+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:
Genesis 42:18-28, 1 Corinthians 5:9-6:8, Mark 4:1-20

Paul says in verse 9 that he’s written the Corinthians before, in an earlier epistle. Which, of course, makes this to be the second - and the one we call “2nd Corinthians” to be the 3rd! I wonder how many other ones we’re missing?

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”
1 Corinthians 5:11-13

In his commentary on this passage, John Chrysostom says,

“Put away from among yourselves the wicked person.” Paul used an expression found in the Old Testament, (Deut. xvii. 7.) partly hinting that they too will be very great gainers, in being freed as it were from some grievous plague; and partly to shew that this kind of thing is no innovation, but even from the beginning it seemed good to the Law Giver (Moses) that such as these should be cut off. But in that instance it was done with more severity, in this with more gentleness.

Chrysostom notes that “in that instance” (in the OT) in fact, it was stoning. Here it is “only” excommunication - driving “such a one” out from the community.

But, really Paul wasn’t being less severe at all.

All modern translations of this text into English agree: Paul was referring to “an evil person”. The Hebrew text that Paul citing only mentions “evil” - sweep the evil out from your midst.

The LXX, however, uses the Greek that Paul sites - and it adds a person to it. The Greek is more than a little awkward, using the word for “evil” the same way that Jesus uses it in the Lord’s Prayer where it means “the evil one”. In this passage from Paul, “the evil one” is made more explicit by telling the Corinthians not even to “eat with such a one.”

This passage annoys me.

Because Paul gets the Hebrew wrong.
Paul says *nothing* like what Jesus would say.
And conservative Christians - to this day - use this passage as a proof text when they want to avoid people who are different. Some (Catholics, Orthodox, Missouri Synod Lutherans) use this as support to avoid taking communion with others.

The Hebrew seems to imagine “the evil” as a a contagion within the community. (As later, the Rabbis will refer to “the evil inclination” and “the good inclination in people.) The LXX seems to personify “the evil” however, into “the evil one”. But even so it’s not clear if “the evil one” refers to someone committing a sin (that has just been stoned to death) or to the devil, as, again, an evil force or contagion in the community. Paul goes a step further and makes the implication clear: the evil is personified in the sinner.

So what I want to know is, how is this like Jesus - who even gave communion to Judas?

Again, Chrysostom says that Paul is being “more gentle” than Moses. But I’m not sure that kicking someone out of the community (where, to let Paul continue God will judge the “outsiders”) is very gentle at all.

How should we treat one among us who is “sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber”? Jesus was quite clear: let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.

Right now the Anglican Communion is going through this over and over - with people on both sides of the Human Sexuality Debate trying to “not eat with” the folks on the other side.

And, having followed Paul to the letter through these first few verses, they are filing law suits in secular courts, going to the secular media, making a public outcry - denying Paul in the rest of today’s reading.

They will know we are Christians by our love.

Yup.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings,
Genesis 41:46-57, 1 Corinthians 4:8-21, Mark 3:7-19a

I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me.
1 Corinthians 4:14-16

Don’t you think it’s interesting that Paul says “Imitate me…” instead of “Imitate Jesus…”? Or even, “Look I’m trying to imitate Jesus, so you can follow me in trying to do so as well…”

One of the more-common accusation levelled against Christianity is usually along these lines: “Jesus was pretty cool, but Paul messed the whole thing up.” And there places where Paul says rather Christ-like things, to be certain. But this isn’t one of them.

In fact, reading this passage, I understand some things and so feel inclined to remind readers of a story.

When I joined the Orthodox parish in North Carolina, there was a Priest, a Deacon, a Sub-deacon and a Reader. We had the “full compliment” of the lower orders, as present in Orthodoxy. All of these other clergy were married, and their wives and children were also members of the parish. But by the time the parish closed all of them had left. Only one of them is involved in any church at all. The rest are not religious. Of the families that were left in the parish when it closed… none of them go to any church at all save me (and we know from the comments here, that I make a bad Christian at that)!

The reason is, I’m certain, because of a fetish that many - but not all - American converts to Orthodoxy have around this concept of a “Spiritual Father” which Paul is introducing right here.

And what has suddenly become clear to me, I think, is why it breaks down. Paul says, “What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?” And there is no way that can not be read but as a threat - a most un-Jesus like threat of “punishment” and anger and judgement. I say that - no matter what you might read in the same sentence - because of my experience at that parish: I’m thinking of spending 45 mins in confession because I voted the wrong way on the parish council and the guilt trip that was inflicted on me (I was crying by the end of the session)… and ultimately because *that’s* the only way some of these other people ever experience God at all.

I think it’s interesting that 100 years after this epistle is written St Clement, the Pope, is writing the Corinthians again, about the same problems. Why? Could it have something to do with Paul making threats and acting like an angry school marm or like that Nun who used to whip you in Catholic School?

There’s a good, solid, theological reason Paul doesn’t say, “Imitate Jesus…” Or even, “Look I’m trying to imitate Jesus, so you can follow me in trying to do so as well…” There a reason he says, instead, “Imitate me.”

Because Jesus isn’t there.

The only Jesus these Gentiles (and some Jews) in Corinth will ever see is Paul. The only gospel your friends may ever read is *you*. And someone who is waiving a stick around - or threatening to - doesn’t look very much like the man who said, “he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. Suddenly I understand why the Corinthians were still having their problems 100 years later, and suddenly I understand why all the clergy left - not only Orthodoxy, but any church at all. And when the only active and present Jesus someone sees turns into a royal putz… they loose all faith in God.

How do we act?

How do we embody the Gospel?

Jesus summed up the Torah as, “Love God, Love your neighbour as you love yourslef.” The ancient Rabbis said the Torah was summed up as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour.”

Would you want someone threatening to come after you with a stick?

God is not there - save in your hands, your voice, your heart. Jesus is not present save in your body. How will God act in this situation - whatever situation you have in your life? Someone else’s life may depend on your choice.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned reading:

AM: Isaiah 49:1-6, 1 Corinthians 4:1-16
PM: Isaiah 55:1-5, John 1:35-42

Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Isaiah 55:1-2

I find it interesting that, although St Andrew shows up in all four Gospels he’s has a decidedly Greek name. His brother, Simon, has a Hebrew name (later changed to Greek). But he does not. Even in The Complete Jewish Bible - which “Hebrewizes” everything - his name is rendered as “Andrew”.

There is this Mythological story of St Andrew, that he used to preach, holding a very tall wooden cross with three bars on it. He would tell the story of the two thieves crucified with Jesus and, at the end of the story, he would kick the bottom bar on the cross and knock it on a diagonal - thus to show that one thief went up to heaven while the other thief went down to the other place. This, so the myth goes, is the origin of the “Orthodox Cross” with the three bars and the odd one at the bottom on a diagonal. It’s a myth because we don’t see the three-bar cross at all until rather late in Christian art.

The story is an example of making something up to make a new thing (that third arm) look old and respectable. You do this by decking out the new thing in ancient stories: St Andrew was a preacher, after all, as were all the Apostles.

But we get a very different reading from that story than we might get from these readings today, of a man sent out by God. The two readings form Isaiah speak of God’s servant, Israel (49:3), telling first of Israel’s frustration with the Gentiles and then of Israel’s joy that the Gentiles will come to hear her teaching “you shall call nations that you do not know, and nations that do not know you shall run to you.” (55:5) Andrew,

Likewise the reading from John and 1 Corinthians brings us to a different place: the Apostles (of whom Andrew was the very first - leading even Peter) as “Stewards of God’s Mysteries” rather than preachers of hell-fire and damnation.

And I prefer, really, to hear that voice - the steward of God’s mysteries - in those holy people I follow, or rather, come to for teaching.

A steward, if you’ll pardon the references to Tolkien, holds the place of or stands in the stead of the king (or other important person that hires the steward). In The Lord of the Rings the Stewards of Gondor guard the kingdom until the real king returns. They have no pretence to power themselves, no idea to say any more than the king would say. In fact, it is when they step beyond those bonds, and pretend to be kings themselves (able to speak in their own right) that they pay the price of madness. SO it would be with the stewards of God’s mysteries: to speak only those words that the Real King would say - and Jesus was light on the Hell Fire and Hear After: so Andrew would have been. Andrew is the first person to call Jesus “Messiah”. It takes Peter quite a while to get that through his head.

Andrew, this Hellenised Jew, would have, I think, have been quite close to crying out Jesus message of inclusion to sinners and tax collectors. I can imagine him crying out, “Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”

The Kingdom of God as economic revolution!

And because I can see such joy in this picture of Andrew, rather than in the picture of the preacher kicking down the third arm of the cross, that I think it’s good St Andrew comes to us today:

As I sat down to write this meditation, news reached me of the falling asleep in the Lord of the Rev’d M.R. Ritley. She was an assistant at St Gregory of Nyssa Church. I only remember two conversations I had with M.R.: one on the very first Sunday I came to SGN. She was the presider and preacher that day at Eucharist. It was the First Sunday of Lent - and the first time I’d sat foot in Church in nearly 10 years. I had gone that day on a dare - “I dare you to go to the Church of St Gregory” said Ethan. “You will like it.” So, in turn, I dared God: “Offend me now, and I won’t bother you again.” And I went on the First Sunday of Lent because I was sure to be offended then!

I spoke to MR after the service because I was sure I’d seen her before (when I worked for the Episcopal Church in NYC). I forget the sermon - but I was so moved by everything that I kept coming back. A year or so later, the second conversation where she reported having a discussion over someone wanting SGN to have an Icon of Harvey Milk. She opposed the idea. (I note that his death was on 27 November…)

But, apart from having no other conversations with her, I remember her sermons: filled with Sufi stories and insights into the meaning of the Greek texts. She could bring alive the text by her experiences - from her time in a commune in the 60s, through her time in the Sufi Order, through conversion and seminary time. Heavens, but she wove all of that together in a way that made sense. She brought along all that worked the Gospel, Sufi stories of Nashruddin the Fool, fights with her Hungarian family, stories of Rome before Vatican 2, of travelling around preaching in the Sufi Order, of her life in the commune. No matter what it was she brought it and offered it to God for transformation into Gospel. Her sermon on New Years Eve 1999, caused me to realise that any vocation I felt needed to be held up and offered to God to be made into Gospel as well. I’m still working on that.

As a preacher, M.R. is a perfect Gospel commentary on St Andrew’s Day.

There was one other thing she did - an accident, really. She was scheduled to preside at the Eucharist one Saturday night. I was vested as the deacon for that service. Memory is flakey here: either my friend Susan was learning to be the Cantor that night or else she was just there… It was my first time deaconing that service (and it is very different from our Sunday Morning services). As time drew near for the service, M.R. did not. She had got stuck in a horrid traffic jam on the Bay Bridge.

As time drew on, we finally decided to launch into Eucharist with no priest.

We opened the service announcing that we were without priest and maybe we’d have to stop after the Prayers of the People and the Peace. We did the entire service, drawing to the table after the prayers. And preparing to give the dismissal. Two parties in the congregation identified themselves as Episcopal Clergy in town for a meeting of some kind and we let one of them preside at the table.

Being a deacon at SGN was always about leadership - but usually under a priest’s guidance! That night I got to lead a service of strangers. M.R. had invited me into a leadership role. An experience for which I never got to thank her.

Preaching, or leading she was always inviting others in. Come! Buy! Eat! Even if you have no money!

I pray she may pray for all of us! And may God make her memory to be eternal!

Much love,

Huw

Commemoration of Alfred the Great

Today’s assigned readings:
Ezra 3:1-13, 1 Corinthians 16:10-24, Matthew 12:22-32

Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Matthew 12:31-32

Ah yes, the unforgivable sin. This passage has prompted an entire website devoted to getting folks to declare they are atheists by committing the sin of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. (Hereinafter, BATHS.) The problem is Jesus doesn’t define BATHS and seems to leave it up to all of us to figure out what a BATHS might be.

So off we go to the research, right?

John Wesley says, “The blasphemy against the Spirit - How much stir has been made about this? How many sermons, yea, volumes, have been written concerning it? And yet there is nothing plainer in all the Bible. It is neither more nor less than the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil, which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost”

This fails to work, however. This is the understanding shared by almost all Christians of all stripes. And, of course, what *we’re* doing is of God. So don’t condemn us for in doing so, you commit BATHS!

Pentecostalists use this argument most evidently against those who deny speaking in tongues or the other “gifts”. Fundamentalists (properly understood) use this line against those who claim the gifts are active today. Various “free form” communities claim that traditional liturgical communities are committing BATHS. Some traditionalist liturgical folks say the “free formers” are making BATHS. Both sides of the issues on women’s ordinations and gay ordination claim to see their opponents’ BATHS.

To accuse *you* of BATHS Serves Our Agenda Purposefully (SOAP).

But Wesley’s understanding makes perfectly good sense, based on the reading, but, further back, John Chrysostom says:

What now is it that He affirms? Many things have ye spoken against me; that I am a deceiver, an adversary of God. These things I forgive you on your repentance, and exact no penalty of you; but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, no, not to those who repent. And how can this be right? For even this was forgiven upon repentance. Many at least of those who said these words believed afterward, and all was forgiven them. What is it then that He saith? That this sin is above all things unpardonable. Why so? Because Himself indeed they knew not, who He might be, but of the Spirit they received ample experience. For the prophets also by the Spirit said whatever they said; and indeed all in the Old Testament had a very high notion of Him.

In other words this Jesus guy might confuse you, but all the Prophets throughout history - and indeed, each heart called to God - has already experienced the Holy Spirit from the inside. This Spirit is spoken of in all the world, “everywhere present and filling all things” as the Orthodox hymn has it. As we think of a an Adult Faith in a God Who Speaks… This seems to me the most important thing we’ve read all week.

In the Orthodox tradition is the understanding that while the Father seems to have the staring role in the Tanakh, the Son and the Spirit were present as well - the Trinitarian understanding implies that one doesn’t get one without the other two. So it is that the Spirit of God moving on the waters prior to creation and yet is is the Son of God who accomplishes the creation as the Active Agent of the Father. The three angels who visit Abraham are seen as the Trinity. It is the Son who parts the sea for the Hebrews while it is the Spirit that moves before them in the Pillar of Fire. The Spirit as a flame sits on the Burning Bush, the Son (in the womb of his mother) is prefigured in that image. To the Orthodox Christian, anyplace God does something in the Tanakh, it is the Son - the active word of God - that is doing the doing.

Of course this could be said to be reading backwards. Modern, 4th Century Theology has no place being read into the past. You’re free to say so. And some Orthodox, following the principal of BATHS SOAP, would accuse you of BATHS for denying the power of the Spirit to be everywhere - including the past.

But John Chrsostom’s teaching that these people already knew the Spirit far before the first Pentecost opens a very interesting door. If it’s possible, John seems to be inviting us to find where the Spirit is Active and Present in all things - even those things we want to imagine as non-Christian. Some Orthodox will tell you that the first Church was Adam and Eve and that there has never been a time when the Church wasn’t present. They do this to circumscribe the power of God - to define it. Others will tell you, “We know where the spirit is, but not where the spirit is not.” And they say this to enlarge the circle - to admit that God is not circumscribed by our beliefs. God may be present and active (and probably is) even in those who most adamantly deny him.

That active presence is the Holy Spirit.

And so I want to suggest that a very Orthodox (and orthodox) understanding of BATHS is found by admitting the possibility of the Spirit’s presence anywhere and everywhere. I’d go so far as to say it’s probably better so say “yes” than “no” when asked although we are counselled to my discerning choices and “test the spirits”.

On Sunday I mentioned someone who was a snake handler and I wondered about how she could so clearly hear the Voice of God.

And the more I’ve thought about it this week, the more I know that I have trouble telling the “voice of God” in my head from the cravings, the desires, the lusts, my ego, my imagination and all the other parts of my life that demand their moments in the Sun. If I have that much trouble telling the “voice of God” in my own head, how can I even begin to tell about what you’re hearing? Easier for me to step aside than to stop you and, perhaps, better for me spiritually if I don’t debate the finer points of what God must be saying in your head.

Mind you, I’m a blogger… so forgive me if I don’t follow my own advice.

Shabbat Shalom!

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:

Ezra 1:1-11, 1 Corinthians 16:1-9, Matthew 12:15-21

Many crowds followed him, and he cured all of them, and he ordered them not to make him known.
Matthew 12:15b-16

The Messianic Secret. It’s most prominent in Mark but it shows up in the other Synoptics as well. Here it is in Matthew. At it’s most basic the problem is phrased like this: If Jesus is the Messiah why did he keep telling people not to tell anyone?

And we have this as a response, as noted in the Wiji:

William Wrede, in his groundbreaking 1901 study, proposed that the secrecy theme was not original to Jesus’s ministry, but rather it was a theological addition added by the writer of the Gospel of Mark. Wrede’s argument, still influential today in religious studies, states that the Gospel of Mark had to come up with a convincing explanation for why Jesus did not seem like a messiah during the course of his life. By emphasizing secrecy in his gospel, Mark could simultaneously claim that Jesus was the messiah and that nobody knew it until after he had died, and that his messiahship was revealed only through his resurrection

That opens a number of doors. But it also closes some others. If the secrecy narratives are not historical - but inserted after the fact, then why? Wrede’s answer is problematic to anyone who holds to what might be called traditional orthodoxy, “By emphasizing secrecy in his gospel, Mark could simultaneously claim that Jesus was the messiah and that nobody knew it until after he had died…”

On the other hand, claiming the secrecy narratives are historical creates some other problems:

…[S]ome of Jesus’ miracles simply would not have been able to be kept quiet, for example the raising of Jairus’ daughter… On the one hand the crowds gather to be healed and to acclaim Jesus; on the other he attempts to silence them. But he simply does not act as a man who wants to stay hidden! The commands to silence simply ring unrealistically and unhistorically. There are also some judderings, [shakings - DHR] e.g. when the commands to silence are disobeyed, or not even given after a miracle. It is unlikely that historical commands of Jesus which were disobeyed were recorded, and some non-historical explanation for this would be preferable.

But Matthew says it’s to fulfil a prophecy, and goes on to cite some verses from Isaiah 42:

Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope.

(The last line about hope is not in the original text, nor in the Vulgate. I’m not sure if it’s in the LXX or just an editorial midrash. The Hebrew says “the coastlands wait for his teaching.”)

In commenting on Matthew’s use of the passage from Isaiah, John Wesley says this

He will proclaim justice to the Gentiles - That is, he shall publish the merciful Gospel to them also: the Hebrew word signifies either mercy or justice. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. - That is, he shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious: but gentle, quiet, and lowly. We may observe each word rises above the other, expressing a still higher degree of humility and gentleness. A bruised reed - A convinced sinner: one that is bruised with the weight of sin: smoking wick - One that has the least good desire, the faintest spark of grace: until he brings justice to victory - That is, till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies.

What the NRSV renders as “Justice” (which sounds rather nice in our modern ears) is “Mishapt” and it doesn’t mean “Justice” as in “give me my rights” but rather “do justice to me”. It is better translated “Judgement” and in Hebrew it has that sense: one receives a “Mishpat” from a judge even if one has lost the case. Despite Wesley’s assertion, it has no sense of “mercy”. But we will come to that later.

Wesley’s understanding for the silence, for the Messianic Secret, seems to makes sense. Jesus “shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious: but gentle, quiet, and lowly.” And that even though - or perhaps because - his acts loudly proclaim his presence. Jesus, as the Gospels report him, answers direct questions about his status with indirect answers about his acts. “Are you the Messiah?” “The blind see, the lame walk (etc).”

I am reminded of St Francis’ teaching that we “preach the Gospel always: use words if necessary.” I’m also reminded of some Franciscan Parallels: “Worship always, and when necessary, use music” “Serve always, and when necessary, do it in services”. There are others. The Gospel, too, gives us the commands to show that we are Christians by our action not our words, by our love not our preaching. For much of my life I’ve been involved in places that wanted to hear the words - to hear proof of one’s status as a Christian. Much of Church history is filled up with making litmus tests of what it means to be a Christian. These tests go far beyond the idea of loving service in silence that seems to have been our Messianic prototype. We are left with nothing to say - only to do. That, however is very disconcerting for most of us (myself included) who would much rather say than do. As I do in these pages, the Church has spouted words for two millennia, seeking rather to say than do. (Sometimes even seeking to limit the doing of those who say something different.)

There is a line in the Tao: Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know. (Chapter 56:1) And the Messianic Secret, in that light, would direct us all to silence our creeds and elevate our acts.

But briefly back to “Mishpat”. Isaiah’s line about God’s servant who will “proclaim Mishpat to the Gentiles… brings Mishpat to victory” speaks of bringing the Gentiles into Israel’s covenant: rather than creating something new. Again, this is based on actions rather than words. The entirety of the Hebrew Creed is the Sh’ma. “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God. The Lord is one.” The entirety of the Hebrew faith, however, is action.

Relationships are so as well, no? After the initial blush of hormones and moon-cow eyes, we’re left with a choice: to move beyond the words and baby talk into actual doing. It’s no longer enough to say, “I love you”, in fact it gets kinda boring after a while. For a relationship to be real, things have to be done, no matter what words get said or not. Of course, that’s the scary part. It’s much easier to test someone’s love by what they say. It’s much easier to only say the right things.

I begin to sense an adult faith is one of deeds rather than words. Living the Messianic secret is more important than telling it.

Verbose creeds are like love poems. It’s nice to have them, but they are meaningless without the actions. And the actions are valuable even without the words.

Much love,

Huw