RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - JESOLOGY

After having written several post on the need to recalibrate certain aspects of traditional Christianity that are considered foundational to its existence, I am going to attempt to describe how recalibration can be done.   I ended with the topic of theology and introduced a new approach which strictly treats Jesus as a human rather than the "only-begotten" Son of God.  To be a human being is the result of a universal power that enabled life on this planet, a power that in Christian circles is called God.  As such, I am calling this new approach to understanding Jesus, Jesology, a humanological approach to understanding Jesus from the perspective of his being a Jewish man living in the 1st. century C.E. Palestine. 

As mentioned in other posts, I feel it is vitally important to understand Jesus as a devout 1st century Jew  and what he was telling his fellow Jews about their relationship to God and each other and by extension what he is telling us today.   Jesology strips away the divine veneer that Christianity has given Jesus, while accepting that this veneer was given to Jesus' story to make Jesus more appealing to the polytheistic mindset of the Roman Empire.  As such, Jesology is not a theology but a type of humanology. 

Theology is a highly speculative navel-gazing activity based on premises that have no basis in fact; like his supposed virgin birth, the intended purpose of his existence to be a sacrificial victim, his resurrection,  and his ascension.   Christian theology has been and to a large extent remains resistant to historic and scientific discoveries.  Historically speaking, anyone within the ecclesial realm who possesses an inquiring and open mind like Galileo and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and are perceived as contradicting Christian dogma are likely to be treated with suspicion if not viewed as heretical.  Christian theology; in particular, Christology offers a narrow perspective of Jesus based on the premise that Jesus is not only the Messiah that Jews fail to recognize but also that Jesus is the "only-begotten" Son of God.   What Christology tends to sidetrack is the teachings of Jesus that were relevant to human life in his day and remain so today.

HUMAN JESUS

Jesology sees treats Jesus solely as a human.  Period.  If Jesus believed he was a child or a son of God as portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, he didn't keep that to designation himself.  Human Jesus did not see himself as the only made-to-order child of God.   If we take the account of the vision he experienced at his baptism in the Jordan in which he heard God say, "This is my son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased" as a factual experience, Jesus likely did not take it to mean he was the only one, but that what he personally felt and experienced applied to everyone; namely, that if everyone had a vision in which God spoke to them like he did, they too would have heard the same thing, "This is my son... this is my daughter... ." Jesus applied his experience to everyone he met.

Human Jesus saw Samaritan lepers, a Roman Centurion, and a Syro-Phoenecian woman as worthy of his attention.  He marveled at the amount of trust they gave him.  In fact, I would say he was surprised on their willingness to approach him.  Miraculous healings attributed to Jesus appear to have involved deep-seated intentionality and faith, which is particularly evident in the story of Roman Centurion asking Jesus to heal his slave,  the Syro-Phoenecian woman asking Jesus to heal her daughter, and the father at wits end on how to heal his epileptic son.  

While being seen as a healer would have undoubtedly drawn people to him,  his teachings were aimed at mending their interpersonal relationships which would deepen their relationship with the being-ness of God in which we find ourselves living and being loved.  Human Jesus did not see himself as a divine offspring of God, but rather in a human relationship the creator of our being, "Our Father," which opened him to the understanding that every person is his sibling by virtue of being a child of God like himself.  That was the primary focus of his ministry, to reestablish within the context of his Jewish faith this fundamental relationship amongst his fellow Jews. Not only are Jews a chosen people but also each Jewish person is a child of God chosen for a broader mission to the world of God's other children, their gentile siblings.  

Jews understand that gentiles are also made in the image of God and thus God's children.  The focus of Jesus' ministry was not to save the world en masse by being sacrificed for the sins of the world.   If the world is to be saved it would be because of the ethical teachings he was giving to his fellow Jews.  It would be due to the deeper relationship that Jews had to each other as God's chosen children  by reaffirming their mission to be a light to world; that the world would be saved through their embrace of his teachings.  

   BEING HUMANE

People know God.  They might call God by other names, but they know or suspect that there is a power above any human power that is responsive to our needs.  Call it Being, God, or the Universe, there is a personal sense of something in us and around us that cares for us.   Jesus had an abundance of that sense.  Jesus called God Father to identify God as a loving and caring parent.  

People can lose this caring personal sense rather easily.   Perhaps the most important task of religion is to keep reminding us of this sense.  Jesus defines in himself what it means to be human and  (in a reversal to Chrstian theology) what is human about God.  As a result we understand that being made in the image of God is what makes us humans.

In Jesus' view, God's divinity can only be comprehended in God's humanity, God's relating to the whole human condition with love, compassion, caring, forgiveness   As such Jesus is our exemplar of this interrelationship between God and humankind.  Throughout his life, Jesus was living into what he told us to live into, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect."  (Matthew 5:48).  Perfection in this case is not being a sinless do-gooder, but rather a humble person who knows one's faults and weaknesses as well as one's strengths and talents; a person who uses that information to foster a compassionate and caring approach towards one's fellow human beings.

Jesus does not need to be God to inspire goodness. Neither Jesus nor God never relegated the task of saving the world to only Jesus or God's self.  We see in Jesus that it is relegated to all of us.  If we want to save ourselves and the world we live in, Jesus points out that we have a major role to play that extends far beyond someone's (not God's) idea of being sexual moral, saying the right things, and being church-goers.  It is about treating others as one's siblings, treating animals humanely, treating plants with respect because every single animal and plant species, including ourselves are dependent on each other.  

Jesus was amongst the earliest environmentalist.  He tells us to consider the lilies of the fields and the birds of the air.  If we want to engage with God's perfect creation; God's perfection, we must protect and appreciate creation as God does.  Jesus was not a doomsday sort of person.  When people questioned him about the end times, he points to what we are doing in the present.

In the parable of the king overseeing the last judgment in Matthew 25, the king makes a profound concluding statement,  "What you do to the least of my brethren you do to me."  Generally speaking, most Christians see the King as God or Jesus, but being a parable invites us to see ourselves in the character of the king.  What we do to the least of our brethren we do not only to everyone else, we do it to ourselves.  

One can extend this line of thinking even further.  Our brethren on this small speck of dust includes the plants and animals we share it with; the land we live on, the air we breath, and the water we drink.  We humans historically have a terrible time  treating each other humanely.  We are just beginning to see on a larger scale an appreciation of the interconnectedness we have with all living things. We still have a long way to go as we continue to war with ourselves over things we don't really own and really don't matter.

Historically, Christianity has not done much to help with in saving ourselves and our planet home by relegating the full effect of salvation to an end time when those who believed that Jesus Christ died for their sins and kept their noses clean will get their heavenly reward.  We tend to ignore the stories of Jesus conversing and communing with those who were considered sinners, the extorting tax collector, the prostitutes, and the unclean.  Jesus was critical of the religious leaders of his day for their hypocrisy in applying a strict moral code on everyone they judged less than they, while giving themselves a pass because they considered themselves more righteous and deserving.

JESOLOGY  

Jesus is a unique human and unlike the polytheistic mind-set of most living in the 1st century, Jesus does not need to be God.   It is time to move beyond a theology that requires Jesus to be the "only begotten" Son of God and the Christianity of the Roman Empire which remains embedded in the modern Christian mind.  Recalibrating Jesus back to his being a human like the rest of us and provides giving us a fresh look at what Jesus taught and why he taught it.  

Jesology raises important questions.  What are we make of the stories about Jesus? What are we to make of the stories of his birth, the miracle stories, and his resurrection story?  Should Jesus be worshipped? How does one treat the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Epistles, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelations?  Does Christianity have any relevance today?   

The last question is the first question I asked at the beginning of this series on recalibrating Christianity.  In my opinion, the term "Christianity" is problematic in that it implies from the start that Jesus is the Messiah Jews and Christians are still seeking within the context of their religions.  Christians and Jews share this anticipation of a coming Messiah.  In fact, much of Christianity is a remake of Judaism for gentiles, along with the inclusion of some Greek and Roman pagan concepts and rituals.  

For most Christians in the Church today, its longstanding beliefs and doctrines about Jesus are not sustainable for the reasons I have explained in the preceding posts.  People are leaving christian churches primarily because of Christianity's lack of relevance.  It is hard to sincerely relate to a god/man; to someone who is not like us, who is more god than human no matter how much Christian doctrine stresses that Jesus is both true human and true God.  

Human Jesus is relatable.  Human Jesus' teachings are not only relatable but they are also applicable.  He does not have to be God to be life-saving.  He only needs to be one of us who has tried to make us understand that we are loved and cared for as children of God.  It is up to us to embrace and put into practice what Jesus has taught; to allow it to inspire us in finding deeper meaning and understanding in and about our lives.

In the next post, I will begin a new series on the Recalibrated Church that is based on human Jesus.

Norm

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - THEOLOGY

How does Christianity break away from its navel gazing theology?  How does Christianity bring Jesus back to earth as being fully human?   How does Christianity recalibrate and retain the Bible as its foundational source in the light of anthropological, historical, and scientific evidence that debunks and questions the factuality of its narrative?

Jesus, if he indeed existed (and there is no reason to believe that as human he didn't) is far more interesting to me as a human rather than the only-begotten Son of God.  In fact, I have difficulty relating to the concept of a human identified as a "sinless" demigod whose sole purpose was to pay for the sins of the world by being crucified.  If Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, he is anything but what people expected two thousand years ago and what they expect today, which, to be honest remains pretty much what they expected two thousand years ago.   Many Christians look for Jesus, the Messiah, to return to earth as a warrior god-king.  A god-king who will set creation straight, judge the living and dead, and establish a new creation.  

WAIT!!!  

Does anyone else see the irony of saying Jesus freed us from our sins and then has to come back and judge us,  as if being once pardoned one will still be judged if one keeps sinning?   Does anyone really believe their sin are forgiven, and "by really" I mean having no fear of the after-life consequences of one's actions in a here and now?   Doesn't the concept of Hell, for instance, contradict the fundamental purpose of Jesus dying to save the world, past, present, and future?

Historically, some early Christians like the Roman emperor Constantine refused baptism until they were on their deathbed so that they wouldn't have a chance to sin after being baptized.  What strange theology.  If Christ died once for all, then shouldn't that be enough?  Why the need for Jesus Christ to return as judge?  

Could there be a theology that does not rely on ambiguity about whether or not one's sins are forgiven; a theology in which there is no need for Hell since Jesus broke the bonds of Hell? One would think that the essential Gospel message is that everyone is saved - full stop - that there is no need to keep beating oneself up or anyone else over the concept of sin.   In fact it isn't that death has lost its sting, but rather that sin has lost its effectiveness. 

Paul's justification through faith mitigates the salvific effect of Jesus' supposed sacrifice as the everlasting atonement for humankind's sins.  Salvation is conditioned on faith in Paul's mind which is not something everyone has.  Some are predestined to be saved, others not.   Does salvation or my preferred term, redemption, need to be grounded in the tragic and horrific execution of Jesus by crucifixion?

STARTING OVER

Theologically speaking, what if we start over?    Why not keep God as a permeating spirit,  a creating, recreating, and sustaining force working (to borrow a phrase from Martin Luther) through, with, and under the forces and species (Aquinas) of nature?  Why not keep Jesus of Nazareth a human being like the rest of us?

If one would start at the beginning of human understanding of a universal force beyond human comprehension, an unnamable God (the ideal God) that brings about everything, how would one differentiate being made in God's image from God being made in our image?   

Most of what the Bible describes as God's mood has a definite human flavor.  Philosophers, such as Ludwig Feuerbach, have been on to this theological problem for some time.  Apart from Judaism and Islam, the Christian version of God is depicted as all powerful. all knowing, wise, and Zeus-like old man or a Janus-like three-faced God in which Jesus is depicted like God's younger self.  By Old Testament standards, God cannot be made into an image, ether in stone or in our minds.  Jesus is not the face of God.  Jesus might be considered the human exemplar of God's relationship with humankind, but Jesus is not God.  

It is unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew and the son of Mary and Joseph, ever thought of himself as God nor did he ever refer to himself in the Synoptic Gospel as the Son of God.  Rather, he chose to refer to himself as the Son of Man.  Why not stick and work with that?

The problem with the New Testament is that everything after the Gospel of Mark, from the Gospel of John through Revelation, is a theology that places Jesus near or as being equivalent with God without directly saying it. That equivalency would come later at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.  The theology of Jesus, Christology, is based on Jesus being the Messiah of Judaism.  More importantly Jesus is God incarnate whose sole purpose was to sacrifice himself for our sins, be resurrected by God, and return to "heaven" until such time he returns to judge the world.   Christology is not based on fact, but rather on speculative beliefs and unverifiable stories

The mythic basis for Christology is important to understanding Christianity's development and evolution. It evolved from mindset juggling with a monotheistic understanding of creation in a polytheistic world where gods and goddesses have images, have sexual relationships with humans who then produce demigod offspring.  It is world where demigods (and occasionally a god) can be killed, and resurrected and raised to the level of their divine parentage. Christianity could not have evolved and survived  solely as a monotheistic religion in a polytheistic culture.   While such myths have no basis in fact, they are capable of giving meaning to human experience on a metaphorical level.  

As such, there is no need to edit or rewrite the scriptures we have, but rather understand them for what they are.  God did not write the Bible.  God as the ideal creator, re-creator (redeemer), and sustainer of the universe is the inspiration for writing the Bible, but human beings wrote the Bible as the speculative story of the interaction between this divine ideal and humankind.   As I have mentioned in other posts,  the Bible is not the Word of God, but rather words about God.   The claim that the Bible is the Word of God renders it an idol to be worshipped as the voice of God which it is not nor is it an exact transcription of what God is said.  The oldest scriptures within the Bible was written centuries, perhaps a millennia or two, after God was perceived as acting in (guiding) our history. 

As such, theology should be a fluid undertaking that not only appreciates an ever evolving relationship with God as distilled in scripture, but also in the light of scientific discoveries and emerging human thought expressed in word and deeds. God is what God is. and God will be what God will be at any given time.  As such, one cannot paint a permanent picture of God.  Allegorically speaking, God is light, love, the flame, the cloud, the thunder, the quaking earth, the wind, the dawning, the darkening, the absence, the quiet, etc..   God cannot be pinned down by our limited understanding; not by creeds, doctrines, or dogmatic beliefs.

JESOLOGY 

Theology is a dangerous activity when it tries to figure out God and paint a picture of God.  Jesus cannot be God, but is one of the many manifestations or incarnations of God.  In Christianity,  Jesus should be understood as the prime exemplar of what a human child of God i.   Instead of Christology, there is a need for a humanology seen through the teachings of Jesus, a "Jesology" (so to speak) that examines the image of God at work in our world and through all of our lives as expressed in the teachings of Jesus. 

The mythological stories; such as, the birth stories, miracle stories, resurrection and ascension stories about Jesus should not be altered in text, but altered in meaning.   As mentioned above, they contain meaning without having to be believed as factual events.  They are relevant without being replicable in a factual way.  Preachers often give sermons that talk about Jesus' birth stories and his resurrection stories as metaphors for the experience we have in our lives.  All mythic stories have this attribute of applicability.  Treating stories that have no factual or replicable basis removes the burden of having to believe in something unbelievable in order for it to convey meaning.  

Within many of my previous posts is an emerging theology based on Jesus' teachings and the stories about Jesus.   To bring Jesus down to earth, where Jesus started and ended his life is vital to recalibrating Christianity.  In future post, I plan to expand on this concept of Jesology, as a form of humanology based on the teachings of Jesus.  

Norm

  

   

  

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 

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,

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - JESUS OR THE APOSTLES

"Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?"

From The Baptismal Covenant 

in 

The Book Of Common Prayer (BCP)

* * *

This question in the Rite of Holy Baptism as found in the Book of Common Prayer baffles me.  It follows a question and answer form of the Apostle's Creed as part of the interrogatories asked of a candidate for baptism or confirmation prior to being baptized or confirmed.   It baffles me, in part, because the Apostle's Creed is really void of anything the first century apostles taught.  So, if not the first century apostles then who?  Their later successors like Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement of Rome from whom the concept of the Trinity was derived, but the creed, however, was not articulated until in the later part of the fourth century.  

It also baffles me because it seems to take precedence over what Jesus' actually taught.  There is no mention in any of interrogatories that specifically mentions anything Jesus specifically taught, like loving one's enemies or forgiving someone repeatedly.   I not only find that rather odd, but also problematic.

The entire rite of baptism assumes a great deal when it comes to knowing what it means to renounce Satan and all the forces of wickedness that rebel against God, amongst other renunciations, or what it means to follow and obey Jesus Christ as one's Lord without referencing what Jesus had to say about such things.  Being raised in and a member of various mainline Christian denominations, there's a vague assumption as to what such things mean.  Parents, Godparents, and members of the congregation are quick to say, "I renounce..." when one is asked to renounce something and "I do" to anything one is asked to do without a full disclosure of what agreeing to do actually entails.

* * *

The problem I have with this entry rite into Christianity is that it immediately places emphasis on what the apostles taught about Jesus rather than what Jesus taught.  I don't find the teachings of the Jesus as found in the Synoptic Gospels to be synonymous to what the apostles taught. There is no doubt that the whole of the canonical New Testament was editorialized numerous times to make sure that it presented a coherent if not a consistent message regarding the "Good News" in Jesus Christ that is based on the teachings of the apostles.  The bad news is that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth ar, in practice, subordinate to the apostolic teachings of the imperial church of the Roman Empire, which remain the primary focus of virtually all Christian denominations in the twenty-first century.

* * *

The primacy of the apostolic teachings, especially, the letters attributed Paul, the Johannine scriptures, and the Acts of the Apostles have largely shaped Christianity of which the Synoptic Gospels and other letters basically serve as an adjunct to their primacy.   After the resurrection stories of the Gospels, Christianity largely becomes a Hellenistic remake of Judaism.  In other words, it is a hybrid religion that includes a second coming of the Messiah, modeled after Judaism's belief that the Messiah will come and the use of mystic rituals reminiscent of Greek and Roman mystery rites such as, Holy Communion and Holy Baptism that identify and affirm one as a true member of Christ's body (i.e the Church) as the guarantor of salvation and "Keeper of the Keys to the Kingdom."

I do not see an easy way of recalibrating something that has become entrenched in the fabric of Christianity for almost two thousand years.  I can only share my personal perspective of something I find problematic, not only to Christians but to the world.   I would like to see the teachings of Jesus as found in the Synoptic Gospels (minus their obvious later editorial comments) given a primary role in shaping both Christianity's purpose in this world.  For one thing,  I do not see Jesus' teachings aimed at saving us from sin but rather changing how we effectively deal with it; as in, the use of Jesus' view of unconditional forgiveness and love.

Secondly, I see Jesus' teachings as an attempt to realize his vision of the Kingdom of God in this life; to save the world we live in from the (evil) "devices and desire of our hearts."(from the Rite I confession, BCP)   I find it hard to believe that Jesus thought his life's purpose was to offer himself as a sacrifice to God for the sins of others.  In Jesus' day, such a concept was already questionable.  In the Gospel of Matthew (9:13), Jesus quotes Hosea saying that God did not delight sacrifice.  If that is so, how much more would God would refrain from offering God's son?   

This does not exclude the likelihood that Jesus knew that his preaching and teachings could and most likely would identify him as a threat to the status quo and the powers that be.  That he would end up crucified or stoned to death was a possibility that followed him throughout his ministry.  So talking about his death with his closest disciples and followers is likely, given the times in which they lived.  

That his eventual execution at the hands of the Romans was understood as a sacrifice strikes me as an after-the-fact rationalization of it serving some larger purpose from which the resurrection story evolved.  "Jesus lives!" became the launching pad for the apostolic teachings about Jesus in which he transcends the finite realm of this life and ascends to the infinite throne of God.

Ironically, the teachings of Jesus which define a way of life for this life, became superseded by a focus on living this life in preparation for a next life.  Forgiveness, the primary healing tool of Jesus for transforming this life becomes replaced by relying on Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross as the means of forgiving sins once and for all.  Belief in such an ideological ideal virtually renders us hopelessly impotent to do anything about the evil and ills we create and commit.

According to apostolic teachings, all one has to do is believe that one's sins are forgiven along with willfully trying to avoid engaging in sin again - AND JUST LIKE THAT -  we're back to square one as being the miserable sinners we are condemned to be due to being genetically doomed to sin from birth due to our parents lustful act of conceiving us (or so Augustine of Hippos would have us believe).  Let's face it, we Christians willfully sin every day and then act as if we can't do anything about it, except to keep on confessing our unworthiness and asking God to forgive us for Jesus' sake, a task that eventually becomes old an relegated to a weekly confession of sins.

The truth is , according to scripture, God doesn't want to act like a divine bookkeeper who keeps track of every infraction we commit, which lead to the fact that, according to Jesus,  we can forgive ourselves; not as a means ignoring the bad things we have done, but as a means to move beyond them, so that we can help others move beyond their wrongdoing until the whole pointlessness of continuing to do harm to oneself and others is an engrained in us.  We are, in a global sense, addicted to causing pain in order to experience relief from it.  This addiction to suffering is humanity's darkest side.  What keeps us there is a religious notion that we can't do anything about it, except suffer through it nobly or not, and hope for a better life in some form of hereafter.  

* * *

Perhaps the reason that Jesus' teachings never enjoyed the attraction that the teachings of the apostles about Jesus have is because unconditional forgiveness and love are not that attractive to the vast majority of human beings; as they require that one puts aside one's ego to make room for the other who may not appreciate another person's effort to be forgiving.  Loving one's enemies can seem impractical which will likely lead to misery rather than relieve it.  Loving others as oneself can be viewed as bordering on the narcissistic which can lead to misunderstandings.  The reality is as soon as Jesus was no longer present on this earth, much of what occupied nascent Christian thought was merely trying to figure out who Jesus was and when he was coming back to finish the job he started.    

The resurrection story did much to diminish the relevance of Jesus' teachings about this life.  Treating Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the sins of the world made my forgiving others optional and loving one's neighbor was relegated to loving one's fellow Christians, as in mandate that Jesus gave his disciples in the Gospel of John, "Love one another as I have loved you." (John 13:34).  Why waste love on those who, because of their disbelief in Jesus being the only begotten Son of God, are already condemned as noted in John 3:18?  Johannine theology virtually wipes out the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.  Between Johannine and Pauline theology there is virtually nothing one can do to save oneself and the world we live in. Either you are saved or you are not.  This is the fatalism that is intrinsic in belief-based faith.   If you believe correctly, you are saved.  If you don't, you are condemned either because you don't believe or are destined not to believe.    

Wasn't trying to realize the Kingdom of God in this world what Jesus was training his disciples to do in the Synoptic Gospels?  Wasn't his collected teachings described in the Sermon on the Mount and the Plain and his parables designed to motivate us to realize the Kingdom of God in our time and in our world?

* * *

There have been those throughout history who have tried to put the teachings of Jesus into action only to  find themselves ostracized by ecclesial authority and persecuted as heretics.  Jesus' formula for changing the world is by grabbing hold of the Kingdom of God and simply loving others as one wants to feel loved and to forgive as one wants to be forgiven.  It's as simple as that and as hard as that.  

The reward  for doing that is a better world, a world at peace with itself, a world in which everyone acts as if they have taken the Hippocratic oath, to refrain from intentionally doing harm.  Jesus actually goes beyond Hippocrates by forgiving those who do harm as a means to heal the wounds that have caused them to wound others.   This obviously is not going to happen overnight.  It involves a commitment to forgive out of a recognition that every human is capable of and vulnerable to committing harm.  As such, every human is worthy of being forgiven because not to forgive is a form of doing harm. 

Think of the impact this would have on our personal and global affairs.  People and nations forgiving other people and nations without having to resort to retaliation.   How much easier would it be to negotiate peace terms if forgiveness was always on the table, rather than threats.  I realize that none of this will come naturally to people because all of us, to some degree or another, have been subjected to victimization  in one form or another because our systems of governance within the secular world and the religious world relies on the fear of punishment as the best deterrent to acts of violence; the belief that the best way to fight a human fire is with a human on fire.  Perhaps that's the best way to stop a wild fire, but it is not the best way to stop a conflagration between humans.  Our history shows us that wars to end all wars only leads to more wars.

The only way to stop all wars is for one side of a conflict not to retaliate and risk annihilation at the hands of an enemy.  I know this sounds ridiculous and unimaginable.   It strikes me as such just writing it down. 

But I cannot think of way to avoid war unless some nation is willing to put that on the table - "If you strike us, we will not strike back."  Jesus put this in terms of personal conflict and turning the other cheek.   What will the rest of the world make of such a solution.  Is it madness or genius? 

If the nuclear arms race has taught us anything it is the capability of nuclear armed nations to destroy the entire world.  Limited warfare ultimately will lead to their use.  It is only a matter of time.  In a sense we are already being held hostage to such an inevitability as world leaders threaten its use openly or in covert ways  Revenge and retaliations must be off the table and all religions have a role to play in making this happen.  A religion that does not make this priority of their teachings and practices is not part of the problem.  It is the problem.

* * *

The apostolic teachings in Christianity; such as, the epistles of Paul and those of other church leaders in the early centuries of Christianity had no problem with the Roman empires use of force; especially, if it was used to rid the empire of what orthodox catholicism deemed heretical.  Every religion and ideological school of thought that considers itself to be the one and only true (orthodox) perspective  tends to be okay with eliminating what it considers heretical.  

If Jesus was critical of anything, it was the religious leaders of his day who failed to address the basic needs of people to be unconditionally cared for; to be unconditionally loved and forgiven.  In the case of the Pharisees, it was their attempt to create a morally correct life by establishing a rule-based religion that covered almost every aspect of Jewish life which many Jews were unable to afford and thus were pushed to the fringe of society.  For the Sadducees, it was finding ways to perpetuate their social status as keepers of the Temple, by creating a monetary system that enriched the Temples coffer and their personal coffers, through currency trading.  The result was the uncontrolled exploitation of faithful Jews by those who used their positions as money changers and sold  animals for temple sacrifice to line their pockets with ill gotten gains  

Jesus wasn't having any of that.  In fact, Jesus was less concerned with the Romans than he was with the religious hypocrisy and heartless behaviors exhibited by the leaders of various Jewish sects.   Jesus was vulnerable to acting out.  His anger got the better of him when he cleansed the temple of the money changers and those who sold animals for sacrificial purposes in the temple.  Jesus was human, after all, inspire of the apostolic teachings that said otherwise.  If Jesus was vulnerable then so are we, but like Jesus we can recover, we can be forgiving even to the point of forgiving those who kill us or prefer that we are dead.  

I don't believe in a sinless human.  We humans are not perfect. Neither was Jesus.  Jesus famously advised that we be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect.  He didn't say be perfect as I am perfect.  He never claimed perfection and neither should we.  We need to live with our faults by forgiving them, individually and collectively.  Jesus never stated that forgiveness is a one time bargain as the apostles claimed it to be after his crucifixion.   Instead he told is disciples that forgiveness is never off the table, no matter how many times we are called upon to do so.  

* * *

Unconditional love is exhibited in unconditional forgiveness.  Unconditional forgiveness requires a strength and a will that paradoxically rejects the use of force and the need to be acknowledged as being right about something.  It requires a letting go of self to increase a greater sense of SELF; in other words, to be perfect as God is, kenotically speaking, perfect.  The teachings and way of Jesus must take center stage if Christianity and world are to survive.  Other religions must also find their way to reject religious sanctioning of violence in any form and to instill in their followers the need to unconditionally forgive and love the other as oneself.

* * *

Norm

  

 

 

  

JESUS AS PROVOCATEUR - A HOMILY

I delivered this homily at Christ Episcopal, Yankton, SD on June 2, 2024.   The scripture lessons for the day were Deuteronomy 5:12-15 and Mark 2:23-3:6 on which this homily is based.

* * *

“Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?”  Mark 3:4a

Given the full rendition of the fourth commandment in our first reading, how would we answer Jesus’ question? Unlike the fourth commandment in our prayer book which simply tells us to Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy, the biblical account tells us how to do so.  Throughout the Old Testament what it means to refrain from work is explicitly laid out.   For example:

During the exodus, the Israelites were to stay in their dwellings on Sabbath; they were to gather the manna they ate during the week because God would not be provide it on the Sabbath.

Lighting a fire or extinguishing a fire was prohibited. 

Plowing and harvesting was forbidden.

Walking was limited to 3/4 of a mile on the Sabbath

* * * 

Today, Orthodox Jews have 39 sabbath prohibitions.  Yuval Harari, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, noted in his book, “21 Lesson for the 21st Century;” 

that some Orthodox Jews in Israel tear off sheets of lavatory paper before the Sabbath starts because one of the 39 prohibitions is tearing things.  To be clear, Orthodox rabbis have determined that the Sabbath can be “violated” in order to save someone’s life.  The point is, in Judaism, keeping the Sabbath holy is no small undertaking.  It requires planning and preparation.  

So, why was Jesus allowing his disciples to pluck heads of grain - to  harvest - them on the Sabbath?  When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about this, he reminded them of David doing something far worse;  taking the Show Bread that was offered to God on the Sabbath which only the priests could eat after nine days.  

* * *

As the story goes, David was alone and on the run from King Saul who was out to kill him.   David lied to Abimelech, a priest in the Tabernacle, telling him he was on secret mission for Saul and needed food for his companions.  Believing David, Abimelech gave him five loaves of the twelve loaves of Show Bread.  Then David said, “O by the way, you don’t happen have any weapons lying around?  I was in such a rush to do Saul’s bidding, I forgot to bring mine.  Abimelech said, “As matter of fact, we do.”  We have Goliath’s sword and gives it to David.  When Saul finds out about this, he has Abimelech and eighty five other priests killed.   [See 1 Samuel 21 - 22. (Note: In Mark's telling of this story Jesus states that Abiathar who was the High Priest during King Davids reign was the priest David approached in 1 Samuel, which is obviously incorrect.)]

* * *

Mark tells us that prior to healing the man with a withered hand,  Jesus liberated a man possessed with a demon and healed Peter’s sick mother-in-law on a previous sabbath.  When that Sabbath ended, others came to Jesus in the dark of night to be healed by him to avoid violating the Sabbath.

When Jesus entered the synagogue, in today’s reading,  he sees the man with a withered hand and asks the

congregation, in his roundabout way, if he could lawfully heal him.  The congregation goes silent.   Jesus give them an angry look because of their insensitivity to the man’s  condition and he immediately heals his withered hand.

I am not sure why asking the man to stretch out his hand was considered work, but it most likely has something to do with Jesus’ provocative question which cast healing as his work. Jesus could have reminded his disciples to bring along extra food to eat on the Sabbath and avoid the risk of violating the fourth commandment.  Jesus could have waited until the Sabbath ended to heal the man’s withered hand, but Jesus didn’t do those things.

 Why?   Why was he being provocative when it came to keeping the Sabbath holy?

* * *

The answer lies in Jesus’ earlier statement to the Pharisees:

“The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

Jesus recalibrated the purpose of the fourth commandment based on its original premises; the creation story in Genesis in which God rested and gave rest to creation and the Passover story, considered a Sabbath event,  in which God liberated the Children of Israel from slavery.  Sabbaths are transitional moments in which God recreates and liberates.

* * * 

About Jesus' claim that Son of man is lord of the Sabbath, the term “Son of Man”, in Hebrew is בן אדם, son of Adam.  Generically, it simply means human.  It is was God’s moniker for Ezekiel which Jesus adopted to reference himself, because, like Ezekiel, Jesus not only taught by what he said but also by what he did.

“So the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath,” in this context is a literary and oratory device in Hebrew to reinforce the previous statement, the sabbath is made for humankind.

Being lords and ladies of the sabbath does not mean we can do what we want on the Sabbath as one might conclude.  On the contrary, in Jesus’ recalibration of the fourth commandment, every day becomes a sabbath day, a day in which to re-create and liberate.

* * *

Jesus, in the Gospel of Mark, is an edgy man on a mission, for whom there was no time like the present to do good.  Jesus was always on the lookout for those who needed a recreating and liberating sabbath rest.

If we claim to follow Jesus, how can we be any different?  How can we afford to be indifferent in providing sabbath rest to others when needing it ourselves?

May God give us courageous hearts to become a Sabbath people, who give rest to the restless, who liberate the weary from their burdens, who mend the broken, and who bring Shabbat shalom, Sabbath Peace to all.

Amen.

* * * 

Norm