RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - THE BIBLE

Perhaps the most challenging undertaking in recalibrating Christianity is the understanding and use of the Bible in the light of its history and the role that science plays in shaping its application.   Most Christians are not well versed in the history of the Bible.  Most have an understanding of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, having no need of history outside of what itself describes.  The fact is the Bible has a history as a collection of writings with regard to how it came to be and how we understand it today. 

John Barton's "A History of the Bible - The Book & Its Faiths" is an excellent history of the Bible that covers its development, interpretations, and use in both Christian and Jewish settings.  Barton's history is topically exhaustive and provides resources for those interested in doing further research beyond his text.  I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the history of the Bible.  

* * *

In Christianity, the Bible is the foundational source of its mission and worship.  For two millennia the Bible has been the one source all Christian churches and denominations rely on to support their beliefs, their doctrines, and their practices.  The Bible has been treated as a "stand-alone" and an unquestioned authoritative source for what Christians believe. 

Understanding how the Bible came to be and how it was written and why it was written in the way it was written is essential to understanding its use and application in the twenty-first century.  The understanding that the Bible is the Word of God needs to be replaced with the understanding that it is words about God and how such understandings shape one's understanding of human relationships with each other and with God.  Christianity can no longer afford to treat the Bible as a "stand-alone" source.  It has its own history amongst the histories of other cultures, religions, philosophies  politics, and science.  How do these histories shape one's understanding of the Bible? 

As mentioned in another post, the Bible is best understood if it is treated as any other form of literature.  For the most parts, Christians struggle with that concept.  The concept that it is holy, immediately, puts it into a category of its own.  It is not holy.  It is human.   

It is a human work inspired by the concept or the ideal of a being called God.  Should such an "individualized" being exist it must have been created.  It was.  

It was created in the minds of human beings and if one reads the Bible, in particular, one can clearly sees this.   When one begins to realize this, the Bible takes on a more significant role in understanding it and humanity's relationship to it.  It becomes a brush-stroke amongst many other brushstrokes that paint a picture of what it means to be human.

There is no need to change the Bible.  It can stand as work of literature amongst many literary works that bring meaning to who we are in relationship to the force that brought about the universe and us. 

Speaking of "the force," the writers of the "Star Wars" movies and George Lucas were, I believe, deliberately on to something when they came up with the idea that there is an accessible force in the universe, ingenuously called, "The Force."  All kidding aside, it seems to encapsulates the creation story as redefined in John 1:1:  "In the beginning was the Word..." (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος in the Koine Greek original).    The word "beginning" is translated from the the Greek word, ἀρχῇ, which also connotes power and by extension an active force.  

* * *

The universe in which we live may not have a beginning, as time itself is part of what is or what evolved as a result of gravitational forces.  The universe may be eternal;  a paradoxical timeless state of being in which time exists.  We only pinpoint its age as being fourteen billion years because that is as far back in light years we can see. What we also know is that the universe is in constant flux; that galaxies come and go over billions of years in the macro Universe, but we also know that electrons in the micro (quantum) universe are virtually eternal forms of energy.  

As I have noted in other posts, God is a nominal or pronominal term describing a verb; as in, an active force that could also be described as Being or Being-ness.  That God is seen as a separate being, apart from creation, seems improbable to me.  That God is "being" in which creation is manifest is less improbable and more understandable in the 21st century.  

The Bible personifies God as a being because it is near impossible to relate to God on a personal or cultural level if God cannot be objectified as a divine being. What does that even mean?  The Bible, itself, tells us that God is beyond description.  The best we get in deciphering what God is in the metaphorical references to what God is like:  God is a spirit (life-giving energy).  God is light (intellectual and also life-giving energy).   God is love (emotive and motivational energy). 

Genesis is the singular most important book in the Bible; in that, it is the premise upon which the whole story of the Bible for both Christians and Jews evolves. To metaphorically understand the creation story of the universe in the Bible and its creation in the light of evolutionary science and psychology is important in recalibrating Christianity; just as understanding the New Testament as a largely metaphorical story about Jesus is important in making the teachings of Jesus relevant for the times in which we live. 

To accept the Bible as the truth is a matter of intellectual assent in the form of belief.   I doubt that most people accept the Bible as containing capital "T"  Truth.  Most of us can see truths about our humanity expressed through the stories in the Bible and in its depiction of  the relationships human have with the idea of God through the perspective of the prophets, including Jesus, who gave God a human voice. 

* * *

For those who have followed this blog, you are likely to see that my views on Christianity are changing.  I have used this blog to examine my own thoughts as well as others on the subjects I write about, and I have written several posts on the topics covered in this series on recalibrating Christianity.  The Bible being the one source upon which Christianity is based should give any serious person pause to consider the ramifications.

The question that has been forming in my mind since beginning this blog is if it is realistic to continue to adhere to one book containing a collection of writings between two and three thousand years old which were based on an understanding of the world we live in as being the center of the universe and we humans beings the crown of God's creation in light of what we now know today?   Have we not evolved as humans in what we know about creation; the universe, the diversity of life on earth, and ourselves?  Should we remain tethered to concepts of the causes and effects of events that are based on human rectitude rather than their explanations found in atmospheric, biological, geological, and psychological science?

At best the Bible gives us a history of religious evolution of a tribal mountaintop god, amongst many others, to the one God of monotheism; a universal God who brought all things into being (a major leap towards seeking a unified theory of everything).  Then there is the Christian scriptures of the New Testament that contains the teachings of Jesus and his understanding of the value of each human as a child of God and being an incarnation of God's image.  

The Bible as a stand alone authoritative source has also been a source of humankind's inhumanity.  Both the Old and the New Testaments have been used to justify wars and deadly persecutions throughout human history.  In more recent years, it has been used to stoke what I have been calling "willful ignorance" which ignores science in all of its forms.  In political circles, it continues to be useful tool to encourage fundamental Christian churches to back and justify movements aimed at establishing autocracies and oligarchies.  

* * *

While the Bible has been cited as the scriptural basis for civil rights and in general human rights, it is the Enlightenment (something disparaged by many Christian denominations and churches) that influenced Christians, particularly in the West, to seek a better understanding of its scriptures in its light.  If Christians had not been influenced by the Enlightenment, slavery and the broad spectrum of human rights (the civil rights of all people regardless of race, gender, gender identity) would not have occurred, as the Bible does not mention such rights.  The Bible contains language that is ambivalent on such subjects and particularly disparages the idea of homosexuals and women having any rights. At best, the rights of individuals is something derived from the teachings of the prophets and Jesus.  

I need to add here that Paul's claim in his letter to the Galatians of there being no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or freedman in Christ was never meant to establish a social or world order.  It is obvious in his other letters  Paul was not ready to "unnecessarily" upset the social order of the times.  He ordered women to remain silent, wear head coverings, abstain from jewelry, and sent a slave back to his master.  The prophets, Paul, and even Jesus were products of their times and the places in which they lived.  Where Jesus differs is in his emphasis on the importance of the individual; from a small child to a Roman Centurian, a Samaritan Leper, and a Syro-Phoenician woman.  Like God, Jesus was a minimalist; one person at a time, every time. 

The Bible will always remain central to Christianity, but in the 21st century it can no longer remain as a stand-alone authoritative source.  It must be understood in the light of the ongoing effects of the Enlightenment expressed in science and emerging philosophies and thought.  Christian theology needs to move beyond a naval-gazing activity that insists on continuity with the past as each age presents its challenges to long-held doctrine, practices, and traditions.  For Christians, the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke must be distilled from their narrative setting and become the center piece of Christian life and worship, as opposed to the teaching about Jesus; such as, his divine birth, the meaning of his death and resurrection.  It is the teachings of Jesus that have more relevance today than they have had in the past.

The Bible is an important literary artifact that is the foundation on which Christianity is based, but for Christianity to remain relevant, the Bible must be understood in the light of our rapidly changing world.  It should not be used as a defense for what is no longer defensible.  More important to its relevance is understanding it as literature about humans in relation to the concept of God rather than believing it to be the Word of God. 

Norm 

ABSOLUTE - Trump v. The United States

This is post is something I didn't think I would be writing about.  Obviously, my thinking has changed.  On Monday, July 1, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made its ruling on a case brought before it by former President Donald Trump regarding if he possesses absolute immunity from prosecution while he was the acting president of the United States.  What prompted this case is that he is currently facing prosecution for being indicted on several accounts involving alleged activities that attempted to overturn the 2020 Presidential election in which Joe Biden was elected President.  The attempt involved urging several key electoral states to choose new electors to send alternate electoral ballots to Congress rather than the certified ballots they already sent in order to allow Vice President Pence make a determination whether to accept the alternative ballots instead of the certified ballots, thus certifying that Donald Trump won the election.   

Vice President Pence refused to accept the alternate state ballots on the basis that it was contrary to his Constitutional responsibilities.  The result of his refusal led to an attack on the U.S. Capital on January 6, which was encouraged by then President Trump to halt the certification of Joe Biden as the new president.  That attempt failed, but it was the first time in U.S. history that such an attack on the Capitol occurred.  

The Supreme Court's decision in this case has determined that former President Trump with regard to carrying out his constitutional duties does have"Absolute" immunity.  In this post, I am examining SCOTUS's ruling on "Absolute Immunity."

ABSOLUTE  

"We conclude that the President is absolutely immune for conduct within his exclusive sphere of Constitutional authority."  

Chief Justice John Roberts for the Majority.

The Supreme Court of the United States should have not taken the case of Trump v. The United States on the basis that the lower court had not adjudicated the case  brought against Mr. Trump by the government to determine if there was cause to impose immunity.  Their ruling on absolute immunity appears to be a prejudicial attempt to bypass normal judicial process, which SCOTUS invoked in another case involving absolute immunity in Trump v. Vance. (See below)

The concept of anything being "absolute" in the U.S. Constitution should have stopped the justices from considering the case brought before them by Mr. Trump.  There is no small amount of hypocrisy in taking a case that alleges any person holding an office in the United States, including and perhaps especially the President of the United States has absolute immunity.   For members of SCOTUS who claim to be constitutional originalist and who are known to have disputed cases on the basis that a word or term used in a filing is not found in the Constitution should have given them pause, since the adjective "absolute" is conspicuously absent in the Constitution.  Absolute power was abhorrent to the founders of this nation and any sincere constitutionalist on the bench should have tasted vomit in their mouths at the suggestion that any member of  a constitutional branch of government is afforded absolute immunity against criminal prosecution.

Immunity is only used in the fourteenth Amendment in reference to citizens in general, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... ."  That a sitting president possesses some immunity when acting in an official role is not being questioned here, but there is no such thing in the Constitution as "Absolute Immunity" from criminal prosecution.   Simply put, SCOTUS should have refused to hear a case that invoked absolute immunity against criminal prosecution of a former president, particularly since it had already ruled in Trump v Vance in 2020 that a president does not have absolute immunity in a state's case. (See below) 

* * *  

The three branches of Government in the U.S. were intended to act as a check and balance on each other.  In Chief Justice Robert's ruling for the majority, however, he states, "Congress cannot act on and the courts cannot examine the Presidents acting within his "conclusive and preclusive Constitutional authority."   

Since when?  

A president has alway been subject to congressional oversight until now.  SCOTUS itself has been, in the past, and may be called upon in the near future to examine whether a president is acting within the scope of his or her Constitutional role.  There is nothing conclusive or preclusive in any branch of government  to the extent that it cannot be questioned or challenged in Congress while a person is in office or by a court of law upon a person leaving office.   

While the court's ruling is concerned about a hamstrung presidency, a greater is concern should be  whether the people of the United States have any recourse against a president who asserts dictatorial authority with impunity.  This ruling currently affords candidate Trump, who promises to become a dictator for one day, with unprecedented authority to do so and by doing so could attempt to become a dictator for life, should he win the upcoming election.  It only takes an unguarded day for that to happen.  If the history of former president Trump should have taught us anything, it is that he does not joke around about what he intends to do.  

* * *

ABOUT FACE

On July 9, 2020 Donald Trump appealed the Supreme Court over a lower court's ruling favoring Cyrus Vance District Attorney of the County of New York regarding a subpoena for Donald Trump's financial records which Mr. Trump refused to comply with on the basis that as a former President he has absolute immunity from prosecution.  The following is SCOTUS's ruling in that case by Chief Justice John Roberts.  Underlined and bold highlights are mine.

Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need. The “guard[ ] furnished to this high officer” lies where it always has—in “the conduct of a court” applying established legal and constitutional principles to individual subpoenas in a manner that preserves both the independence of the Executive and the integrity of the criminal justice system. Burr, 25 F. Cas., at 34.

The arguments presented here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate. 

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

* * *

If absolute immunity did not apply Trump v. Vance, why does it apply in a Federal Case involving of an indicted former president for acting outside of his Constitutional role by restricting information about his communications and conduct between members of his administration much of which is a already a matter of public information via news media and congressional hearings?  As Justice Robert says in his opening statement in Trump v.Vance, "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man’s evidence.' Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States.  Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through Clinton, Presidents have uniformly testified or produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts.  (Highlights are mine.)

In citing, Trump v.Vance in Trump v. The United States that "The President’s duties are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth,"  they listed such things as the president's role as Commander-in-Chief.  In Trump v. The United States, the government questioned whether a president's role as commander and chief of the armed forces can require the military to do anything he ordered.  Could a president, for instance, use Navy Seals to assassinate a political opponent in the United States?   

Beyond the government's hypothetical question, Mr. Trump has publicly made other threats during his campaign to use his executive authority to execute General Milley.  He has also threatened to establish a military tribunal to prosecute former congresswoman, Liz Cheney.  Mr. Trump's presidential campaign is largely couched in the language of revenge on his political and legal opponents.   

Chief Justice Roberts downplayed such concerns.  In his response to such concerns, he writes, "The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.' Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next."

While such suggestions may have struck the Court as ridiculous or not within the scope of what they considered a president's absolute immunity, they didn't clarify their position with regard to the government's concerns about a president's ability carry out such threats when affirming absolute immunity in his role as Commander in Chief of the military and Mr. Trump's continuous threats to get even with those who have questioned his actions and prevented him from taking action after the 2020 presidential election and  those who are now prosecuting the numerous indictments he has acquired since leaving office. 

The Court should have made it clear in their ruling that executive authority does not include intruding into the responsibilities of the other branches of government.   It seems as though the Court spent too much time trying to defend the the executive branch of government from oversight at the expense of putting the Congress, the Court and the citizens of the United States at risk of dangerous overreach by the executive. Mr. Trump's public statements as a candidate for the presidency move concern for a future Trump presidency beyond hyperbole.

WHEN DOES A PRESIDENT ACT AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN DURING HIS PRESIDENCY?

This is the question the Courts ruling in Trump v The United States raises.  What the court did not consider and the government apparently did not do good job of clarifying is that during an election for the office a president currently holds, his campaign for re-election necessarily reduces his activities with regard to his being a candidate on par with his opponent; that is, he is acting in the capacity of a private citizen seeking office.  The case before the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. regarding Mr. Trump's attempt to interfere with the certification of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021 is simply a matter of the President, acting as a private citizen who inappropriately used his authority as the current President to prohibit a duly elected new President from taking office.

There is no question that Mr. Trump, as a private citizen, who lost his bid for re- election had a right to challenge the election through recount and judicial review, a right Mr. Trump exercised as any other private person seeking public office who questions the results of an election possesses.  In Mr. Trump's case, after recounts and over 60 courts ruling that he had lost the election and Joe Biden was elected, Mr. Trump knew he lost but refused to accept the findings of facts by the court and concede the election.  Mr. Trump is the only President who refused to concede an election after exhausting his right to challenge it.  

In this sense, and according to the ruling in Trump v. The United States, then President Trump's use of his executive powers was supra-constitutional (acting above and beyond the boundaries and scope of his constitutional responsibilities).  The interregnum period between a current president and the President - elect should be utilized to facilitate the smooth transition of power between the old and new administration. While this is not constitutionally mandated, there is a strong traditional sense of doing so for the good of the nation.    

As a private citizen in the role of the President who campaigned for and lost an election, Mr. Trump did not have a right to consult the justice department in an attempt to direct them to get involved in the electoral certification process of President-elect Biden.  He had no presidential authority to call members of state legislatures or state Secretaries of State to find votes that did not exist.  

Much of what SCOTUS is attempting to hide from the public view in this case is already public knowledge.  There is filmed footage of his speeches and his personal tweets to the public on January 6, 2021 that demonstrate his personal involvement in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.   Beyond that, as affirmed in Trump v. Vance, "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man’s evidence.'"   Mr. Trump does not enjoy immunity from actions taken as private citizen while in office to usurp the authority of the presidential role he held to facilitate a personal grab for power.  There can be no doubt about his intent and SCOTUS's ruling in this particular case is an attempt to hamstring the judicial system of the United States by its erroneous and hypocritical ruling regarding the concept of "Absolute Immunity."

MOVING FORWARD

Since this case was remanded back the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C.,  Judge Chutkan should promptly proceed with setting a date for this trial.   This is not a time for the District  Court or any court adjudicating the indictment before them to become squeamish about the SOCTUS's ruling.  This ruling does not prohibit the District Court to move quickly. Taking note of the SCOTUS's concerns, Judge Chutkan most likely is having her court clerks and prosecutors their paralegal teams to exercise due diligence in assuaging SCOTUS's concerns.

The case can be made that former President Trump had no presidential authority over the results of the 2020 presidential election.  He only possessed a personal right to legally challenge the results as a private citizen, which he did and which served to confirm that he lost the election.  His only post-election role as the President was to ensure integrity of the constitutional process involved and by long-established tradition of a soon to be former president to pave the way for a smooth transition of power.  In that instance, he not only failed to protect the Constitution of the United States, he incited a violent obstruction to Congress's duty to count the certified electoral ballots on January 6, 2021. 

* * *

Perhaps former President and current candidate for president Donald Trump has inadvertently done this nation a favor by pointing out the weaknesses within our Constitution.  It is by no means a perfect document that answers all the question that arise from it.  I have great respect for the Constitution in that it was and remains the foundation upon which "to build a better union."  

Its weaknesses have taken on, in recent years, an ominous nature that demand immediate attention.  Contrary to SCOTUS's remarks about the need to protect the office of the President by invoking absolute immunity with regard to a President's constitutionally exclusive sphere of authority, Congress should consider amendments to ensure that absolute immunity is not afforded a role within the Constitution.   

The President, above all others, should be cognizant of the effects on the nation and the world of his/her actions and comments.  What a president says or does is a matter of national interest at all moments of a president's term.  There should not exist in this country an office that is immune from answering to the people of the United States regarding actions that become questionable. This should apply to Supreme Court justices as well.  As the Court affirms, immunity is a legitimate concept within normal judicial processes on a case by case basis, but nothing should be absolutely immune from judicial processes or congressional oversight.

Moving forward requires that Congress makes a serious review of our Constitution's weaknesses regarding the role of the President; in particular, to further clarify that a president cannot use his authority to change the outcome of an election.   It must also assure that "absolute" is never used with respect to issues involving our constitutional republic.  All three branches must be equally robust in their roles, not just the executive branch. The threat of a presidency becoming a dictatorship has become too real for comfort.  If anything it must be corralled within the Constitution's boundaries which, in the light of SCOTUS's ruling on absolute immunity, must be aided by amendment to protect the republic from the taint of a tyrannical presidency.

Norm

THE MADNESS OF JESUS - A REFLECTION ON MARK 3:20-35 (Revised)

I presented this homily at Christ Episcopal Church on June 9, 2024.  It is a revision of a homily I posted online during Covid on June 6, 2021 

 May the words of my mouth and the mediations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our strength and our redeemer.   Amen

+

Jesus’ family was concerned.  

You can imagine what their conversations might have been like:  

“What’s going on? What is happening with Jesus? 

He’s not eating right; all that preaching, all those people.  

It’s not good.  People are talking.  

Casting out demons!  What next?  

Perhaps we should do a family intervention.”   

So they go in search of Jesus.  

* * *

They are not the only ones concerned.  Prior to today’s reading from Mark, we read that word quickly spread about Jesus who was healing people and casting out demons.  People from all around, even beyond the borders of Galilee and Judea, were making the journey to hear Jesus and be healed by him.  And when that happens, the leadership in Jerusalem takes notice and they send some scribes (some legal experts) to hear and see what Jesus is up to.  

After doing so, they arrive at a conclusion, confirming what worried Jesus’ family, “He’s out of his mind.”  

Beyond that, they conclude that if Jesus is, in fact, casting out demons, it stands to reason he can do so because he’s possessed himself, and not by some generic demon, but by the Prince of demons, Beelzebul.  

Imagine what Jesus must have sounded like and looked like after preaching and healing non-stop for days:

Wild-eyed with the fervor of delivering a message of hope to a world in need of hope.  He most likely didn’t look the best or smell the best from the press of a never-ending flow of people who had no one else to turn to, no one else to give their hope for hope a chance.  It is no wonder his family and the scribes thought he was losing his mind.

* * *  

But Jesus wasn’t losing his mind.   Jesus was healing minds, healing bodies, and liberating souls. 

When he hears those scribes describe him as casting out demons by the prince of demons, Jesus seizes a teaching opportunity in which he offers one of his most enduring statements, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  

* * *

Jesus exposes an illogic that presents itself as a resistance to evidential hope; as in, when good happens where and to whom it is never expected to happen  The ones who object to such hope are those who inwardly fear they have the most to lose when hope emerges in opposition to their hard-nosed pragmatism that sees hope as a waste of time that only results in people becoming unruly, as evidenced by the press of the crowd surrounding Jesus.  

 

Hope defies control.  When hope takes shape and becomes realized, those who fear it most cast it as demonic, casts liberation as domination, and unconditional concern for those outside of one’s inner circle as subversive.  Illogical theories like Satan casting out Satan are presented as fact because, in a polarized setting, one person’s hope becomes another person’s fear.  Jesus exposes the fallacy of such illogical theorizing.

* * *  

What comes next is one of Jesus’ most confusing statements about the eternal and unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.  Mark concludes that Jesus gave the scribes this warning because they said he had an unclean spirit.  

It’s not exactly clear what Jesus meant by this statement, and it may strike us as a bit over the top and out of character for Jesus.  Nevertheless, it serves as a poignant warning to those who, in the name of God and religion, demonize people as a means of preventing them from entertaining hope.Jesus could be implying that those who discredit the Spirit of God in others end up severing their tie to the very Spirit that made us living souls; that it ends up diminishing their souls to the point their isn’t much left of their souls to forgive.

* * *

Another seemingly uncharacteristic moment for Jesus is when his mother, brothers, and sisters arrive and are asking for him.  Instead of going out to meet them, he uses their presence as another teaching moment.   

In what comes across as a being dismissive to their presence, Jesus asks the crowd surrounding him, “Who is my mother, brothers, and sisters?”  Looking at those who came to hear him and be healed by him, he says, “You are. You, who are doing the will of God are my family.”  

The madness of Jesus is in appearance only and he appears as such only to those who fear losing control like the scribes and those who felt powerless against a good they couldn’t understand like his biological family; a power that defied conventional wisdom as to whom such good things should happen to and be enacted by.  For those whose hope was rekindled in Jesus’ preaching, who experienced his healing touch and whose souls were liberated, they saw and experienced in this wild-eyed, unkempt human being, the refining fire of God’s liberating and life-giving Spirit. 

* * *

This reading is particularly appropriate for a season devoted to the movement of God’s Spirit in our world - redeeming it and restoring it one person, one moment, one event at a time.  To discern the movement of God’s Spirit requires one to step back, sometimes way back, to see the bigger picture.  

It requires letting go of what one thinks must happen or should happen in order to see within the madness of our times the goodness that is taking place, to recognize and hold on to a hope that emerges in some of the most seemingly hopeless places and situations.   As people of faith we know this to be true. To discern the movement of God’s Spirit requires a patient and an open heart that feels the Spirit of God moving us ever closer towards the realization of God’s loving hope in us working with God’s Spirit in healing our world and liberating souls.  

Amen.

RECALIBRATING CHRISITIANITY - CHURCH POLITY

I believe Aristotle was correct in describing humans as political animals.  The great hypocrisy of our age, especially, in United States, is when politicians accuse each other of being political.  Are they claiming their opponents of being human?  If those making such accusation are not human, then what are they?   

God forbid that such hypocritical finger pointing should occur in the church.  The truth of the matter is that such activity occurs in every Christian denomination and in every Christian congregation - wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus name, there will be a argument or a debate as to what Jesus would do if he were present (ignoring the the scriptural claim of his presence being in their midst).   Every organization secular or religious is politically organized.  They create rules, by-laws, constitutions, and canon laws by which to run the organization they belong to.  

John Barton is a theologian and a past professor of Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University. He is the author of an enlightening book called "A History of the Bible."  In its introduction he suggests a relevant point regarding church polity, "that though the Bible - seen as a collection of religious texts - is irreplaceable for many reason, Christianity is not in essence a scriptural religion... .  There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply, 'biblical,' but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible."1

Church polity is supra-scriptural.  For instance the canon of Old and New Testaments within Holy Bible are a product of church polity; in that, there was a decision made, somewhere along the historical timeline. as to which writings should or should not be included in the canon.   There were plenty of scriptures to choose from, which begs the question, why the particular books that make up the Holy Bible were chosen and not others?  In this sense, the authority of the Holy Bible has been subjected to an arguably higher authority of church leaders who decided which writings were in and which writings were out.  

Undoubtedly some will utilized the old chestnut that "holy men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit" knew which books to include and which to reject.  You can believe that if you want, but it becomes quite obvious after reading the canonical scriptures that the books which were chosen and those which were excluded were determined by the political culture of the time they were selected.  The New Testament, in particular, favors the earthly powers at the time of its development, the Roman Empire.  The Old Testament were included in the Christian biblical canon because they are believed to give prophetic validation of Jesus being the Messiah. 

Church polity, like all politics, is about who is deemed worthy to be in control of the organization.  Within Christianity, the hierarchy is based on what forms of governance existed at the time a particular Christian church or denomination was established.  In Roman Catholicism we have the Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priest, and deacons, which reflect the imperial model of the Roman Empire.  In Protestant churches we may find bishops, priest, and deacons or presidents, chairmen, ministers/pastor, deacons, titles which also reflect the age such denominations were formed. 

Regardless of the title, all denominations possess a hierarchal system.  Some denominations are more monarchal in style while others tend to be democratic.  In a monarchal hierarchy, like the Roman Church, the laity have little say in how the denomination or the local church is run, in other denominations, bishops, and ministers and their vestries, and board of directors are elected by a congregation which retain control over financial and ministerial duties, in some denominations all decisions are left up to the congregation.  

* * *

Church polity not only determines how a church or denomination views scripture, but how it implements its understanding of scripture.  Polity is determined by factors beyond scripture; such as, economics and secular (national, state, and local) laws and politics.  Trying to implement the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels was not an easy fit in Jesus' day and it remains a difficult fit in today's world. Trying to implement the teachings of Jesus on a national scale or even a local community scale will ultimately lead to division.  

Jesus was not being facetious when he said he came to divide a family, how much more a community, a nation, and a world.  This is why ecclesial polity finds it difficult to embrace the teachings of Jesus.  Thus, they have substituted them with teachings about Jesus, something that was easier to implement as doctrines that can be regulated.  The teachings of Jesus are seemingly designed to be enacted on a personal scale.  In that sense, no one can really tell the person what those teachings mean for that person except the person, him or herself.  

Jesus understood the minimalistic nature of God.  He made no personal claim to be God in the Gospels which church polity tends to downplay.  Instead Jesus claimed to be a unique child of God, a son who embraced the value of being created in the image of God as the Son of Man, a human formed from the earth and breathed to life as one of a multitude of living creature on our shared planet home.  

"Consider the lilies of the fields and the birds of the air," says Jesus.  God takes care of all of them, how much more does he care for the rest of us.  This amazing claim of Jesus flies past us, just as his teaching his disciples to recognize God as their father in the prayer he taught them.   The fact is, if Jesus isn't God, church polity has no authoritative basis for existing because Jesus isn't out to control the world, “My kingdom is not of this world. ... my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36.  The kingdom of the Church, however, is very much of this world despite its mystical claims to be other than that.  Denominationalism is proof of the futility of trying to systemize something designed to be enacted on a personal level.  

Recently I visited Crazy Horse's Monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota, and read this comment by Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe,  "They (Christians) teach us to quarrel about God as Catholics and Protestants do.  We do not want to do that.  We may quarrel with men sometimes about things on earth, but we never quarrel about the Great Spirit.  We do not want to learn that."    Chief Joseph strikes me as possessing a true and faithful understanding of God as Spirit.  The Great Spirit is as close to us as our next breath.  The air we breath connects us to all living creatures.  Chief Joseph saw the problem inherent in Church polity.  How can one systemize something that defies definition - something that ultimately defines who we are and every other living being?   

* * *

The teachings of Jesus describe a kenotic process- a letting go of self for the sake of the other ( i.e. the family, the community, and the world).  In other words, it is engaging in God's kenotic creativity of expending self in order to expand the SELF.  Generally speaking, the history of church polity has been concerned with the nuts and bolts of church management (i.e. business, wealth, and power) rather than what Jesus taught.  

If putting into practice the teachings of Jesus were to become the primary focus of the Church's mission, Christianity would be different and look different.  Polity would become less reliant on a hierarchal structure.  The liturgy (the work of the people) would be divided amongst the congregational members instead of a priest or pastor.  

God seems to like starting small and see things grow.  Jesus takes this concept and stresses the importance of the individual within the vastness of creation.  Jesus saw what we so often miss, the tree within the forest, the individual within the crowd.  As Jesus said, "Whoever does this to the least of my brethren, does it to me." (Matthew 25:40). 

In Jesus' teaching that where two or three who have gathered in his name (Matthew 18:16), polity disintegrates.  This is where Jesus' teachings becomes so radical and hard to comprehend, because the value of the one is what a community should be concerned about.  Every one has worth.  Every one counts.  This stands in stark contrast to the worldly political thinking of Caiaphas who saw the one as expendable when it came to saving the community, as it also stands in stark contrast to every religious war fought in the name of Christ or God. 

What comes to mind in Jesus' teachings is the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15); where the shepherd leaves ninety-nine sheep to search for the one lost sheep.  In a practical sense, doing so doesn't make sense, why risk putting at risk ninety-nine other sheep just to look for one lost sheep?   Is Jesus' sense of value and a polity driven by concern for the one tenable?   Based on the Acts of the Apostles,  the Epistles of the New Testament, and the history of the Christian Church, it is not and has not been tenable for any period of time.  Polity is not based on Jesus' teachings.  In a sense, Jesus comes across as a religious (political) anarchist.  "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's" is hardly an affirmation of the importance of politics in a religion.  

Polity, in a given church setting, should be geared toward discernment, soul-searching (prayer).  Politics cannot be fully side-stepped, but it can be defined by the teachings of Jesus rather than by a set of canon laws or by-laws which people may need for a time, but which after a time may need realignment to the teachings of Jesus.  Each age, each location, and each local church have their particular needs and peculiar practices that defy regimentation.  The smaller the church, the less political it need be.  Where polity becomes a problem is when the larger denomination imposes rules and mandates that the local church does not have a need for - issues that are divisive in the larger world can become a death warrant for a small congregation that is cohesive in its love and worship of God if changes are mandated without discernment, soul-searching, and consensus.

* * *

Meeting the needs of the larger the denomination and the smaller local congregation requires careful balancing on the subject of what constitutes a necessity in each case.  For example, does as small church need a priest to carry out sacramental practices?  Why not allow such a congregation the ability to carry on a sacramental life of its own, with supporting guidance from the larger denomination?  Why financially  burden a small congregation to the point of risking the loss of their church?  Denominational polity generally doesn't care - not really.  Better to lose a church building then to spend money trying to make it a viable place for worship.  

Place is an important part of a congregation's life and livelihood.  If a congregation loses its place of worship, the congregation has a greater likelihood of ceasing to exist.  Instead of making a congregation homeless, efforts should be made to prioritize what a congregation needs in order to keep its church or exist without one.  Congregations may age out, but as long as there is a membership that can afford the upkeep of its house of worship, accommodations should be made to make the congregation self-sufficient in carrying out its sacramental life and worship for as long as possible.   

Unless there is a change in the polity in mainline denominations, the smaller congregation will disappear.  Interest in Christianity, itself, will eventually dwindle.  There is a serious need for Christian churches to reevaluate the relevance of their teachings and their practices in the light of world we live in today.  Recalibrating Christianity is a necessity for its survival as a meaningful resource to guide the faithful through the complexities of a changing world being shaped by a better understanding of its history, its science, and human existence.

Norm  

1.John Barton, "A History of the Bible - the Book and Its Faiths," Penguin Books, Copyright 2019 John Barton Pg.3 & 4,