+Z’ev

Commemoration of Nicholas of Myra

Today’s assigned readings:
Amos 4:6-13, 2 Peter 3:11-18, Matthew 21:33-46

Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire?
2 Peter 3:11-12

I don’t know enough about the Greek forms to tell you which way to read this. Is it

A) How should we act while we’re waiting for God - who will burn up everything?

or

B) God’s going to burn everything up and we - if we want to be holy - ought to speed up the process. How should we act?

Certainly I think many people act as if, in order to be holy, we must speed up the process. Politically, the right-wing in the USA is often accused of Immanentizing the Eschaton - to make the end of the world happen. They are, justly or not, imagined to be doing this in all kinds of ways - from picking fights in the Middle East to simply picking sides in the Middle East; from starting wars in South East Asia to starting wars in Central America; from Crusading against Islam around the world to enforcing a Christian Theocracy at home. Again - justly or not - these are the ways the Theo-political Right Wing in America is often imagined to be furthering its own “End of the World” script. This script is often seen in the worlds of Tim LeHaye or, before him, Hal Lindsey. I mean neither to attack nor defend either side in the debate: I’m only indicating that one side sees the other side doing this.

And it wasn’t until I read this verse tonight that I saw that, in one way of looking at it, we have a duty to “hasten the day”. In one way of reading this text it seems to say, “How should we act? Why, hastening the day!”

Given what we imagine about Christian “End of the World” scenarios, “hastening the world” should look pretty scary: in fact, a lot like the Right Wing is accused of.

Today is the commemoration of St Nicholas. Among the stories told is how, in the Council at Nicea, he punched Arius full in the nose, knocking him out and causing the blood to flow. Maybe that’s why Santa always wears red? He’s a perfect image, however, for the martial sort of immanentizing folks.

The Greek doesn’t give us a break, either. The Greek Word, σπευδω Speudo, hasten, doesn’t give us a lot of wiggle room (although the footnotes imply that “Desire Earnestly” is a possible alternative). As anyone with good taste can tell you, the last thing to “earnestly desire” is more “Speedos”.

But there is another reading here that I’d like to explore: one that Peter may have known (I don’t know my history well enough) and one that may be familiar to many in a different context.

Within Judaism is the idea that Messiah will come when we are ready: when the world is prepared for Messiah, grown up enough, if you will. Traditional Judaism suggests that the way we grow up, show our readiness for Messiah’s coming, is returning to God and Charity (among other possibilities). I note these two fulfil the two Greatest Commandments of Loving God and Neighbour. And they seem to lead is into a deeper living of Peter’s call to live Holy Lives - thus making is possible for us to “regard the patience of our Lord as salvation.”

Imagine the possibility if, instead of “Wars and Rumours of Wars” as a key to the Second Coming we imagined that we ought to be “leading lives of holiness and godliness”. Imagine what the world could look like.

Much love,

Huw

Commemoration of Clement of Alexandria

Today’s assigned readings:
Amos 3:12-4:5, 2 Peter 3:1-10, Matthew 21:23-32

First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!”
2 Peter 3:3-4

There are two things I love about this passage from 2 Peter:

1) The idea of the merciful God holding off the day of judgement to make it possible for “all to come to repentance”.

2) The implied winge (on the part of Peter’s audience) that it’s all taking too damn long.

This is the tension of Christianity: the Jewish read of scripture sought one whole messianic action of God. Jesus said, “Yes, but not now.” Christians having entered the faith seek the final saving action. Peter says, “Yes, but not now.” I heard an awesome sermon on Sunday, for the first Sunday of Advent. Father said, “Yes, but not now.” Much is made of our modern culture’s drive for instant satisfaction, but it’s a problem we Christians have had all along.

Yes but not yet; or already coming later. The Kingdom of God is always already coming later. Where does our now fit, however? How do we mortals fit our eternal “now” into the already coming later of the kingdom? How do we avoid becoming scoffers?

I’m probably too far gone, myself. I can’t begin to imagine those saints (I think here of Mother Theresa) who have gone for decades of their lives in despair only to die in holiness created by their continual living. I wonder at my Grandfather, so sure in his faith and, because of his sickness, gasping for air at the very end… just drifting off into holiness with his only hope unanswered - and yet answered. I marvel at such constancy: a gift I’ve never had.

It is always now for me. And while I can hear both parts of “Already coming later” I can only experience “not here yet”. I haven’t the faith to accept the foretaste of the heavenly banquet in the Eucharist. How much stranger would it be to move backwards, to wait for Messiah all over again?

Much love,

Huw

Commemoration of John of Damascus

Today’s assigned readings”
Amos 3:1-11, 2 Peter 1:12-21, Matthew 21:12-22

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Peter 1:20-21

There is, of course, a double (albeit unintentional) irony in these verses: 1) most of the New Testament cites the Tanakh in ways that are unique to Jewish readers. When hearing Christians cite prophecy from the scripture, noting it usually as fulfilled, many Jews are inclined to say “huh? You made that up!” The second irony is that many scholars wonder if this epistle is written by Peter at all, so the claims of the author to have witnessed the transfiguration (v. 18) are lies. If these are lies… what about the rest?

That last question is what concerns me most.

Interpreting scripture is always more of a process of Evaluating Authority than just making something up. Looking at the tradition Christians inherited from the Jews, the debate over meaning of scripture continues, housing majority and minority opinions. The selection of one opinion about meaning out of many possible opinions implies that I think these opinions have more weight than those opinions.

This is not, however, a very traditional Catholic or Orthodox view of Christian scripture. This is a very Protestant view (although, as I said, inherited from the Jews). For Catholics and Orthodox it is the Church that has this Authority - vested either in the Pope or in the Councils (one way or the other). In these viewes, there is a function of infallibility invested in the Church - no matter how this function is exercised.

The traditional Protestant answer to this claim is one of scriptural infallibility and to appeal to the scriptures for solutions in matters of faith and morals (at least). This creates it’s own problems, of course. But the largest problem is the least obvious:

The Bible didn’t fall whole cloth from heaven. It was the Church that canonised the scriptures - even disagreeing with Judaism on several points, insisting that she, the Church, was right and that the rabbis were wrong. Later the Protestants did the same thing, rejecting certain texts that had been “scripture” for centuries. Often they did this on the say of one to two men whose say they valued far more than the ancient councils of the church.

The Anglicans responded most heartily to this problem with Article 19 of the 39 Articles of religion:

De Ecclesia
Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedicatur et sacramenta, quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur, iuxta Christi institutum recte administrantur. Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et Antiochena: ita et erravit Ecclesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda et caeremoniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae credenda sunt.

Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

In other words, for Anglicans it is an article of our faith that the church is fallible. Less an Article of the Faith, this was a confession of humanity.

Rome and Orthodoxy’s reaction is to redefine what it means to be the Church speaking. Rome has refined it so far that, basically, the Pope has to say “I’m being infallible now” before it is real. No Papal letters or bulls or encyclicals - even if they speak directly to faith and morals - are infallible in and of themselves. Thus every other teaching of the Roman community may shift - even the issue of Women’s Ordination, stated so austerely and clearly - may change because it has not yet been stated infallibly.

Orthodoxy plays shell games: the Church is infallible and everything she says is so. Unless you find something that was in error and then “that” wasn’t the Church speaking but rather Father so and So speaking on his own. The Roman Church does this as well, at times. This makes it very hard to understand what is and what is not Church teaching. Most everything I ever learned about Orthodox customs and theology can be counterclaimed by someone else. (One reason I left.) Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who gets to choose? I do - each of us.

But again, this creates a problem: what parts of any ecclesial community’s teaching is wrong? Find one point and it disproves all. Having found that one point, what does it mean about the rest?

In the Eastern Orthodox Service of Matins on Sunday, every week one of eleven Resurrection Gospels is read in sequence. Each of these tell one of the stories recorded in the Gospels of the post-Crucifixion appearances of Jesus. Mostly they are only a few verses long. I think one is quite long. One is quite short. But, quite honestly, read alone and taken out of the full scriptural context provided for them, they all quite easy to disbelieve. And most or all of them are hearsay - depending on the identities of the writers.

How then do we read the following verses which may or may not be written by the “Peter” that may or may not have witnessed the following events:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
2 Peter 1:16-18

Telling us he’s seen the Transfiguration of Jesus and so we’d better believe him… is it Peter? Do we believe him anyway? Is it someone writing in Peter’s place? Is is at least a member of “Peter’s” school?

Increasingly most of the Bible is viewed as edited or redacted. This is more or less (depending on who you ask). What we can not say is we know 100% for sure that what is reported in the Bible is exactly what happened. What we can not say is we know 100% for sure who wrote what. Did Moses write the Torah? Did one man named Isaiah write the book that bears his name? Did Paul write all the “Pauline Epistles”?

The answers we come up with are important.

More important, however, is the question of who we trust in arriving at the answer.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
Amos 2:6-16, 2 Peter 1:1-11, Matthew 21:1-11

His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature.
2 Peter 1:3-4

In these two verses is a perfect picture of what the Eastern Church understands as salvation - both the up and down side. But one minor change in understanding will change the down.

First off, notice there is no call for “get out of hell free” here. Peter is calling us to “become participants of the divine nature”. In fact, the Greek uses Koinonia - communion, unity. Orthodox theology calls to become divine, to become gods, to be divinised.

We’re not here to get “Saved” but rather to become gods, to become divine, through goodness, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection, and love. (Verse 5 - 7) This is different - by far far far far - from the idea of “just pray this sinners prayer and get into heaven.”

But the word I want to change (in English) is “Lust”.

The Greek is Epithumia επθυμια and it means desire, craving.

It’s a technical term for Stoicism and for Buddhism. You know: the root of all suffering in the world is desire.

These verses are a profound statement of what it means to be saved in Eastern Orthodoxy. We are called to become divine by becoming, as one blogger put it, Holy Vulcans.

But is that anything like what Jesus understood? Would an educated Rabbi, acquainted with Jewish tradition teach Stoicism? Better: would an uneducated Jewish Fisherman be making statements about Stoicism?

Over and over I’ve read recently that Jews (save on their extreme fringes) have no conception of monasticism, or fleeing the world. God Gave us the world to live in, to use, to heal. In the world we love, grow up, and are saved.

Where do Christians get the idea that desire or longing (in the Stoic sense) is bad? Where do we get the idea that we need to flee the world that God gave us? It is fashionable to imagine this came later (I think of the world’s opinion of Augustine) but Peter’s letter, even if its not authentic, is early (within 100 years of Jesus). So the changes came rather soon.

What happened?

Much love,

Huw