+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:
1 Kings 19:9-18, Ephesians 4:17-32, John 6:15-27

Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.
Ephesians 4:29-32

My comments on the passage from 1 Kings are here. God is the “sound of silence”. And in the passage from Ephesians, Paul tells us to imitate God… speaking only grace and peace. And to avoid letting “evil talk come out of” our mouths.

In Hebrew and Yiddish there is a phrase, לשון הרע Lashon Hara, the “Evil Tongue”. Paul’s talking about that here. The Wiki says that Lashon Hara “is the Jewish sin of gossip. Lashon Hara generally refers to true statements, written or spoken; untrue gossip is even more strictly prohibited. Thus, while truth is generally a defense against slander or libel, it is not a defense against lashon hara.” And according to Jewish teaching you can violate 31 commandments just by speaking evil of your neighbour and there are whole categories of ways to avoid it. As Paul notes, “what is useful for building up” is permitted, even in Judaism.

So…

When I was 14 or so, my Mom got involved in local politics through her boss. Gary was running for Mayor on the democratic ticket in our village of 900. His brother, Denis, was supervisor of the township. So, my brother and I, deciding to “do our part”, took a bucket of bleach and other cleansers (it was probably totally toxic) and a mop. We went around town and bleached out the faces on the Republican posters. It didn’t matter: no one but their families bothered to vote for them. No Republican ever won an office in that district from 1978 (or so) when I started paying attention until well into the 1990s when my parents moved away. In fact, the only Republican I know in that area who ever got elected, did so by becoming an independent.

We bleached the posters out on the very trees where they hung. Bright green Democratic posters hung next to odd grey splotches. For some reason, that year, the Republican posters were all black and white head shots with “vote for…” in white letters. It was easy to ruin these posters.

A 14 year old version of Lashon hara in action, right there, and learned at the knee of my own parents and their political fellow travellers. And we see this play out, in more adult versions, in every political race that happens, on an increasing scale: the higher the political office, the bigger the bucket of bleach.

A few months ago here in the US, we launched into a presidential race and it will hit a fevered pitch today with the Iowa Caucuses and, shortly after, a series of primaries. We’ve heard enough already - of candidates insulting each other over “hot button issues”. One candidate has already implied things about the religions of the others. One has implied that non-religious people are not really Americans. One has said certain things about the votes of the others on certain issues. Another has said exactly the opposite.

How angry do “Their” positions make “us” feel? How strongly do “we” feel in opposition to “them”? One need only look at websites around the net to see Lashon Hara in action. One candidate’s supporters will be poking holes in the other’s and vice versa. My personal blog is already filled with posts either bitching about “them” or, at least, making fun of “them”.

Imagine what it would be like to only imagine the best of your political opponent? This is not to say “tell your supporters to vote for the other guy…” but rather, imagine how it would be to say only the good things about “them” - or nothing at all - and only the truth about “us”. Imagine if you hear something bad about “them” (even if it’s the truth) that you exercise all your spiritual energy not to repeat it?

To be honest, it’s more fun to go out with the bucket of bleach.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
1 Kings 19:1-8, Ephesians 4:1-16, John 6:1-14

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6

These verse show up often enough in quotes here and there. They are nearly, I think, a credo of the Early Christians. But ever since my youth I’ve noticed and wondered about the clear division between “the Lord” on one hand and “God” on the other. No divinity is credited to Jesus in these verses. Chrystostom doesn’t comment on this, but at least he doesn’t do his usual trick of turn all the words on their heads and saying it really means what it clearly doesn’t.

But what I’m interested in today is not what we call Jesus, but the term “Father”.

I’m not sure where I first go the idea, perhaps listening to a sermon on the whole “‘Abba’ is Hebrew for ‘Daddy’” thing. (Which is, itself, a mistake. Paul’s Greek is spot on if the “Abba” is question is Aramaic.) Or perhaps in a sermon on the Lord’s prayer. Not sure. Anyway, the general idea is that the level intimacy implied in “One God and Father of us all” as well as in “Our Father” is unheard of in Judaism. “They” had a God, awesome and majestic, but - through Jesus’ revelation - “We” have a Father, intimate and warm.

Fatherhood of God is what Jesus gives us.

Spurgeon goes so far as to say, “Jesus Christ taught it not to all men, but to his disciples, and it is a prayer adapted only to those who are the possessors of grace, and are truly converted.” And later, “Some say that the Fatherhood of God is universal, and that every man, from the fact of his being created by God, is necessarily God’s son, and that therefore every man has a right to approach the throne of God, and say, “Our Father which art in heaven.” To that I must demur. I believe that in this prayer we are to come before God, looking upon him not as our Father through creation, but as our Father through adoption and the new birth. I will very briefly state my reasons for this.”

Spurgeon is only carrying forward such thoughts as these of Gregory of Nyssa: It is impossible for God who is goodness in his very being to be father to someone of evil will. It is impossible for the Holy One to be father of a depraved person. It is impossible for the Giver of life to have as a child one whose sin has subjected him to death.

And if God is not the father of the unrighteous, then surely he is only the Father of Us Christians, yes?

As in this Roman sermon: Thus, God is not Father of those who have not received the grace of justification and redemption in the same way as those who have. Yet they remain potentially His children, since the Father wills the salvation of all (1 Tim 2:4) and makes sufficient grace necessary for salvation available to all.

Or this choice quote from the Dean of ECUSA’s Nashotah House (And the Canon Theologian of the ECUSA Diocese of Quincy): It is worth noting that no other religion calls God “Father.” Even in Old Testament Judaism, they never addressed God as Father. They might say metaphorically, that God is like a Father. But they never called God “Father” in the way that Jesus does.

No other religion calls God “Father”… in the way that Jesus does.

Does that not make you feel warm and fuzzy? Does that not make you feel special? “We” have a Father… the rest, not so much.

In Judaism (you knew I was going here, huh?) they have a prayer recited during the “Days of Awe” around Yom Kippur. It’s called “Avinu Malkenu” from the first line:

Our Father, Our King
Hear our voice, Lord our God,
pity and be compassionate to us, and accept - with compassion and favour - our prayer.

But, more important than that, three times a day, every day, God is addressed as Our Father (Avinu) in the central prayer of the Jewish Liturgy, the Amidah, asking Our Father for mercy and forgiveness and to direct us in his ways. Thus Jesus was simply picking up where the prayers of his own culture left him.

What I have noticed, over and over, when Paul is talking, is that, in writing to Gentiles, he’s telling *them* that God has brought them into the same relationship with God that the Jews already had. No need to be afraid or spooked or even superstitious about this. Relax: God is your father now.

Of course the ancients had very different ideas of what fathers could do do their children… I still fail to see why this was a comfort.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
AM: 1 Kings 3:5-14, James 4:13-17,5:7-11, John 5:1-15
PM (Eve of Holy Name): Isaiah 65:15b-25, Revelation 21:1-6

Jesus is painted in the Gospel of John, as God: but that God is more Jewish, I think, than many of us see. John’s community (in Ephesus) was still observing the Passover in the 2nd Century. The Gospel is littered with images of Judaism-as-Metaphor for Jesus and the Messiah’s kingdom. Jewish festivals show up with new meanings woven in or laid over. Jewish customs are commented on not to discard them, but to weave in new meanings.

This reading begins “After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” What feast?

To answer that we have to wonder how chronological John’s gospel is. Jesus goes “up to Jerusalem”. There are only three “Pilgrimage Festivals” in Judaism: Passover, Pentecost and the Feast of Booths. Passover is noted as “being near” in the next chapter (6:4). The Feast of Booths is in the Fall but we are told in chapter 4 that “the fields are ripe for harvesting.” The feast of Pentecost is a harvest festival. But it comes after Passover. Is John so Chronological that there is a years time between Chapter 5 and Chapter 6?

Many commentators decide that this “Feast of the Jews” is all the same Passover as in 6:4. But that makes no sense because Jesus leaves Jerusalem for that… And the Feast of Booths (Autumn) shows up in Chapter 7.

So one possible reading is that Chapter 7 has a Booth (Sukkoth), Chapter 6 has a Passover (Pesach) and Chapter 5 has a Pentecost (Shavuot).

There’s two reasons why this possible reading is important:

1) Shavuot (שבועות) is the feast of “First Fruits”. The Harvest begins and offerings are brought to the temple.
2) Shavuot falls on the 6th day of the month of Sivan. According to Jewish Oral Tradition, the first of Sivan is the day that waters of Noah’s flood begin to recede. And 1 Sivan is also the day that the Tradition teaches that the Jews began their encampment at Sinai - in preparation for the reception of the Torah.

All of these images tie together, I think, in the Greek words used to describe this healing of the man at the pool: this is the only healing in the Gospel of John that is described with the words hugies gegonas υγιης γεγονας “become (or made) whole”. This is different from the normal word of a healing, “Sozo” which can also be a word meaning “Saved” as well as “Healed”. This one means, literally, “Made Whole” or “Made Sound”. (I think the word is “hoo-gi-ace” but saying “Hugies” make me giggle.)

The “flood waters” recede - The healing pool retreats into the background - and the earth is restored (made whole/made sound) - the man-of-earth (In Hebrew, one word for man is “Adam” from earth) is restored to his proper function.

It’s interesting to see this reading show up on the eve of the secular new year. In the modern world we’re used to living outside of cycles. Most of our culture sees things as moving forward on a chronological line rather than moving around an annual cycle. Judaism is not moving in a straight line: the annual festivals cycle on an entirely agricultural basis. Christianity does this as well in the liturgical cycle, but much (all?) of our secular world is built by mostly non-liturgical Protestants. The story arc for Protestantism is Salvation-to-Apocalypse. For Catholics (and catholics) and Jews, the pattern is Day-to-Day, leading forward to eternity. “L’olam v’ed” is the Hebrew, “Unto ages of ages” is the Eastern Orthodox form, “et in secula seculorum” is the Latin, and “world without end” is Anglican. The seasonal festivals lead forward.

Most of us expect to see New Year as a New Thing.

But no: it’s really the same old thing come back to us. We stress over it. We make resolutions. We get all hyped up. We get drunk. We wake up tomorrow and nothing has changed. We even spend several days crossing off the wrong year on our checks - all over again. (For some odd reason, unless I think very specifically I usually start writing 1979 in this period of the year.)

The year cycles. It doesn’t move forward. This is not the time of year that I normally feel the pressure of the story arc. That hits me at my birthday. But I know a lot of people who draw near to the end of the year with the same sort of dread that I experience in August. We find ourselves behind, indebted, stranded in the same old crap all over again. “The holidays” end and normal, secular time returns. Kids go back to school. Work comes back to normal. It’s dark at 5PM when we leave work. It’s dark at 7AM when we leave home. Pretty much everything sucks by 2 January.

When looked at in our secular context, the reading invites us to bring our first fruits of harvest and to have them “Made Whole” again. And, indeed, if we are honest, they are broken. The harvest is not 100%. It’s not exactly what we wanted. It’s a little surprising in some ways. Feh.

Offer it to God anyway. It will be made whole.

Much love,

Huw

Commemoration of John Coleridge Patteson

Today’s assigned readings:

1 Kings 22:29-45, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:15, Matthew 5:1-10

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.
1 Corinthians 2:14-15

The Greek makes a distinction into two classes of people but then Paul does something surprising. VERY surprising.

The NRSV - which I’ve been using lately - says here “unspiritual”. But the Greek word is noted in the footnotes as meaning “Natural”. That is, just man, as alive, normal. The Greek word is Psuchiko - ψυχικο - and it means that “principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes”. (I like that - “Brutes”. Ah well, Victoriana.) This is contrasted with “spiritual” in verse 15. Those who are Pneumatiko - πνευματικο - and it refers to a man “relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ.”

I thought of this yesterday reading one of my regular blogs: Friendly Atheist. I read blogs from different points of view all the time. This is one of the few Atheist blogs that doesn’t seem to bait persons of faith as a matter of course. He states his position and leaves others to theirs without implying they are stupid for having them. I think that last is important: it’s not enough to simply allow someone to have a different position. You have to allow that they got there by a logic at least as usable and human (fallible) as your own. Humility would even go so far as to say their logic was quite possibly better. One day I hope to be able to allow people that same space…

Reading the FA is a good way to challenge myself to grow, etc, etc. But, more importantly: wrapping myself up with a tonne of blogs that agree with me would be unhealthy. I try to read a wide spectrum. And Atheists are just the tip of the berg. I’ve tried including those - right wingers, conservatives, uberfrum Catholics, etc - that give me agita just by clicking on their links. My RSS is filled as many view points as I think I can handle in one sitting (and I admit I ignore some of them when I’m on vacation, just for peace of mind).

The Friendly Atheist - whose name is Hemant Mehta - cited a Christian blog that was talking about Atheists. That other blog, written by John Shore, had a post about Atheists that was reasonable, hospitable and, I think, voiced some of the same opinions I have just stated. Shore writes: “It also turns out that atheists — or the many from whom I heard, anyway — care just as much as we Christians do about loving and doing right by others. Curse the atheists! Why couldn’t they be the craven sensory-hounds they’re supposed to be? Must they reject God, and be intelligent and sensitive?”

But having cited a lot of stuff from Shore with which he agreed, Mehta then said this:

Shore loses me in one place, though:

I could no sooner imagine what it would be like inhabiting a consciousness devoid of the constant awareness of God than I could what it would be like to be a … Venusian cannibal.

Right? I have no idea what it’s like to be a cannibal from Venus.

Be pretty lonely, I’d guess. Or pretty full.

Point is: Mystery. Can’t imagine it. Just like I can’t imagine what it would be like to be an atheist. Even before I was a Christian — for just about every second of my waking life, in fact — I was intensely aware of what to me was the fact of God. It’s never even occurred to me there isn’t a God.

Atheists, of course (and insofar as such generalizations have merit), can’t imagine that there is a God. (Well, of course they can imagine there’s a God. They just can’t imagine why anyone would give themselves over to what to them is so obviously a fantasy.)

I actually agree with that last bit (and dismiss his sarcasm); atheists can imagine life with God. Most of us believed in one before the spell broke.

But Shore really doesn’t know what it’s like to be an atheist? He’s kidding, right? It’s such an easy thing to respond to… Of course he knows what it’s like to be an atheist. He is an atheist when it comes to Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He just can’t imagine life without his God. Atheists just dismiss the God(s) others believe in and move on with their lives.

That last paragraph is a caving in to stereotypes that I could over-analyse to death. I mean that. Christians were accused of Atheism by the Romans - meaning we rejected their Gods. Some Christians went so far as to say those Gods didn’t exist. (On the other hand we insist that Socrates and Lao Tzu were pre-Christ Christians, regardless of the deities they followed.) But I don’t think modern Atheists simply reject “our” God. No - they have a life pattern that’s alien to me. I can not imagine living in a word where there is no personal, numenal being(s). I can imagine that such and such a conception of said being(s) is wrong (although increasingly I’m hesitant to even say that I can imagine it, let alone actually believe it). I can allow that I might be wrong in the conceptions I foist on said being(s). Yet, given my experiences in the world, I can’t imagine what it must be like to live without the conception of said being(s). TO understand the world as it functions I have to posit said being(s) and having so posited, I must conceptualise an understanding. And the world without said being(s) is entirely unknown to me - I will say neither better nor worse, just unknown.

One of Mehta’s readers calls him on this.

We might not always know what to call it, but there are many of us who share his experience of the “fact of God”. Experientially and existentially speaking there is a big difference between disagreeing about what exactly the divine is like (i.e. all your different types of gods) and not experiencing the divine at all, period.

But I thought about this verse from Paul that draws a distinction between the “Natural” and the “Spiritual” people.

That’s reassuring isn’t it? It always helps to feel just a little bit superior even for a moment. That’s one benefit of reading blogs from differing points of view. To paraphrase the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, I try to condescend at least six times before breakfast.

God save me a sinner… I like the thighs.

Paul turns this verse of human logic on its head in the course of today’s reading. You many remember he’s talking to a group of people who divide themselves into groups: the Paulines, the Apollotans, the Cephasines, etc.

For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?

Merely Human.

I tend to think that when Paul was dividing the world in the “Natural” and “Spiritual” people he was making fun of his Corinthian flock. He was pointing right at them and using their own words to accuse them. “Oh… we’re so spiritual…” BAH! You still suffer from your petty divisions over titles and doctrines, over words and days and seasons and times. Spiritual my butt.

He wasn’t saying these “Spiritual” people get saved and the “Natural” people get toasted.

In fact this reading ends with one of the most universalist passages out there: No one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.

He goes on to say that any building at all will be on this foundation… be it “with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw” or whatever we chose. We may imagine ourselves to be building off and alone but, as the saints taught, Human Nature is one and we are all one in Christ. It’s impossible to reject our nature - we are naturally here. Natural man is now in Christ - even if he can’t see it - and even “if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Merely Human. That’s us.

Jesus makes this clear in today’s most familiar passage - the Beatitudes. Blessed are the poor, the mourners, the meek, the merciful. These are all normal things, human things. Even our wealthiest man alive - Bill Gates, I think - will eventually suffer mourning (if he has not already). Someone will die and Bill will be blessed. Even the proudest US President, “leader of the free world” will know loss and he or she will be blessed. Mehta exhibits meekness and humility often: he is blessed already.

Which is way more than I can say for us “good guys”. Gar. Look at the name calling and the in-fighting we do. And mindful, from the outside looking in they don’t understand our parties and our bickerings: we’re all Christians together. Talk to any non-Christian on the street and ask them to define the difference between the Church of Christ, the little storefront church on the corner, the United Church of Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church. Won’t happen. It matters not who gets to define our parties. We’re stuck with each other. And as long as we see silly divisions we’re just as natural as the rest of the world.

After 2000 years, shouldn’t we do something about the actual living together that Jesus told us to do?

Much love,

Huw

(Ember Days are quarterly days of fasting and prayer. This include the Wednesday, Friday and Saturday in the calendar week following Holy Cross Day - 14 Sept)

Commemoration of Theodore of Tarsus

Today’s assigned readings:

1 Kings 22:1-28, 1 Corinthians 2:1-13, Matthew 4:18-25

But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, “Inquire first for the word of the Lord.” Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred of them, and said to them, “Shall I go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I refrain?” They said, “Go up; for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there no other prophet of the Lord here of whom we may inquire?” The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is still one other by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies anything favorable about me, but only disaster.” Jehoshaphat said, “Let the king not say such a thing.”
1 Kings 22:5-8

These verses reminded me of another passage, in Amos

And Amaziah said to Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.”
Amos 7:12-13

Right after 9/11 there was a memorial service held in San Francisco for victims - especially the ones from SF (which was to be the final destination of some of the passengers that day). A member of the SF City Council stood up and said, “America, America, what have you done that they hate you so…”

Of course he was a prophet. I don’t remember his name and I’ve not heard him since. But I’ve heard others like him. It’s not that God hates or dislikes the governance of party X. These prophets seem to be carrying forward God’s dislike of governance, per se, that he first stated when the Israelites asked for a king. God knows a kings going to be up to no good. And we don’t have one example - at all - of a good ruler in the Bible. Saul, David and Solomon are all tricky from the get go - no matter how much God seems to like them at the beginning: but they go bad, either from power or lust, or greed, or idolatry.

Curiously the same problems exist today with our politicians (of all political stripes).

This is not much of a meditation - but I’m certain that simply agreeing with the prevailing powers is not always a good way to agree with God.

While I’m clear that one needn’t simply be a contrarian in order to be a prophet I think a majority of the prophets were contrarians. And while agreeing with your gov’t is not a always a bad thing. The prophets of Israel seem to make quite a living out of it - agreeing with their gov’t, that is. So being a contrarian - simply saying “no” when the prevailing opinion is “yes” - seems to be the more salvic route. Just based on the odds, eh?

The Ember Days were traditionally a time of prayer for the clergy. Maybe we need to pray for more prophets.

Much love,

Huw