+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:
AM Ezekiel 3:4-11, Acts 10:34-44
PM Ezekiel 34:11-16, John 21:15-22

Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?”
John 21:17b

Today’s feast remembers the time that Peter suddenly cried out “you are the Christ, the son of the Living God” (following the example of his Brother, Andrew). That event shows up in the readings for Mass. But the daily office readings show a different event, one recorded rather later, after Jesus death.

In English, this passage is all about “love”. But it’s not so in Greek, as we discovered once in a class on the writings of John. But I had it wrong then. When I saw the words in Greek (without a dictionary or the wonderful world of hyperlinked services) I thought the word Jesus used was “Agape”. I was wrong however…

Jesus asks Peter “Do you agapas αγαπας me?” The word means “welcome”, “entertain”. Jesus is asking how much hospitality will Peter show Jesus? And the way to show this hospitality to Jesus? Feed his sheep.

Twice Jesus asks for Hospitality.

Twice Peter says “You know I’m your friend.” Using the Greek word philo φιλω.

And then finally, Jesus says, “Are you are you my friend?” (Using Philo). And Peter is hurt that Jesus said “Philo”.

If we claim we want to welcome Jesus, we have to feed his sheep. Or, as John says elsewhere, using the same Greek word, agapas αγαπας, “Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” (1 John 4:20)

The revelation of Jesus as “Christ, son of the Living God” is meaningless without the revelation of those around us as his icons.

This is why it is important to, as Paul says, “Discern the Body.” The Body is everywhere around us - not just in the Church but in the people God created. As many sermons as there are urging us to see Christ in the poor and the disenfranchised, we must learn to see Christ in everyone - rich, poor, Christian and nonChristian. These, too, are his sheep - as we know from the Parable of the Lost Sheep. Someone is no less one of Jesus sheep just because they are not “saved”.

Feed my sheep.

Only Biblical Dictionary underscores the responsibility of someone “feeding Jesus sheep” as “portraying the duty of a Christian teacher to promote in every way the spiritual welfare” of the Sheep.

Imagine… what would that look like if each of us committed to “promote in every way the spiritual welfare” of everyone who was called into the flock of God (ie everyone)?

Again, it’s not enough to simply “accept (agapas αγαπας) Jesus Christ”. In order to do that, the very process by which it is done, is the feeding of his sheep (everyone). He asks Peter nothing about theology, not even about confession and forgiveness (for Peter’s denial of Jesus). He only says, “If you would host me in your house, then feed my sheep.”

This is the only theological question Jesus asks: “Agapas αγαπας me?” “Show me hospitality?”

And this is the only way he teaches to do so: Feed my sheep.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
AM: Ezekiel 47:1-12, Luke 1:1-4
PM: Isaiah 52:7-10, Acts 1:1-8

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
Luke 1:1-4

It is wonderful to get this feast day of St Luke while we are looking at this idea (this week) of the God who Speaks.

Luke is, perhaps, the one place where other Gospels are acknowledged. As far as primacy goes, it matters not if you believe in Markan Primacy or that Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel came first (count me in that latter group). Neither does it matter that there was or was not a “Q”. Luke says “many”. Not one or two or three others… but “many”. Luke also admits to there being eyewitnesses, of which he is not one. For things have been “handed on” already, by eyewitnesses and Luke has studied for a “long time” or from “the very first”. Maybe Luke is in the third or maybe fourth (?) generation of those who are following God in the way of Jesus. Maybe he’s seen or heard more sources than we can shake a stick at.

Between Luke and Acts - which almost everyone agrees were written by the same person - we have a reference book. Perhaps one community’s entire “New Testament”. Scholars are divided on the date of the text, but it could be as late as the early 100s and possibly as early as 60 or 70. Was the author’s name really Luke? We’ve no idea - that’s a later attribution. Was he a companion of Paul? We’ve no idea - and those two questions are separate issues. Do either of those questions effect the validity of the text? No, I don’t think so.

In verse two, the text refers to “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word”. “Word” here is Logos, with all of its connotations from Greek philosophy, rather than the more prosaic Rhema, which simply refers to “something said out loud”. I know that we take a risk reading high Christology into early documents, but that is one of my favourite hobbies. I suggest that here, in Luke 1:2, logos “the word” implies something more than simple preaching. Because of that implication I think we can be open to the possibility of a later date for Luke.

Luke is referring to all of witnesses and servants - whom he has investigated - who have seen the Logos (the Message/Presence of God-in-Christ) acting in the world. And he’s asking us (Theophilus - the Friend of God - all of us) to trust those eyewitnesses of the Logos.

The only real argument for the historicity of this faith is “he said/she said/they said”. Christianity is, essentially, one long game of telephone. Or, for lack of a better word in English, Gossip. While the archaeology can and often does back up certain things. The actual, historical record barely backs up the existence of Jesus (and that not without dispute). Luke even records some things different than, for example, Paul: giving us cause to have to wonder did Paul have a faulty memory of those early years as he got older or just, shall we say, a “selective” memory? If Paul, then who else? Does the historicity of the events recorded matter? Paul, certainly, says yes. But what about those others to whom Luke spoke or whose written works he read? Did they have the same historical scrupulosity as Paul?

And does it matter?

Looking further back, the entire path from Mt Sinai to you is a game of Telephone. Where is God speaking? We have very little historical resources (a scratching here, a textual reference there) to back up any of the Biblical history of the people of Israel. Yet we dare say God speaks to us. We can take it further back: the beginning of our faith, the beginning of this covenant, the call of Abraham. This is a good place to begin because, coincidentally, in synagogues around the world Shabbat this week will see the reading of The Call of A’vram (the Torah portion, Lech-Lecha). This call is generally placed at about 2000 BCE. We have, then, a 4,000 year game of telephone.

Today’s readings offer us a different image than Telephone. The reading from Ezekiel contains the image of water flowing from the Temple in Jerusalem:

Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple; there, water was flowing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east); and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. Then he brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on the outside to the outer gate that faces toward the east; and the water was coming out on the south side. Going on eastward with a cord in his hand, the man measured one thousand cubits, and then led me through the water; and it was ankle-deep. Again he measured one thousand, and led me through the water; and it was knee-deep. Again he measured one thousand, and led me through the water; and it was up to the waist. Again he measured one thousand, and it was a river that I could not cross, for the water had risen; it was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be crossed.
Ezekiel 47:1-5

As the river flows away from Jerusalem it gets deeper and wider. 1000 cubits (c. 500 metres) from the Temple it’s ankle deep. 2000 cubits (c. 1 kilometre) away it is knee deep. At 3000 cubits distance it’s up to the waist and at 4000 cubits (c. 2km) it’s deep enough to swim in and so wide that it can not be crossed. And “Wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish, once these waters reach there. It will become fresh; and everything will live where the river goes.”

If we play with the images and let cubits be years, we’re just now at 4,000 cubits since Abraham. Just now the stream is deep enough to swim and so wide it can not be crossed. We’re just now discovering the depth and width and fullness of this path that God initiated in the world. The stream - which is not just the water, but the flow, the gush, the fish in it, and so much more - the stream contains all the he said/she said/they said of millennia of human history and also contains the Ernesto said/Leesy said/Huw said/Donald said/Benedict said/Mikal said as it grows. At this point the water can bear us all up “and everything will live where the river goes.”

We live in a flowing, evolving and expanding river. Our faith grows and changes. I think this is true for those of us who see Christianity as one possible continuation of the Abrahamic covenant as much as it is true for those who see Judaism as the only logical continuation. As we continue to communicate, the river will grow deeper. For both of those traditions hear the voice of God in human sounds and pass it on.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:

AM Ezekiel 2:1-7, Acts 11:1-18
PM Isaiah 49:1-6, Galatians 2:1-9

…I, Paul, had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised…
Galatians 2:7

Today’s feast is curious. Today’s date has nothing to do with the life of either Apostle. As with so many saints’ days or even Dominical holy days, today is a Church anniversary: in or around 258, under the Valerian persecution, what were believed to be the remains of the two apostles were both moved temporarily to prevent them from falling into the hands of the persecutors.

Icons for the feast usually show the two men embracing or even kissing! An interesting notion considering we’re commemorating the transfer of their relics. Also, there is no clear notion in the scriptures that Peter and Paul really got along. Luke has an interesting version of the “Peter eating with Gentiles” story if we compare it to a similar story in Galatians 2:11-2:14. This must have come before Peter’s vision… or maybe the other way around? Not sure. The writer of Acts usually sounds like a friend of Paul’s. But today’s passage makes it almost sound like Petrine Propaganda and that Paul comes along for the ride. Maybe the propaganda is an insert? Is that why “Cephas” (Kephas, in Greek) is used in verse 9, and it’s suddenly shifted to “Peter” or Petros? Don’t know: I do think it’s odd that the writer(s) use both names.

And then we come to Galatians and you have to imagine that after he spoke to God, saw the sheet filled with foods, etc, Peter backslid into the old ways of the Circumcision Faction. That’s not too infallible.

We want to imagine that Paul and Peter agreed on everything. This is a reading-back. Some also like to imagine that Peter was the First Pope - whom Paul opposed to his face for being wrong so there’s nothing so infallible about him in Acts and Galatians. It’s ok to be reading our current assumptions into these ancient texts: there’s no way not to. But it’s important to be honest about doing it.

It’s comparing passages such as these - or manufactured feast days such as this one - that make me want to accept the “revisionist” readings of scripture and Church history: that there were many orthodoxies, eventually stamped out by the state Church. Than the state church constructed a reading of scripture and of history that supported her. You can call this the “Dan Brown” reading if you’d like but I think his work of fiction is only the most far-fetched of these.

Which brings me to the question of Authority… which is a good one for the feast of these two.

Who has the authority to read the scriptures and tell us what they mean?

This has been my on-going struggle over the last couple of years. It seemed a logical assumption - shared by many who make the journey - that someone must have that authority. Everyone seems to make it somehow: for Romans it is the Pontiff. For some Eastern Christians it is the consensus spoken in the Ecumenical Councils and continuing on through their bishops to this day. I’ve heard that idea voiced by at least one Anglican as well - that the Bishops gathered in communion can speak the “Mind of Christ”. Other churches hold the same ideas about Synods, seemingly, although some insist the “real” Church can’t do anything opposed to scripture which idea creates a sort of infinite regress of Authority on itself. Some groups seem to think the Senior Pastor or the founding preacher holds that Authority. Most American Protestants take up many “Bible study books” with various interpretations and never notice the conflicts in them - or if they do they seem to mark it all down to providence. Some seem to trust the footnotes almost as much as the text. The more liberal sorts pick up the Jesus Seminar materials or maybe the work of non-theistic rejection conducted by Jack Spong.

Ultimately - even in the most authoritarian of all possible choices - what I came to realise is that each of us relies on herself for the final choice: even if that choice is to give up making any further choices.

Each of us experiences what all the converts have since the very beginning:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 11:15-16

I know Jesus promised us the Spirit would lead “you” into all truth. The “you” is plural. It should be “Y’all” or, as they say in these parts, “You’uns”. But it is still an egalitarian word. He didn’t say “will lead y’all, from the top…” or “will lead you’uns who are leaders and the rest of them as wants ta will have ta follow…”

Peter and Paul “those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)”; Peter and Paul and the rest of us are in this together.

Today’s Assigned Readings:

Ezekiel 43:1-12; Hebrews 9:1-14; Luke 11:14-23

And for Saturday evening, the Eve of Pentecost:
Exodus 19:3-8a,16-20; 1 Peter 2:4-10

For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!
Hebrews 9:13-14

The pages of my other blog have, at times, been filled with theological debate. In the last 5 years I’ve been noted as a good host for such debates - even when I don’t fall to one side or another of them. I have, however, often come down on one side or the other. Following the debut of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I noted that one might get too emotional watching the movie and confuse emotion with faith. (I still agree with that assessment, although I open admit - then as now and before - to weeping hysterically at Jesus of Nazareth or The Greatest Story Ever Told.) For thus critiquing what was - then - the coolest Christian movie on the planet, I was called “an Anti-Western Kook.” Note-to-self: I still need that on a t-shirt.

And yet here is tonight’s passage from Hebrews - which seems quite standardly western if you read it with western eyes. You kind of have to overlook it with eastern one (it gets a serious gloss from John Chrysostom, and is turned into quite something else).

Three years later, an email back-and-forth between myself and an Orthodox writer on the topic of the atonement produced quite a storm of blog posts and theological debates. This time, following Bp Kallistos Ware, I was pointing out that even the bloodiest forms of God-punished-Jesus-instead-of-us theories of atonement found parallels inside the Orthodox Church (especially, in this case, in the Matins of the Resurrection). To claim “this” was Orthodoxy and “that” was not (usually in an East versus West kind of way) was just not possible. But to deny that claim cuts the rug out from under those converts who want to imagine a Good, Pure and Perfect East as over against a defunct west. Having been such a convert - and then become a rug-cutter - I wondered what Orthodoxy was.

One of the better soundbites to come out of modern Orthodoxy is this: 100% of the Fathers are 85% Orthodox. One must think in black-and-white terms to use the line - the assumption of the speaker in all cases is that he or she (or at least her priest) can tell you what is and is not Orthodox among the Saints.

One can expect this to come up in a couple of situations. On the one hand, as one begins to use quotes from the Fathers to suggest something that another party thinks isn’t “really” Orthodox, out will come the 85% line. (Try reading Olivier Clement to Ultra-conservatives.) Or, on the other hand, a reader will go to ask someone wiser about a quote from St So-and-so that appears to be heresy. My personal favourite is from the Council of Hatfield, held in 680 - well before the Great Schism between east and west. To prove that England held the orthodox and catholic faith, the Council submitted a statement of Faith to the Pope including the filioque. No one thought anything of it - the filioque was part and parcel of the gloriously variegated theology of the Church. It was a couple hundred years before it would get tied into secular politics and cause trouble. But point out today that any number of Orthodox saints were there (including Bede, who was commemorated yesterday) endorsing the filioque, and the response (from a calm voice, at least) is sure to be “100% of the Fathers are 85% Orthodox.”

Let’s hold on to that. Here’s why: It’s totally true. And all the examples that can be cited will prove it of any writer out there whom the Orthodox claim - from St Paul to blessed Father Seraphim of Platina, who died in the 1980s, to Fr Thomas Hopko (who is still alive). Now, which 85% of which writer is Orthodox will depend on who you ask and that’s also important. Because there is no final authority that can judge that to be so - or not so - save maybe (maybe) a majority opinion. As if such were possible.

Remember a couple of posts ago when we talked about Sola Scriptura? Imagine, if you will, that the Orthodox or Roman Catholic argument can be summed up as Sola Ecclesia - Church Alone - and the same things are true. As I said on Tuesday:

Now, I’ll be the first to admit: there’s no such thing as Sola Scriptura. This is not because of any weakness in the scriptures, but rather because a text is meaningless without context - and that includes the reader. The assumptions and history a reader brings to the text are just as important as what the author intended, at least as regards the “meaning” a reader will pull out of the text. So, a conservative, socially traditional sort will pull from this material what he needs, ignoring all the rest. The same is true of the sort of person one might call a “liberal” or socially progressive. What these parties bring to the discussion influences the truth they pull out.

It matters not if that “reader” of Sola Ecclesia is a more-liberal Orthodox/Catholic person (think many Politicians or Fr Alexander Schmemman) or a more-conservative sort (think Fr Seraphim or Frederica Matthewes-Green). It may be that one is accepting the “read” of one’s priest or that one is reading alone. Either way, what one brings to the the quest (including one’s own mental limitations) is vital to what one brings out of it.

The same is true of Anglicans or Lutherans, of Presbyterians or Emergent Church folk. The claim that the Church is, of itself - rather than accepting that the Church is the living people in it - causes one to go seeking a black and white place: which can not be. For the Church is the people - and pointing at one place or another of “tradition” and attempting to solidify it (as in the case of the Scriptures) results in the ossification of those things around it, too. A tradition is living - ie, alive, changing, growing, reproducing. The Tradition™ is usually imagined as dead - unchanging. Except it’s not really. It changes all the time… in other words The Tradition™ is really a bunch of traditions in a constant, glorious and often contradictory flux. Glory to God for all things!

That’s where, ultimately, we’re left with a living community - the Church - surrounded by dead shells. We are like the ancients who lost their temple and wondered “What now?”.

By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing. This is a symbol of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right.

But then Christ came… and in him all these things can live as living traditions weaving together his people. In plain black and white, 100% of the Tradition (Eastern, Western, Catholic, Protestant, Ancient, Modern, Postmodern, Emergent) is 85% Orthodox.

Peter calls us, on this Eve of Pentecost,

Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy

The living priesthood of Christ - that is all of us - may make our homes as we feel called, to offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim his mighty acts.

Ezekiel 34:17-31; Hebrews 8:1-13; Luke 10:38-42

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home.
Luke 10:38

Who is Martha? She and her sister may have a brother named Lazarus, or may live with Simon the Leper. The Golden Legend - a collection of many pious stories told in the Middle Ages - conflates Mary of Bethany with Mary of Magdala. The family is hugely wealthy. They may live in Galilee (as Luke seems to say) or in Bethany, near Jerusalem (as John seems to say). Martha means “the lady” just as Lazarus means “God helps”: they could just as easily be generic titles for persons in stories. We may construct the story in such a way so that all of this is true - or not.

The Lady is always terribly busy - in Luke and in John - to the point of worry and exasperation. But Mary - from the Aramaic, “Miryam”, meaning “Wished for child” - is shown in peaceful aspect before Jesus.

But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing.
Luke 1041-42a

Jesus chastises the Lady for being worried and distracted. He does this, more generally, in a lot of places, wondering if we can add a day to our life by our worry, telling the disciples to not even carry a purse, etc. There is need of only one thing… Various Christians, from Chrysostom to John Bunyan to Charles Finney, etc, have seen this as “sitting at Jesus feet”, but I know my Scofield Bible makes here a comment about Martha only needing one specific seasoning instead of making all the fuss of a fancy meal! Maybe they are all right - including Scofield.

Coming home from work is always a hard time for me. Working third shift, I get off at 8AM amd I’m rarely up past noon. The whole process of coming home, running errands, doing the morning chores and having a little time for unwinding tends to get all jammed together. Sometimes I’m falling asleep mid-action, forcing myself to stay awake just a little longer to get something done. Or, as I will be later today, sometimes I’m rushing home and forcing myself to get to bed - worrying about all the things I’m not getting done - so that I can get up and get to work early for a double shift. Somewhere in the midst of all this excitement, I used to try to have a morning prayer time (during which I would almost invariably fall asleep) although lately I’ve been trying to make myself exercise: a 20-30 min session of qigong, a combo of meditation and physical movement.

Thursday morning, however, this was not the way it all turned out. I stopped and did my shopping, and came home. Pulling into the drive way a rabbit hopped before me, the length of the yard and then stopped and watched me. I pulled into my spot and watched the rabbit who was shortly joined by another. Then another. And then there were four. Chasing each other around in circles on my grass. Every once in a while they stopped and watch me, but they just played around and ate grass (I noted they seemed to like, especially, the clover with flowers on the stalks). I had time to unload groceries, find a camera, come out and sit in the yard and take pictures. And they got used to me…

By the time the romp had ended, I’d spent nearly 40 minutes sitting, watching, learning… being silent and very slow moving. Let’s call it “lagomorphic meditation.” I entered the house, turned on the beans in the crockpot and went to sleep very happy. And it reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago. It follows, edited slightly.

Rabits eat grass. That’s sort of a rallying cry for me at times: Rabbits eat grass. It’s not important because I need to be reminded of what to feed my pet. Rather, it’s important because I spend a lot of my time wrapped up in theological wooji-wooji. I need to be reminded of the important things more often than not. I have several books on my shelf that offer advice on common things: yeast, water and flour makes bread and, yes, rabbits eat grass.

Jesus is welcomes into the home of the Lady: she shows him hospitality. Although the Greek word is not used, as we learned yesterday, to be “entertained” is Agapao, to love your guest. The Lord of the Universe Incarnate as a guest in one’s home. As common as Mom coming over for dinner or even a date. Rabbits eat grass.

The Gospel text is filled with such insights - Jesus at a wedding, Jesus drinking his mothers milk at her breast, Jesus at dinner with sinners, Jesus drinking wine and celebrating the Passover with his friends, Jesus roasting fish, Jesus walking along the road discussing scripture. Each event is, by Jesus’ participation, elevated to a divine revelation by the very fact that this is God, walking with Man in the cool of the evening through the garden of this world. Once again God’s friendship with man is renewed. The common, ordinary things of this life are elevated, are given a kind of transubstantiation, becoming sacramentals.

Sometimes, I like to skip over all the tools God has given me and go right for, you know, the really holy ones: the solid gold vestments and cherubim-covered fans. But God has placed me in a world filled with sacramentals, the better here to work out my own salvation. Matter, the physical world, the creation is blessed by its Creator. God is at home in a world where rabbits eat grass - or clover on Thursdays. Everything is an icon before which we may sit as Mary before Jesus. God is present in the world and active. His Grace - that is, He, Himself - is present to us at every turn even if we haven’t the deep spiritual discipline needed to actually see it.

Father Victor, of Blessed Memory, reminded us one Wednesday Evening fellowship that Orthodoxy was about life: we celebrate life at every turn. He had been interviewed recently by the local paper and in the interview the had said that Orthodoxy is not about fleeing the world but about living in it fully: we make love to our spouse, he said, we drink vodka, we at meat. He pounded the dinner table for emphasis. It was lent and we were not eating meat nor drinking vodka: we do not fast, however, because these things are bad. We do not fast because to partake is evil. We fast because we can, because even the fasting is a more-full participation in the world. We abstain - and we return in celebration to the Gifts God has given us.

A parallel to this about Anglicans: during a ride to NYC, Bp Walter Denis once said to me “The Word became flesh. Anglicans wallow in it.”

As a sort of “educated” American trying to follow God in the way of Jesus, I spend much of my time in debate even though I well know there are no debating scholarships to the kingdom of heaven. I spent a lot of time looking for “real” or “true” Christians in the True Church™ forgetting those tools God gave me, right to hand: especially the people that God put around me for my salvation. I forget at every turn that I’m not a lofty scholar, nor am I a theologian. I’m a layman, working our my salvation in fear and trembling in the midst of a world where rabbits eat grass… a world in which God is at home.