information about these other writings had to be deduced from orthodox writings that denounced them as heresies.  After their discovery, it became clear that what was placed in the canon of the New Testament was done so to present a consistent orthodox understanding of Jesus as the Christ.

I do not view the Bible as the Word of God as much as I view it as words about God.  I do not treat the Bible as an idol.  I think liturgies that declare the end of a scripture reading, "The Word of the Lord," get it wrong. I realize that this has a nice liturgical ring to it, but the older and more time honored tradition of saying at the end of a reading, "Here ends the reading," gets it right. Church's should avoid saying anything that can be interpreted as stifling questions about what scripture saying.

The point of any book or collection of writings is to tell a story, provide information, and to give meaning to what it is to be human.  Fact or fiction, all writing, all literature (no matter how sacred) is the product of  human creativity, including the Holy Bible.  Having said that, the writers of these scriptures were very serious and committed to the truths they were trying to express.  Almost everything in the these writings has multiple levels of meaning.  Fundamental and literalist interpretations all but render the Holy Bible unusable.  The Bible comes alive for me when one doesn't treat it uncritically or as a self-validating resource; that is, when one questions and compares it to whatever else is out there to compare it to.  The Bible is not so much a book of answers as it is a book that invites one to mine its riches and question the theologies that have been distilled from it.

MYTH

Myth is a term Christians tend to shy away, if not, run away from.  The fact is, all religions, including Christianity have myths.  I'll go one step further and say any ideological belief system can and will foster mythic creativity.  Since we have such an aversion to the term myth, we may not always recognize it as such in our contemporary world.  The fact is mythic creativity is so obvious, that we miss it.  Consider the novels of Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Albert Camus, and Ayn Rand, for example. How about  Star Wars and Star Trek, and almost any science fiction that deals with concepts that might otherwise be above most of our heads?  Myth is a literary device that allows us to talk about and grasp abstract concepts or ideas that are better understood if explained in a story.

Not everything in the Holy Bible is a myth, but a great deal of it is.  A main criterion for identifying myth in the Holy Bible is that the story talks about phenomenon which has never been experienced or replicated in a scientifically verifiable way.  What makes this a bit challenging is that myths may have been developed around historical events, but if there is a historical element to it, any verifiable fact within the story appears secondary or even irrelevant to the story itself.  For example, we know the Red or the Reed Sea exists, that Egyptian kings where known as Pharaohs, and that slavery existed in Egypt.  What we can't verify is the Israelites walking across a divided Red Sea that should have been wet but was miraculously dried out to enable them to cross without getting bogged down while the Egyptian army foolishly chases after them down the same divided sea path and gets caught in mud and then is drowned as the sea encloses them.

Another important criterion in defining myth, is if the story has applicability. In fact, myths may have multiple applications.  The beauty of myths is that they are always current, in any age, and are multifaceted in meaning.  They can be applied to any number of circumstances.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, there are several myths: The Book of Genesis, the Book of Exodus (the ten plagues, Passover, traveling in the wilderness for forty years, etc.), the Book of Job, the Book of Ruth, the Book of Esther, the Book of Jonah to name a few.  The Hebrew scriptures are extremely powerful, and many Christians overlook their value thinking they are only included in the Christian Bible to back Christian scriptures.  The Hebrew Scriptures can stand on their own and possess their own life-giving richness apart from Christianity.

Mythic stories found within the Christian scriptures are:   The Nativity of Jesus, some, if not all, of the miracle stories of Jesus, (the Feeding of the Five/Four Thousand, Jesus walking on Water,) the Transfiguration, The Resurrection of Jesus, The Ascension of Jesus, and the story of Pentecost. The Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation contain allegorical elements but tend to be theological works rather than mythic. The epistles are all theological works.

Truths in mythic usage are not facts and do not explain why something occurred or how it happened. Truths in mythic form serve as markers to help us identify our experiences.  Mythic truths are not always blatantly apparent. Sometimes they have to be extruded.    For example, the Book of Genesis, which, in my opinion, is most important and influential book in the Bible, contains the creation myths.  The creation myths are so rich in meaning and application that whole books have been written on what they mean.  Those who have turned this story into a one time, historical event that is about the root of all the problems we human face, totally miss the value and richness contained in them.

To demonstrate this let me provide a very short excursion into the mythic applications of the Creation Myth:

* * * * * * *



The Creation Myth is a universal story that applies to all people. It tells us that people of every race and background are spiritual and physical manifestations on this small outpost of the universe of the very creative source of all life in the universe.  It tells us in poetic and thought provoking language that we are related to the stars, made of the very substance of the universe, hand-crafted by God, and breathed to life by God with the very essence of the creative forces that brought the universe into being, God. Within each of us is a microcosm of the macrocosm.  Nothing could be more intimate or meaningful than that. 

This myth teaches us the truth that we are endowed with the ability to become knowledgeable and to learn that knowledge is always dualistic and yet made of the same fabric. To know life is to know death. To know good is to know evil. To know joy is to know sorrow   Education always comes at a price.

Undoubtedly, God wanted us to choose knowledge, to know God and to know that in choosing knowledge it would come at a price, dualism: "The day that you eat of it (the forbidden fruit of knowledge) you shall surely die."  What did that even mean to someone who never experienced death?  Why did God warn Adam and Eve?  God could have left them ignorant of the fact there was a tree of knowledge.  God could have removed the tree of Knowledge, like God did the Tree of Life, but God didn't.  Adam and Eve were enticed through God's own permissive warning to let them experience temptation they did not know how to resist.  Now we do.  There is so much meaning here. 

In my opinion, the creation myths are not a sad story. It is not about original sin, it is about liberating the human mind to comprehend our actions and to feely and willfully love God in spite of what we know. They are a beautifully rendered and thoughtful stories about who we are in so many ways, and they affirm both the goodness and the divine nature in being human along with the challenges we will always face.  It describes the loving nature of God who "walks" with us and who lets us choose our course, but who is there to guide and shape us along the way. When God sends Adam and Eve out of the garden, it is loving act.  God sent us knowledgeable creatures into life to experience it and to become increasingly knowledgeable.  This story is not history.  It is not science.  It is far deeper than all of those.  This story is a myth, and, as all myths do, it is applicable to any number of personal and communal experiences.  It has held true throughout the centuries and continues to hold true today.  If all that remained of the Bible were the first four chapters of Genesis, we could deduce that God is love.

* * * * * * *

MYSTERY

When I talk about religion, I like to stay away from the term, mystery.  It's not that I'm against there being mystery or feel that "mystery" is a bad word.   Mystery abounds.  What I try to avoid is using the term to describe something as being totally beyond our comprehension and understanding, as if to say, "Don't bother. You can't get it.  Be content.  Let mystery be mysterious."  "Mystery" should not become a road sign saying, "Dead End - No Outlet."

Does that mean, that I can know and understand everything? 

Obviously, not.  I don't understand and know a great many things.  After all, I claim agnosticism by virtue of the fact that I don't know much of anything with certainty. 

What I mean by not letting mystery become a dead end is that mystery should invite us to explore and probe its meaning, and above all to question what is termed mysterious.

In Christianity, for example, mystery sometimes is applied to transcendent concepts, like "the Body of Christ." I understand it as an invitation for me to think and ponder the meaning of that concept.  At other times mystery is applied dogmatically, as something that cannot  or "should not" be question, as in the phrase "The Mystery of Faith: - Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again."  I find it interesting that this phrase has become part of the Eucharist liturgy in many mainline churches.  It seems to me to be an attempt to ferret out those who would question it as giving them pause to think twice before participating in the Eucharist.  Although I can probe the meanings of faith's mystery, that phrase in Eucharistic liturgy is not so much used to describe a mystery as it is used as an article of faith that one has to believe in order to be considered worthy of the Eucharistic table.  Everything defined as mystical or mysterious, should be questioned and probed.  Mystery should always be seen as an invitation to explore, not a dead end or a keep out sign.

THEOLOGY

Anything written about God and our relationship with God is automatically a work of theology.  As a whole, the Bible can be considered a theological work in itself.  There are, however, parts of the Bible that are pointedly more theological than others.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, theology is clothed in the stories found there.  Theology is not always straightforward in the Hebrew Scriptures, but rather has to be distilled from the stories and writings found there. 

While the Hebrew scriptures contain whole books that are devoted to law, such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy and ethical perspectives, such as, Proverbs and the Prophets, there seems to be less dogmatism in the Hebrew scriptures.  In part, I suspect that given the laws and ethical literature are some 2500 years old  that they have lost the value of their original intent and literal application.  If they were to be literally applied today as when they were formulated 2500 years ago, Judaism would be seen as draconian.  The relevancy of the Hebrew Scriptures to the age and situations in which Jews found themselves throughout the centuries and find themselves in today had and continues to be distilled. 

Judaism, it seems to me, is far more limber and advanced in this type of theological application and understanding than its progeny, Christianity and Islam.   One can see in the Hebrew Scriptures the evolution of Judaism and monotheism, as a whole.  Judaism recognizes that things change and as things change, people ask questions, people take God to task, debate and argue with God, and amongst each others as to "What does this mean?"  In fact this process of theological debate is evident throughout both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, but it is honored in the Hebrew scriptures, whereas it is not in the Christian scriptures. 

The Christian scriptures were designed to be dogmatic.  Debate and questioning God or Jesus is not encouraged.  The new Testament is more contrived in order to present a consistent theology about Jesus and what it means to be a Christian.  As solid as the Christian scriptures appear, however, they too are affected by the passing of time. There are fissures in its doctrinal consistency as it too is subject to the age in which it is being applied.  It seems to me, however, that it is more difficult for Christians to question things about God and Jesus without becoming disorientated and experience a sort of spiritual vertigo.  Faith has become fact for many Christians and it is difficult to navigate through the shoals and rocks of dogma and dogmatism in what should be an open stream of theology.

The Protestant Reformation did little to change this.  In fact, I think there an argument could be made for saying the Reformation only resulted in placing more rocks in an already difficult to navigate theological stream.  For example, Luther is famous for pronouncement of his three Solas:  Sola Scriptura, (Scripture alone) Sola Fide (Faith alone), and, Sola Gratia (Grace alone) was trying to make some rock solid theological points.  This list of solas has been expanded to include Sola Christus (Christ alone) and Sola Deo Gloria  (to the glory of God alone) in the 20th Century, and the list seems to be growing.  I could simplify all of them by stating what in essence they all represent, the biggest rock of them all, Sola Doctrina (Doctrine alone).
 
There is an increasing number of writers and theologians who are trying to forge new pathways within Christianity.  This is not an easy task.  Christians are not comfortable with flexibility and open-mindedness.  It's been beaten out of us over the generations.  For centuries our ancestors have been taught to believe that, whatever their Christian tradition was, it was the right one and not to wander off track or risk damnation.  I remember my own grandmother, a devout Lutheran, who took regular exception to my questioning things by periodically and sincerely telling me for my own good to "Stick to what you have been taught."  At times I tried, but over time sticking to what I was taught led me to experiences that argued with what I was taught and which, in turn, caused me to doubt and questions what I was trying to hold on to.  In the end, I found myself prompted to find or forge new channels.

One of my reasons for writing this blog is to keep Christianity relevant, limber, and meaningful by questioning it at every turn.  I believe that Judaism has survived throughout centuries of persecution and attempts to wipe it from the face of the earth primarily because it has always been bold enough to question God and to questions itself.  As a result it has stayed limber and viable.  Christianity can learn a great deal from its parent religion.  Theologies should not be allowed to stagnate, they must be stirred afresh by constant question and debate. 

Until next time, stay faithful.





  

RESURRECTION AND TRUTH

Now that we're into the Easter Season, it's a good time to talk about the resurrection story of Jesus.  As mentioned in my post, "Getting Real about Easter" the resurrection story cannot be considered a factual event, apart from the fact that it is a story. The only way to say it is a fact, is that one must believe it to be a fact.

STAGNANT FACTS AND TRANSCENDENT TRUTHS

Believing something to be factual that cannot be proven factual is unreasonable.  My argument against treating the resurrection of Jesus as a fact is that if considered a fact, it becomes historical; if it is historical, it becomes one-time phenomenon and nothing more.  It becomes an unsolved mystery which is void of understanding and meaning. There is no such thing as a transcendent fact.  Facts are stagnant, whereas truths are transcendent.

That the resurrection story of Jesus has been given meanings argues for transcendence and it takes on the qualities of myth rather than its being a mysterious fact.  A mysterious fact is still a fact and remains stagnant.   A mythic mystery is an invitation to explore and apply its transcendent meanings without the necessity of establishing why something happened or how it happened.  What is relevant is the story itself, not whether it is factual. 

I can hear the groans of theologians saying, "But that is the whole point of the resurrection - to demonstrate that God is involved in history, in the very structure of the mystery called life; that's God's love is so strong that it has defeated death. That's why the resurrection story has to be a historical event!" 

Think about that for a moment. 

Just think.  

At what point hasn't God and God's love been in involved the mystery of human life and, by extension, human history? 

In what way does the resurrection story make that truth more evidential?

In what tangible way does believing this one story to be a historical fact demonstrate death has been defeated when people have been dying every second of every day since that event?

Just think about that while I press on to some of the truths contained in the resurrection story of Jesus. 

The truths contained in myth are perceived and treated as guiding principles in their applicability to a variety of  human conditions and experiences.  Understanding a truth's applicability is a matter of subjective perception and mental processing. 

Bear with me on this for a bit.

SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS

For example, the writers of the United States' Declaration of Independence understood the difference between truth and fact when they said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."  In other words, there was no way to verify "these truths" apart from a shared, self-evident perception, and understanding of them as guiding principles. The truths they were talking about were things like "all men are created equal..." . 

Were they talking about facts? 

No. 

There was virtually no factual evidence at the time to demonstrate that any equality, for example, existed between living human beings.  In fact, one can effectively argue today that equality is anything but factual.  That we are created equally is a principle, a truth that can be applied to a variety of human conditions and situations, but it is far from being universally accepted as fact, and there is no way to prove it factually.

Such truths remain a matter of shared perception of a transcendent idea that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were willing and eager to experiment with to see if could become realized as a guiding principle in the formation of a new nation.  In many ways, the jury is still out on that.  As such, the equality of human beings remains a truth, a guiding (living) principle, as opposed to a stagnant (dead) fact.
 
THE RESURRECTION APPLIED AND EXPERIENCED

The truths contained in resurrection myth about Jesus, and I would assume other myths like it, can be applied and experienced at a personal and communal level.  

JESUS LIVES

The story of Jesus' resurrection serves to validate his teachings; that there are some things death cannot destroy, such as truths.  One truth established in the mythic story of Jesus' resurrection is that if his teachings remain relevant and life-giving, the teacher lives on.  Jesus lives in his teachings.

For example, a truth expressed in the Bible is that where two or three are gathered in Jesus' name, he is present.  This remains true in any situation where two or more people gather together to talk about person who has passed on or is not present.  Talking about someone evokes that person's presence within our minds. The person, in mind, is present.

LETTING GO

The Passion/Resurrection story of Jesus points out that letting go of life can lead to life, that letting go of an unhealthy ego, opens a door for a better sense of being, new sense of life. It can allow one  to walk through the closed doors of bias, discrimination, and fear.   People experience this type resurrection probably more frequently than they are aware of.  Becoming detached from unproductive struggles and losing battles often allows one to move on to a new perspective of life and a new life in a very real sense as in finding a new and better job, an improved home-life, and new relationships, for example.  The resurrection story can raise one above the grim, meaningless world of fact, to the aspirational and inspirational world of truth.  The resurrection story encourages one to act and live in faith beyond belief.

MORE TO LIFE

The more common meaning that Christians, in particular, attach to this mythic story is that it hints to there being more to life than this life; that life is truly mysterious and death is nothing more than a transition from a physical manifestation to a spiritual manifestation of being.  While I can accept this as a meaning one can derive from this story, I personally remain agnostic towards it. 

It may be true and I wouldn't argue against its being a truth, but I am leery of the temptation to add meanings to a meaning that can take on moral overtones; such as, good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell after they die.

[NOTE: This is one of the problems humans have in dealing with truths.  They tend to run with them, instead of holding them lightly. Truths are only effective when they are allowed to guide and hold us. If guided and grasped tightly they become ineffective and stagnant like a fact.  Truths are fragile and can easily fragment if applied concretely.] 


PAUL - CONVERSION AS RESURRECTION

I believe my friend, the apostle Paul, understood the story of Jesus' resurrection in all of the ways described above.  For him, the truth of the resurrection was more real than any other reality in his life. In one of his more inspired moments, Paul describes, what I refer to as the three affective elements of human progress, faith, hope, and love.  Paul derives these elements from his personal resurrection experience, of letting go of what he believed was most important and what most defined his life, and allowing himself to be redefined and resurrected by his vision of the "risen Christ."  

For Paul, this experience was so great that it became the fact of his life.  At times, Paul becomes so passionate about this experience that he applies it concretely, and doing so causes him to struggle with its implications and its applications to his own life and what he saw going on around him.  Nevertheless, I feel Paul was able to catch himself at becoming this way and the result is that Paul becomes an interesting study in his own right.  Paul was able to reach beyond his concrete moments and obtain wonderful, momentary insights regarding the truths found as a result of his resurrection experience.

LIVING BY FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE

Paul's conversion is a resurrection story in its own right.  It too takes on mythic qualities in his seeing a light that blinds him to what he thought was the clear-sighted, concrete path of his ideological beliefs and it invited him - forced him (in Paul's view) to follow a path perceived by faith  rather than sight.  For Paul seeing is not believing.  For Paul believing is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.  As a result, Paul talks about a sure hope or a confident hope, but for Paul hope remains hope.  Hope never provides a given outcome but it serves to guide him along an unknown path.  For Paul, love is the strongest of the affective elements.  Love is what undergirds both faith and hope, and love is strongest when it persists against a mountain of insurmountable fact.

I am far less obsessed with the resurrection story than Paul.  After all, I did not have the same experience he did, and had I, I might have become as insistent on its importance as Paul did. At any rate, I'm more cautious about my personal experiences. This may have more to do with my age than anything else, but I realize that having my own, less than earth-shattering, epiphanic moments about the resurrection doesn't give me license to insist they have a particular meaning that other people should accept. 

I continue to learn from Paul's teachings about Jesus, but I don't feel bound to agree with him on anything, including the resurrection.  That I agree with Paul on a number of things is more intellectual than anything else.  For example, something I don't agree with is when Paul talks about some people being predestined for salvation (I'm sure he felt he was) and others not.  I find that whole notion of predestination contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

For Paul (and I believe he is correct in this) what can be extracted from the Jesus' resurrection myth are truths regarding faith, hope, and love; that if these three affective elements are permitted to play a role in one's daily routine, one can sense life being renewed and resurrected at any given time and in any given experience.  For me, this is the power of the resurrection myth and the truths it contains.

Until next time, stay faithful.




   

SENSELESS SEX IN THE BIBLE

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

 

~ Reinhold Niehbuhr ~

 

It is ironic that in this nation, where the right of an individual to be an individual was first inscribed into a constitutional bill of rights, there continues to be a struggle over affording such rights to LGBT individuals who are only seeking equal protection under law and within the framework of societal norms to marry the person they love, to establish their homes in peace, to raise their children without fear, to contribute to their communities, and to serve their nation with honor.

Promoting and preserving the human and social rights of LGBT individuals is very important to the welfare of this nation and the world.  That they are being questioned and threatened by some ultra-conservative groups and individuals within the United States on the basis of religious freedom is disturbing and has the potential of undermining the very thing they are purportedly trying to save.  I quoted Reinhold Niehbuhr's prayer, better known as the serenity prayer, because it marks a milestone in religious thought and provides us with a paradigm for how to think religiously and how to move forward. 
 

Let me be very clear from the onset of this post:

Homosexuality is not a disease, and it is not a disorder, whereas homophobia is both a social disease and mental disorder.

I know LGBT individuals who are caring, contributing, and creative people.  I have worked in mental health all my life and I can attest, first hand, how disordered homophobia is.  Homophobia is not just a mental disorder, it is a dangerous mental disorder that has resulted in the murder of people and it can spread socially.   

Since religion and, in particular, a certain understanding of Christianity is at the heart of a tragic and dangerous devolution by politicians into theology, I thought it would be good to pause and consider what exactly politicians are basing their political theology on.  So what I am offering is a quick excursion through Biblical texts upon which some are basing a right to openly to display their fear and opposition to the LGBT community in destructive ways.
 

In Western and Mideast culture the discrimination and persecution of homosexual individuals is connected to Abrahamic monotheism and its one prohibition against homosexuality.  It has taken centuries, after the rise and establishment of Abrahamic monotheism as the predominant religious perspective, for LGBT individuals in the West to gain some acceptance to live openly as such.  In fact, the social acceptance of LGBT individuals is so new that there are still laws on the books in some U.S. states that engaging in any homosexual activity is illegal. 

A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM

Discrimination against LGBT individuals is a religious problem that, thankfully, a growing number of Christian and Jewish denominations are owning and are finding, as Niehbuhr said, the courage to change their ways because there have always been homosexual people from the dawn of human existence and there always will be homosexual people.  The fact is this is not going to change. Homosexuality cannot be eradicated.  Homosexuals cannot be converted. Now that these facts are out of society's closet, it is doubtful that homosexuality can ever be suppressed back into that closet. 

As one LGBT slogan puts it, "Some people are Gay.  Get over it!" 

That the rights of gay and lesbian individuals has become connected to the issue of marriage is new, but looking at marriage in ancient societies might help us "get over " the fear that surrounds that issue.  Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a thumbnail excursion into the historical identification of the problem as associated with the rise of monotheism in the ancient kingdom of Judah. 

SEX IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

As early as the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, the wise King Solomon understood, what almost every king understood at the time, the importance of making alliances in order to protect one's kingdom.  Alliances at this time were sealed through marriage and Solomon made a lot of alliances, around 700 by the Biblical record.  With marriage comes religion. 

Solomon didn't require that his wives change their religion.  On the contrary, it was understood that in allying one's self through marriage one accepted the gods and goddesses of that partner's kingdom of origin.  The temple in Jerusalem soon became a center for polytheistic worship.  At this time, the idea of only one God was not a consideration.  Strict monotheism comes relatively late in antiquity. The Hebrew scriptures will attest to that.  Along with those religions came religious practices, many of which involved sexual rituals for the purpose of ensuring fertility of the land. The connection between agrarian fertility and sexuality goes back to prehistory.  Sexuality in all its forms became part of these rituals, including homosexuality. 

Fast forward to the reign of King Manasseh, Solomon's great, great. great... grandson, several generations later.  Manasseh was the longest reigning monarch in the Kingdom of Judah, some fifty-plus years, and by many accounts his was one of the most successful reigns.  He is particularly noted in the Book of King and Chronicles  for "re-introducing" idolatry to Judah (it was always about and around the area) after his father, the more biblically respected Hezekiah, banned it.  Manasseh was particularly devoted to and set up shrines around the countryside to the Canaanite and Phoenician goddess, Asherah and the god, Mollech.  He is reported as having fully participated in these rites, including the sacrifice of his own children.  He also erected shrines to these gods and goddesses in the Temple of Jerusalem.

Included in the Temple cult were male prostitutes presumably used for fertility rituals, but the term prostitute indicates that these male individuals were used recreationally, implying  casual sexual relations with men outside of ritual.   So when the theological concept that there is only one God, the God of Abraham, becomes firmly established in the kingdom of Judah, the Temple is purged of its idols, along with its male prostitutes.

 As monotheistic rigidity becomes the order of the day, the ability of kings to ally themselves to other kingdoms is curtailed and within a relatively short period of historical time, the kingdom of Judah falls to the Babylonians, the Temple is destroyed, and the elite of this kingdom are packed off to live in Babylonia.  What is evident, even in Hebrew scripture, is that those kings who married most and married well provided the best economic and political security for their kingdoms. 

SENSELESS SEX

So onto the topic of sex - Monotheistic scribes around this time asserted that only Yahweh is God.  They started writing down Hebrew oral tradition around the 7th century BCE  in what we have come to know as the Torah or the Books of Moses (some scholars would date some  parts much later than that).

[No - Moses did not write these books. They were ascribed to him to lend authority to them.]

In one of them, the Book of Leviticus, we find the first and only specific prohibition against homosexuality.

[No -  the story of Sodom (where the term sodomy comes from) and Gomorrah is not the first indication of God's disapproval of homosexuality - The entire Book of Genesis is neither fact nor history.  Its entire content is mythic (I will write about the role of myth in the Bible in future posts.) That the story of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been included to provide some backing for the prohibition against homosexuality and incest in Leviticus and monotheism.]

The Book of Leviticus (named after the priestly tribe of Levi) is noteworthy because it specifically is dealing with priestly function and life style in order to keep Temple worship pure and free of idolatry - thus we see the connection to male prostitutes in the Temple.  It is also an early theological work that is differentiating monotheism from polytheism by its vehement opposition to anything associated with the worship of idols and their practices.  This became particularly important in maintaining Jewish identity during the Babylonian Captivity.  As such, Leviticus is designed to establish differences between what becomes Judaism and other religions of the time.

Keep this in mind as you read the list of prohibitions that follow.  You will notice the biggest concern for these scribes was to address incest which apparently was widely practiced. 

I will be using the King James Version (KJV) throughout this post.

  * * * * * * * * * *
 

Leviticus 18 

 

 5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them:  I am the Lord your God.

 

6  None of you shall approach to any that is near kin of him, to uncover their nakedness:* I am the Lord.

 

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

 

8 The nakedness of they father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

 

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

 

10 The nakedness of  they son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for their is thine own nakedness.

 

11 The nakedness of they father's wife's daughter, begotten of they father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

 

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister; she is thy father's near kinswoman.

 

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

 

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife; she is thine aunt.

 

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law; she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

 

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness.

 

17  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for thy are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness.

 

18  Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.  

 

19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for uncleanness**.

 

20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife to defile thyself with her.

 

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Mollech***, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God:  I am the Lord.

 

22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

 

23  Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto; it is confusion.

 

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

  



 * Nakedness is translated as sexual relations in other versions

** refers to a woman's menstrual period

*** Mollech refers to the king of  the Canaanite gods. This verse is understood to mean a prohibition against sacrificing one's child to this god, as in burning the child alive. - Manasseh?

 

  * * * * * * * * * *

 

 [A follow up to this list if found in Leviticus 20 which states the punishment for these offenses. With the exception of  Vs. 19 above, all of them resulted in being sentenced to death.]

 

I know this can be a tedious read, but take a close look at it.  If you have another translation, read this passage in it. Can you see anything missing? 

 

Let me give you a clue.  Look closely at verses 22 and 23.  Now do you see what's missing?

 

Why is there only a prohibition of men having sex with men?  Why not women having sex with women?  

 

The only thing women are prohibited from in this long list is the implied prohibition of  sex with one's father and not having sex with an animal. [Certain animals were associated with various ancient gods and goddesses.]   All the other prohibitions are being addressed to men.   Why is that?

 

Simple answer is that the authors of the Bible didn't understand the reproductive system. 

They didn't understand sex.
 

BIRDS AND BEES IN ANTIQUITY

 



So let's deal with the facts about sex at the time in which Leviticus was written.  Have you ever noticed that in the Bible if couple is childless it is because the woman is considered "barren?"  

 

What ancient people understood about sex is intimated in this list prohibitions.  It demonstrates an understanding that if a male and female of any species  or possibly between species had sexual intercourse the result could be offspring.  The term barren when applied to a women was an agrarian simile.  Seed doesn't grow in land considered barren, where the nutrients necessary for growth were lacking.  Likewise a man's seed (sperm) would not grow in the barren field of a woman's womb, thus being childless was a woman's problem.

Ancient people could only base their understanding of sex on observation and making the connection between cause and effect.  They knew that women had menstrual periods which played a role in the reproduction cycle, that men produced seed, and that sexual intercourse produced offspring.

"To every thing there is a season...  "A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plan, and a time to pluck up that which is planted" Ecclesiastes 3:1&2 

That's it. 

Since men obviously had seed, it apparently was never considered it to be ineffective seed, even though one could have deduced that from agriculture. The problem with proving that, however,  was that it could only be demonstrated if a man's wife was impregnated by some other male.  If that occurred (and it did) both the man and the woman involved would have kept quiet or face being publically executed.  You don't hear about "barren men" or male erectile dysfunction in the Bible.

 

The lack of a prohibition of a woman having sex with another woman didn't mean women didn't have sexual relationships with other women back then.  History will inform you that they did. It's just that it didn't matter.  Why?  Well... one can think of several reasons why that might be the case.  First of all, polygamy was practiced by men in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah at this time as referenced in these prohibitions and found in verses 8 & 9.  Depending on how many wives one had, this meant that not all would have had sexual relations with their husband on a regular basis.  You can catch my drift where this is going.

The other reason for a lack of prohibition on the subject is that women, in general, didn't account for much unless they bore children, especially sons. They were considered property (like a field).   Sons were not only important to the man in the patriarchal system, but if a woman in that system failed to have a son to look after her should her husband die, she would have no viable means of support and either had to rely on the beneficence of a husband's brothers or other relatives and that didn't happen often.  In fact, prophets in the Bible consistently demanded justice for the widow and the orphan.

The closest one can get in the Hebrew Scriptures to anything close to a prohibition for women and sexual identity is in Deuteronomy 22:5 which deals with cross-dressing:

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

There's no real explanation for this verse found in the text.

SEX IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
 

What did Jesus say?

Jesus never specifically addresses the topic of sex.  He talks about marriage and he only addresses the issue of marriage because he was asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 

Here's Matthew 19:3-6:

 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 

4  And he answered and said unto them, 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5 And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh: wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"  [KJV]

The same story is repeated in Mark 10.  

Jesus is talking about heterosexual marital relationships.  What one finds in Jesus' narrative is that marriage was understood to be a "binding relationship." Jesus's strong statement of the two being no more "twain but one flesh" is a clever means of protecting women in these relationships. If the man wants to divorce his wife, Jesus is saying he is, in essence, tearing out his own flesh.

Jesus had a knack for not addressing issues that weren't specifically brought up.  Since no one brought up the topic of homosexuality, Jesus didn't address it.  That may leave some to conclude that Jesus being Jewish  we can assume he would have frowned on it.  Maybe...  but...

As demonstrated with by the above exchange he had with the Pharisees on marriage, it's obvious no one at the time would have taken any of Jesus' responses for granted.  Why else did the Pharisees approach him about something they already had the answer to?   Jesus was very good at throwing curve balls at his detractors. There is simply no way of knowing what Jesus would have said, and we must leave it at that.  One cannot contrive from Jesus' comment about marriage what his attitude towards or view of homosexuality was.

Marriage amongst common folk were also about establishing proprietary claims in antiquity.  Marriages were largely arranged for that purpose.  The poorer two people were the more likely they married for love and/or protection.  Nevertheless, females continued to be treated like property than anything else, and if the couple of an arranged marriage ended up loving each other, (and we can assume many did) good and well, but if they didn't, as noted in conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees, it was understood a man could easily dump his wife with little or no cause to which Jesus said, "No."

Who one married back then was not a personal choice. Those who fell in love and sought marriage needed to seek approval from their fathers or a male patriarch.  Traces of this ancient practice is till found in many Christian weddings in the form of "giving the bride away" as in when a priest or minister says, "Who give this woman to this man?  - an echo of a past where women were considered the property of their fathers until married off. 

Frankly, sex was understood as sealing the deal. The first sexual encounter on the wedding night was (via examination of the bed sheets) proof of the woman's goods.  Marriage then and now is about establishing a proprietary covenant or contract of who is responsible for whom.

Check out Deuteronomy 22 again to see what kind of penalty a husband would have to pay for accusing his wife wrongly of not being a virgin after the first night of marriage.  Not much, other than being stuck with her for the rest of his life.

The issue of same-sex marriage is only an issue because gay and lesbian couples have been denied proprietary rights and responsibilities to each other.  That sexual orientation has become a concern for some is a clearly a religious concern, not a civil one. 

Paul

Lesbians finally received some press in the Bible by none other than the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans.  In the very first chapter Paul says this: 

24 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own heart, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 

25 Who change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  Amen. 

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:  for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet. 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." [KJV]

In a strict reading of Paul's letter to the Romans, one would have to conclude the homosexuality is something God bestows on people as a punishment for idolatry. Undoubtedly this goes back to Paul's understanding of the connection between idolatry and male homosexuality in Leviticus. Paul was probably reacting to all the nude statutes that literally covered ancient Greek and Roman cities, as noted in his observation " Who... worshipped and served the creature... ."

With all those very human-looking, nude gods and goddesses distracting or attracting a person, one's sense of sexual morality could be loosened.  I find his response revealing.  Obviously all this nudity and sexual frivolity was too much sensory overload for Paul.  It triggers for Paul a rather traditional Jewish response when he says at the end of verse 25, " the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  Amen."  Oy veh!

Paul, being Paul, will go on in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 6, to make a list of people who will have a problem making it into heaven:

7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another.  why do ye not rather take wrong?  Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 

8  Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud and that your brethren.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:  neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkard, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you:  but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

12  All thing are lawful unto me, but all thing are not expedient:  all thing are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13  Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.  Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

One good thing (and there are good other things) about Paul is that he does not advocate violence against homosexuals or any one, as we saw in the Leviticus.  In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul's reaction is more about the looseness of moral conduct in the Greek and Roman society at the time(and they were very loose).   In particularly, Paul is concerned about such conduct amongst the member of the small Christian community in Corinth.

He identifies homosexuality in this context of seeing it used abusively, along with a number of other abusive behaviors.  It is the abusiveness in human relationship that Paul is really addressing.  As much as Paul might found some behaviors repulsive, he is stating that he knowingly accepted homosexuals into the church.

Paul is strongly advocated that difference is not cause to take legal action which he see as an obstruction to the Gospel message; something Christian political theologians should take note of.

 Paul makes an interesting statement at the end of this list.  He says: 

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:  all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."  1 Corinthians 6:12

In other words, what Paul is admitting that these situations exist (things that can't be changed), but not to let any one particular issue define one's life. For Paul the only true definition of a full self was to identify with the mind of Christ.

Let's be honest, we all have issues, and we all possess the capacity to make our own list of issues.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

What has been presented in this post demonstrates there is no clear mandate against individuals being homosexual in the Bible. In fact, the Bible makes the case that homosexuality has been around for a since the dawn of human existence and it is not going away.  Any prohibition against it found in the Bible resides within a specific context that argues against broad or universal application.

The fact is the Bible offers very little support to any of the human rights that have been identified since the abolition of slavery in the United Stated in the mid-19th century.

Let's face it, some individuals still haven't come to grips that slavery is wrong.   Some still struggle with the rights of women to vote and receive equal pay because the Bible is fairly prescriptive when it comes to how a woman should dress and act in public.  

If the Bible were taken literally, women would still be treated as property and made to stop wearing jewelry and makeup.  They would be made to stay at home, and away from the workplace.  Their lives would be totally dependent on men.  Slavery would exist because there is no prohibition against slavery in the Bible.  Paul's letter to Philemon provides proof of that.  The Bible simply does not address or provide answers to all our problems today because it is a product of the time in which it was written.

Insisting on a literal interpretation of Abrahamic monotheism in the sense that the Bible, a collection documents written over two thousand years ago, contains all the answers to all our questions today is sheer nonsense.  The insistence that one particular, minimally addressed issue of a bygone era, must define an issue of our day is the elephant in the room regarding the human rights of LGBT individuals.

There is a huge difference between the concepts of being People of the Book and being People by the Book.  To treat the Bible as something as having a literal meaning carved into granite is nothing short of ideological idolatry.  With that said, various Christian and Judaic denominations are evolving and finding ways to offer broad support for the human rights of LGBT individuals; to support these individuals for who they are, to promote that they be allowed to live in society free of oppression or suppression within the context of a living, life-giving, and loving understanding of sacred scripture.  They are trying to rectify their stance on things that cannot be changed and to make needed changes in order to accommodate what is just and right,  and they are courageously leading the way for others religious people to follow. 
 

COURAGE

No one should be permitted the right to display their disapproval of another human being by the public shunning and persecution of that person or of an identified group simply because of who they are.   To base such practices on ancient religious texts is senseless and an affront to human decency, dignity, and progress.  It tarnishes the concept of God and religion as a whole.

Times have changed and our understanding of ourselves and our world has never been better.  In order for religions rooted in antiquity to survive they must evolve and remain relevant to the present. The major religions of the world have a responsibility "to get their act together" and demonstrate within their distinct traditions mutual respect of each other and to promote the mutual respect of the person in all people.

The fact and the truth of the matter is that human are diverse beings.  We're not just men, just women, just straight, just gay, just lesbian, just bisexual, just transgendered just black, just white, just Asian, just Native American, just Hispanic, just Irish, just Italian, just Japanese, just Christian, just Hindu, just Muslim, just Jewish, just Buddhist, just...  etc. .  Each person is multi-faceted.  Humans cover a spectrum of creative interests and passions from artists to zoologists.

Also, humans are naturally prone to discrimination.  We are after all the discriminating animal. [Read the creation myth (story) in Genesis 1 through 4].  It's part of our intellectual ability to identify difference.  We know now, as never before, that our discriminating capacity requires restraint when applied to other human beings. 

Without personal or legal restraint we tend to focus on the differences we see in the other to the degree that it can foster unwarranted fear and hatred of the other.  This is well demonstrated in our history and by the evidence presented in ancient religious scriptures themselves like the Bible. 

We should learn from history's mistakes and not treat them as precedent.  Ancient sacred writings require deep understanding as opposed to trite literal applications so that the cause of human decency, dignity and respect of each person is advanced.  To do otherwise is to portray and court ignorance as intelligence.

My friend, the apostle Paul had the courage to accept what couldn't be changed and the courage to change what he could as found in one of his most interesting comments about himself: "

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations , there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure."  2 Corinthians 12:7

I don't know what Paul's flesh-thorn was, but it was bad enough for him to attribute it to Satan; meaning he had no personal control of it.  I'm glad he didn't tell us because we can fill in the blanks of whatever it is we can't change in ourselves and in our world.  Paul' recognized that his only option was to accept what could not be changed in himself or to despair.

Most of us have experienced situations in our lives that we cannot change; that we must accept.  Have you ever observed what happens to people who can't accept what cannot be changed?  Have you noticed how life becomes miserable for them?  How they entertain fear?  How they become bitter and/or hostile? 

In accepting what cannot be changed, most us have found the ability to move on with life.   This is one of meanings we can extract from the resurrection story of Jesus.  [See my last post on Getting Real With Easter] 

There's a line in the Gospel of John, that offers a broader application than its context.  It says, "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

We know the truth that some people are gay. 

We know the truth that there have always been LGBT individuals and will always be LGBT individuals. 

We know the truth that sexual orientation cannot be scared or converted out of someone.

We know that the courage to be true to one's self is opening many closet doors. 

We know the truth that world peace is dependent on accepting the things that cannot be changed and changing the things that can.

Homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, whereas homophobia is a mental disorder and a social disease that can spread. 

We need wise leadership in our nations and in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other organizations.

We need wise leaders who have the courage to help us to accept the things that cannot be changed, and the courage to help us change what we can. 

We need wise leaders who can tell the difference.   

Until next time, stay faithful.

GETTING REAL ABOUT EASTER

I know of priests, pastors, and other sincere preachers who dread preaching an Easter sermon simply because trying to explain this story as a historical event and having to assert that Jesus is physically raised from the dead and ascended into heaven  poses all sorts of mental dilemmas - stomachs churn and beads of sweat form in trying to explain and give meaning to something that can't be explained and whose meaning is anything but clear.  Of course for literalists and fundamentalists this is not a problem.  They are not required to think and, from what I have been able to ascertain, most don't.

As I have mentioned in past posts, some theologians will point out that resurrection does not mean resuscitation but then fail to say exactly what they mean by that.  The problem with the whole Passion/Easter story is that it is a problem.  I'm sure some will find that my seeing it as a problem a reason to explain that my "confusion" is a sign of its mystery; that this historical event is also a transcendent event with a transcendent meaning.  Hmmm...

I realize the New Testament has many-a verse talking about people who think like me - how the Gospel is stumbling block to wise and the how being a fool for Christ is a good thing, etc., etc.... .  Well, I don't consider myself particularly wise, and I try not to be foolish for Christ or anyone else. I'm not buying into the Pauline obsession with "Christ's" suffering, death and resurrection and the meanings he attached to it.

The fact is I could go the transcendent route regarding this story and try sidestepping the whole historical/physical reality issue by explaining it in terms of mystery.  Frankly, I'm leery of the term mystery.  Terms like that tend to become lulling agents (or as Marx would have put it, an opiate) that permits one to suspend reason and rationality in order to subscribe to a belief system; in this strange case, an ideological belief  based on the resurrection being a historical event whose meanings are cloaked in mystery.  Even the progressive theologians who mitigate resurrection as meaning not resuscitation are still treating it as a historical event which does not solve anything and I don't subscribe to the notion that the scripture was written to convey mystery, even if Paul says it does in 1Corinthians 15:51. "I tell you a mystery..."  (I knew there was a reason I never warmed to Handel's "Messiah.")

If I haven't defined the problem clearly in other posts, let me try one more time:

THE PROBLEM

The problem with the resurrection story is that:

• It is a distraction to what Jesus taught about living in the present (Ex. Matt. 6:34 - "Don't worry about tomorrow...")
• It evolved into fatalistic worldview that states there is nothing we can do to save ourselves and the world.  God has done or will do it all.
• It stands in opposition to what Jesus taught; namely, there is something we can do, that the world is not a lost cause, that the world is good and there are ways to heal its brokenness now with compassion and forgiveness, to start with.
• It adds nothing to what Jesus already taught, that we are both human and divine creatures; that God is our Father as much as his Father (Ex. The Lord's Prayer.) 
• It resulted in making Jesus an exception to his own teachings as noted above by being declared the only-begotten Son of God by the likes of the author of the Gospel of John. 

I realize this may be hard for Christians to think this way.  I understand.  My whole religious upbringing was steeped in salvation theology. I realize most Christians are also steeped in salvation-based theology, so much so, that they do not realize their inability to speak freely about the teachings of Jesus without presenting those teachings as "conditions met" in the Easter story; that it's all been done for us a long as we believe it to be a historical fact. In other words, what Jesus said is good, and you should do it, but don't worry, it's all been taken care of.  Talk about confusing!

Which brings me to what generated these problems; the instance that the resurrection story is an historical event.

So the question becomes, "Is it a historical event?"

No.

There is no way of verifying it as such, and the only way to make it a historical event is that one has to believe it's a historical event. 

* * * * * * * * *

 

I can hear the arguments:

 

"Jesus says in the Gospel of John 20:29, 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'"

 

My point exactly.  There is no evidence of its being historical apart from that people believe it is historical.  John's gospel, as seen above, provides confirmation that there is no outside evidence of its historicity beyond what one believes; thus making belief evidential in itself, which poses a whole lot of other questions.
 

"Can you prove that it is not a historical event? 

Yes.

There is no contemporary record of this occurrence outside of gospels (written between twenty and seventy years after Jesus' death) that mention any of the incidents recorded in them at the time of the alleged event.  The gospel accounts are not eyewitness reports.  They are reports of what other alleged eyewitnesses reported.  The stories are inconsistent and do meet the standard for establishing something as a historical fact.  [See my posts on Salvation Parts I and II]

"If they're not fact, what are they?"

Good question!  To be honest I have to place them in the category of mythic stories, along with the Nativity story and others.

"So are you saying this was all made up?"

Mostly.

While the Easter story cannot be considered a historical event, I would be reluctant to say that those who reported the stories of others seeing Jesus after his death was made up. That stories of people claiming to have seen a physical Jesus after his death is a historical fact in itself.  In fact, Christianity is proof of that.  It's possible that those who claimed to have seen Jesus had experiences of seeing Jesus, but I have no idea what they were or what they mean.  I wasn't there.

In addition, there could be psychological reasons for people having such experiences.  From a 21st century perspective, one might be able to explain such phenomenon as the result of trauma, guilt, and/or an intense sense of loss.  All of those elements seem plausible, given the accounts of the Passion story. The gospels don't provide any clues as to what the resurrection means.  In fact, the stories in the gospels are varied in details and most possess ethereal elements that argues against them being real (Jesus appears out of nowhere, for instance).  I would also note that in the ancient world myth and history were rather interchangeable.  To present a mythic event as a historical event, something that actually happened, was fairly common.

* * * * * * * * * *
 

HISTORY AND MEME

What I have concluded from the lack of information found within the gospels (the Gospel of John being the exception) is that within the earliest stages of Christianity these stories evolved into an elaborate belief system from which belief in their historicity reached the level of a meme for Christians (the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul being the proof of that). 

The result is that most Christians can't think of this story other than as a historical event.  I can attest to that because being raised to believe this story as a historical fact upon which my salvation is dependent is hard to think around, even now.  Christians are doctrinally programed to accept it as such. 

What I find interesting is that it's not actually treated as a historical fact by those who believe it is.  Historical facts are about things of the past; occurrences that happened "back then" and whose importance to us today is simply in the fact that the historical event may or may not have contributed to where we're at today.  The meaning of historical facts are found in the factualness of the events and the factual results of the event. If something isn't factual its not provable, and if something is not provable it isn't factual. Historical facts do not have transcendent meanings. 

The Easter/Resurrection story is all about transcendent meaning.  People find all sorts of transcendent meanings to it, which I find interesting because historical facts don't work like that. Finding meanings that transcends the story of an event beyond the present is what one does with myths, not history, and not mystery. Mystery, in its Christian usage, is an attempt to merge transcendence with history. I consider that an extreme suspension of logic and reason. The only thing historical about transcendence is that it's a human concept which has been used throughout history.  Do not misunderstand me, I have nothing against the use of transcendence.  In fact, all religions embody and possess transcendent elements.  It's just that you cannot use transcendence in historical interpretation. 

Christians have become so indoctrinated against myth that the idea of the mythic residing in the Holy Bible or that myth played a role in shaping Christian theology is unthinkable, and most can't go there.  So pervasive is the notion that myths are lies or untrue that dictionaries define them as such.  I don't define myth that way.  Myths possess transcendent qualities; in that, they provide meanings or present truths that are applicable but can't be readily explained in a tangible way apart from story. Psychology, for instance, uses Greek myths to explain personality, human development, and human interactions.  I consider myths the oven-mitts of truths.  Not that truth is too hot to handle but rather that truth of a transcendent nature has to be handled very carefully.

I continue to see clergy and theologians having to contend with asserting the Easter story as a historical event even when I see them trying to sidestep the whole historicity issue and promote the message of Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness as being the most important facet of the Jesus experience.  That's why I hang around the church I belong to.  It allows people to have a mind, to think, and to reason.  If it wasn't for that, I'd do what many others have done in more stringent ecclesial environments - Leave.  

HONESTY

What is needed is an honest approach to these stories.  Why?  Because the Easter story is a myth and insisting that it has to be believed as a historical event upon which the salvation of the world is dependent has the potential for using it irrationally to harm others, as has been done in the past.

The Easter story has multiple levels of meaning and application, but I do not subscribe to the belief that my or other people's "salvation" is dependent on believing it as a historical fact.  I don't subscribe to the belief that Jesus's ministry is about salvation.  Jesus' ministry is about redemption, restoration, seeing this life as good, and pointing to an understanding that the most important concern any of us have is the very moment we're in; that living life in the manner that Jesus taught takes care of life, now and hereafter.  Jesus was not beyond telling stories that have mythic qualities.  His parables certainly showed his being adept at expressing himself  metaphorically.

That there may be life after this life doesn't strike me as mysterious at all.  Being alive now is a good indication that there might be more to life than this life.  I don't need an atoning sacrifice or a resurrection story to convince me of that.  What is more important is to understand how to live today. Jesus' teachings provides guidance, as do the teachings of whole lot of other individuals; philosophers, spiritual leaders, scientists, and almost anyone who bothers to write stories.

Life is self-evident in it's own emerging and unfolding story. As such, myth lends itself to exploring life's transcendent qualities and truths that extend beyond and are independent of mere historical events. Treating the story of Easter as a historical event limits it to being a one-time historical phenomenon that has not been replicated since.

Easter is a celebration of life, and in the context of Jesus' teachings, it offers a restored vision of the original goodness of this life and, by being true to being, holds the possibility of more hereafter.  The Passion/Easter narrative is a beautiful story of unbounded love, forgiveness, and renewed life.  It is full of mythic meanings. Handling it with care would help reset the focus on what Jesus taught in an open, meaningful way; without the fear and the threat of eternal damnation

 Until next time, stay faithful