The Beatitudes: The End

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begans, seems to be a promise of things to come. But the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: The Bliss of the Martyr’s Pain

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when you are reviled and persecuted, and have evil spoken against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be very glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so they persecuted the prophets before you. Matt 5:10-12

In the early Church, the word for witness and the word for martyr were the same Greek word, martus. Originally used only for witness, the time came when those who witnessed to the faith were often killed or martyred. Very early on, persecution was inevitable. A follower might not be killed, but they were often ostracized. Not until the 4^th century was it really safe to be a Christian.

Persecution was carried out simply because Christians were different. They didn’t conform to the cultural standards and practices. In a time when conformity was highly prized, non-conformists disrupted the peace of the city or kingdom. Christians had a different moral standard. A simple example or two will make this clear. Since pagan meals began with a prayer to a pagan god and some kind of small offering, Christians couldn’t participate. That made them look rude and discourteous. Christians were encouraged to avoid teaching as a profession because it required teaching about the pagan gods. They couldn’t make incense because it might be used in pagan temples. The list goes on.

Christians were misunderstood. Their worship which excluded the unbaptized when the Eucharist began, was described as lewd orgies (because of the kiss of peace they exchanged), cannablistic meals, and child killing. But most of all, they were accused of being atheists because they wouldn’t worship pagan gods, and the supreme insult, they wouldn’t worship the emperor.

Christians came to believe that while persecution brings pain and suffering in the present, in the end, staying faithful brings satisfaction and peace to the soul. The First Letter of Peter includes the idea that to suffer for the faith is to share in the suffering of Christ. The ultimate reward for the pain and suffering is clear: union with Christ and participation in the glory to come. 

With all this in mind, we can restate the Beatitude this way: Oh the bliss of those whose demonstration of faith is so great as to bring persecution upon themselves simply by being faithful.  They shall live with God.

Postscript

This is my final post as Theologian In Residence. I’ve enjoyed our two years together, but that time has come to an end. I will continue to post on a personal blog on a variety of topics, that generally speaking, will touch on the intercession of faith and life. The blog address is www.JerryLHarber.blogspot.com and is titled Stuff I’m Thinking. To receive an email when I post, please go to that blog and type your email address in the box Follow By Email. I hope you’ll give it a try.

Peace,

Jerry+

The Beatitudes: Part 7

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begans, seems to be a promise of things to come. But the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: Those Who Break Down Barriers

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.  Matt 5:9

When we think of peace these days, we tend to think of the absence of conflict or trouble. Even when Germany was in shambles after WWII, with limited services and hardly any food, the residents would likely have said they were finally at peace. The Greek word which is translated as peace is eirene. It is used to translate the Hebrew word shalom. Shalom is a very rich word. It describes perfect welfare, serenity, prosperty, and happiness. When used as a greeting, it doesn’t just wish a person freedom from conflict, but wishes everything positive for the person being greeted.  Shalom also describes a right relationship with another, intimacy, fellowship, goodwill. When we exchange the Peace during the Eucharist, this is what we are offering our fellow worshippers!

Peace is important in the New Testament. Paul begins all his letters with a prayer for grace and peace for the readers. The word peace occurs in every New Testament book. Jesus wishes peace on his followers, especially when he says, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you” (John 14:27)

Notice especially that the Beatitude doesn’t offer bliss to the one who loves or longs for peace, but to the person who is a peace-maker. Too often we shy away from speaking up when we are sure something is amiss in work situations, family life, or even church. We don’t want to rock the boat, upset the apple cart, create a stir--in short, create conflict. We might be called peace-lovers in such a situation--or perhaps conflict avoiders. And the person who speaks up? That one might be called a trouble maker. Yet, in the sense in which peace-maker is used here, speaking up is exactly what’s called for. Wrongs need to be made right.

Bliss, it seems, comes when a person is prepared to disrupt the status quo, when that status quo needs disrupting. The peace-maker will face difficulty, unpopularity, scorn and more in the pursuit of real peace. It was in this sense that Jesus said, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34) He means, “I didn’t come to allow the illusion of peace to continue. I came to disrupt it, to shine light into darkness, and by doing so, bring shalom.

The second meaning of shalom about right relationships requires this sword of which Jesus spoke. When relationships are broken, bringing healing will disrupt the truce that exists between people or between people and systems of government or other powers. As Jesus overthrew the moneychangers, creating havoc, he was trying to bring peace, to restore the peoples’ right relationship with the worship of God, and thereby with God himself. And if we attack the barriers that stand in the way of right relationships, what will we receive for our trouble? Jesus says we will be called the children of God. Because Hebrew has so few adjectives, the word “son” or “child” often prefaces a word to give it richness. The name Barnabas, or Bar-Nabas, means “son of consolation,” while James and John, because of their volatile personalities were calls “sons of thunder.”

The peacemaker becomes a “son” of God, that is, becomes like God, or takes on attributes of God! And while it may not be as short and to the point as the original Beatitude, we can now restate this one. Oh the bliss of those who break down barriers, who make relationships between person and person and person and God right again. They are truly God’s children, doing the work God requires to restore wholeness to his creation.

Peace, and I mean that in all its richness.

 Jerry+

The Beatitudes: Part 6

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begans, seems to be a promise of things to come. But the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: The Pure In Heart

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.  Matt 5:8

As we’ve come to expect in our studies, our English words often fail to do justice to the Greek. In this case, the word is pure. In Greek it means: (1) clean in contrast to dirty, as in clean clothes, (2) without blemish or alloy, such as pure water or pure wine, (3) a person who has been cleared of debt or released from a duty he/she has fulfilled, (4) ritually fit to enter the temple, and (5) free from moral pollution and guilt.

The word Greek katharos, translated as pure was also used in the Old Testament Greek translation called the Septuagint. In context, we can add some levels of meaning: (1) integrity, (2) blameless against a charge of misconduct, (3) innocent in the sight of God, (4) the quality of prayer of a good person, and (5) free from sin.

The quick conclusion can be drawn that the word was used to describe the ritually or ceremonially pure, something or someone who followed the regulations of ritual purity. But it can also be applied to the moral realm of life. There it describes purity as a matter of life lived, the conduct of heart and mind.

In the Anglican tradition, especially the Anglo-Catholic tradition, we can speak of the Eucharist as being valid or invalid. In this tradition, for the Eucharist to be considered valid, (1) it must be performed by a properly ordained priest, (2) it must use an approved prayer form, meaning priests nor parishes can’t just make up their own and use them, and (3) the Gospel must be read, to name but three. The Roman Church has a much longer list. These are examples of ritual purity.

It is likely Jesus is not emphasizing this meaning, but the other, that is, no tainting or mixture. In that sense the Beatitude can be read, Blessed are those whose motives are absolutely unmixed, whose thoughts, motives, and desires are genuine and sincere. This may make this Beatitude the most demanding one, according to Barclay. This Beatitude requires honest self-examination, followed by a sense of humility. Our motives are seldom pure. We might serve in a soup kitchen, because “we’ll get more out of it than” those who eat, but is this the purpose of service? Even Paul, late in life, described himself as the “chief of sinners.”  Can anyone attain to this? “With God’s help,” we pray in our baptismal vows.

What is the bliss of the one who strives and obtains such purity, having been made right by God in Christ? Nothing less that a vision of God! In Jesus’ time, to see your monarch was a powerful gift. In our time, it’s akin to seeing the president or some national hero--forever thrilling and memorable.

On one level, this promise to see God can be thought of as to somehow understand fully God’s nature. As Paul said, “Now I see through a glass darkly; then I will see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know even as I’m known.” (I Cor 13:12) This idea describes a new level of intimacy with God, surpassing any intimacy we’ve ever known.

We can now state the Beatitude this way: O the bliss of the person whose heart has been cleansed by the Spirit, whose motives, thoughts, and desires are unmixed.  They will be given nothing less than a vision of God.

 Jerry+

The Beatitudes: Part 5

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begans, seems to be a promise of things to come. But the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: The Kind Heart

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.  Matt 5:7

Did you know that the word mercy is found more than 150 times in the Old Testament? Nine-tenths of those times, the word refers to God’s mercy.  The Hebrew word chesedh, which is translated as mercy in these instances may not give us the full range of meaning of the word. For the most part, we moderns think of mercy as relaxing a penalty or demand which could be enforced. We “throw ourselves on the mercy of the court” to obtain a lesser sentence than might otherwise be handed out. So mercy has the idea of agreeing to not treat someone with the severity or stern justice which is deserved.

But the Hebrew word is much more positive than that. The word includes the meaning of “kindness” and this is the basic meaning of the word. When chesedh is translated this way, it carries the idea of something active. As Barclay put it, “...when used of God, [it] is the outgoing kindness of the heart of God. It is the basis of God’s whole relationship to [us], and especially of his relationship to” Israel.

Mercy belongs to God and God delights in it (Isa 62.12, Micah 7:18). God’s mercy is so infinite that it reaches to heaven (Psalm 36:5); so enduring it lasts forever (Psalm 89:1,2). God is said to be “plenteous” in mercy (Psalm 21:7). God’s mercy gives hope (Psalm 33: 5). This list goes on. Knowing this about God, Moses can appeal to God’s longsuffering nature and great mercy to ask forgiveness when the Israelites sin against God.

Mercy in the Old Testament is connected to God’s fidelity and steadfastness in relating to creation, including humankind. God is faithful and keeps his covenant with those who love him (Duet. 7:9). The idea of covenant is central to the whole story of the Old Testament. God graciously entered into a special relationship with the people of Israel in which he would be their God and they would be his people--a covenant which God initiated! This is the clear example of God’s outgoing love of God of his own.

The covenant carried with it a condition: God’s people would be obedient, specifically, they would keep the Torah. Repeatedly, in the story, we see that mercy is shown especially to those who love God and keep the commandments (Exodus 20:6).  “And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Here we see then, that if God is to show mercy toward humankind, it is expected that humankind do the same, that is, show mercy in their relationships. Micah says that showing such mercy is required.

Jesus speaks this Beatitude in a world in which toleration for differences was nearly impossible to obtain. Jews and Gentiles had little use for each other. Romans ruled with an inflexible iron fist. Rebellions weren’t just put down; they were crushed. Jerusalem wasn’t just defeated in the rebellion of 66-70 AD. Jerusalem and it’s temple were obliterated and the people scattered. In this kind of world, Jesus says, “O the bliss of those whose outgoing love for others reflects and reproduces the outgoing love of God, for they will be loved completely and unconditionally by God.”

Clearly Jesus was calling his contemporaries and us to act in a counter-cultural way. No wonder  outgoing love is so hard to show or to find.

Peace,

 Jerry+

The Beatitudes: Part 4

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begans, seems to be a promise of things to come. But the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: Starving Soul

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.  Matt 5:6

First of all, this Beatitude is about hunger and thirst. For those of us who have never really experienced hunger, it may be difficult to understand the depth of this one. Oh, we’ve been hungry because dinner’s late, but very few of us reading this will likely have experienced the relentless hunger experienced in parts of undeveloped countries, or even in the impoverished areas of our own city. The same is true of thirst. Quenching our thirst is moments away most of the time. We don’t have to go to a well head that operates only once a day, if that, to carry away all the water we need for the next twenty-four hours.

But Jesus knew of the kind of hunger and thirst people in underdeveloped countries experience. Indeed, during Jesus’ life time, there were many who could not be certain of their next meal or who often went to bed hungry and thirsty. So when Jesus speaks of hunger and thirst, he’s speaking to people who know its pain. In effect, he’s saying to them: Blessed is the one who longs for righteousness in the same way a starving person longs for food or a thirsty person longs for water.”

Jesus wasn’t the first to use this metaphor. In Psalm 42, the psalmist compares the deer panting for water with the soul of one thirsting for God. It’s a good metaphor and it’s easy to see why Jesus would have adopted it. He’s asking the question, “Do you desire righteousness as much as the hungry and thirsty desire food and water?” Elsewhere he says he has no place to lay his head, even though foxes have holes and birds have nests. Then he asks, “Do you want to follow me enough to have a life like that?”

To put it another way, a Christian can’t really say, “I’m interested in Jesus.” Rather, a Christian would say as Paul did, “For me to live is Christ,” or “I surrender to Jesus.”  In Luke’s version, he has Jesus say, “Woe unto you who are full! For you shall be hungry,” meaning if one is self-satisfied now, beware of a day that will come when it will all seem empty to you.”

On the upside of this demanding Beatitude, Jesus is not talking about the bliss obtained by those who have obtained righteousness. He’s talking about the bliss of those who seek it with their whole heart and mind. On a more mundane level, we can compare this to those of us who practice some skill or craft as a hobby, perhaps sewing or painting or woodwork. Our excitement comes, not because we have achieved perfection in our hobby, but because we see our dedication to it improve our work. We continue to strive for more improvement, but we don’t withold our pleasure waiting for perfection. In this way, our striving for righteousness is the minimum requirement for this bliss.

Having spoken of righteousness, let’s take a minute to define it. Like many words, it is rich in meaning. One meaning is justice for the world, not just ourselves. Another is righteousness in the sense of living right. A third is justification, such as our theology tells us comes by faith. The first two seem obvious, the third may need a bit more amplification.

The word in the sense in which Paul used it in his writings means to treat and accept another person as if that person is a just and good person. God, through Christ, has “counted us as righteous,” Paul says. God’s grace and mercy allows God to see us as if we are without sin and acceptable to God. Far from being a punitive God, God is, by nature, loving and accepting. Since very few of us can pull that off, it may be very hard to understand this attitude. But, understand it or not, it’s God’s attitude towards us. It is because of this that we will be “filled” in the words of the Beatitude. The Greek word is “stuffed to the point of complete satiety.” Not unlike how many of us will feel after Thanksgiving dinner!

Now we can state the Beatitude in a new way: O the bliss of those who hunger and thirst after a right relationship with God, for they shall be filled to bursting, until his/her longings are achieved and soul is satisfied.

Hunger and thirst to you!  Jerry+

The Beatitudes, Part 3

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begins, seems to be a promise of things to come. But the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: The Meek

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.  (Matt 5:5)

The real meaning of this Beatitude is obscured by the word “meek.” Today, it means a Casper Milquetoast kind of person; shy, withdrawing, submissive. The Hebrew word is anaw and is used often in the Psalms. It describes a person who, because he/she loves God, accepts God’s guidance and never grows resentful about what comes, believing God knows best. Such a person is dear to God, say the Psalms over and over. Psalm 37 is very reminence of Jesus’ remark about this and reads, “But the anaw shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant prosperity.”

When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the word praus was used for anaw. That word is used to describe an animal that has been tamed and is subject to the control of its handler. For example, we speak of horses being broken to the saddle or a sheepdog trained to herd on command. This animal is not weak, but controllable both within itself and from outside itself. The animal is not cowering, nor is it aggressive; it is praus. To paraphrase Aristotle when he talked about this quality in people, “[Such a person] feels anger on the right grounds, against the right person, in the right manner, at the right time, and for the right length of time.”

The Greek view of such a person describes a person who is gentle when it is within his/her power to be forceful. There is a certain strength in this person. This is the attitude of Jesus when he says, “Not my will, but yours be done.” Or as Paul put it, “Be angry, but don’t sin.” Paul is saying the anger can be appropriate, such as Martin Luther King’s anger toward racial oppression, but it can’t be destructive. This is why non-violence appealed to King and was his chief weapon.

When Jesus speaks of inheriting the earth, this is an enlargement on Psalm 37’s promise to inherit the land, i.e., the territory of Israel. It is instead a promise of life (which is what “land” means in this context) here and now. If one is committed to God, then he/she will know peace which is beyond human understanding. Praus is the quality that gives that person power through self-mastery.

Thus, we can restate the Beatitude as Barclay does: Oh the bliss of the person who has so committed self to God, that that person is entirely God-controlled, for such a person will be right with God, self, others and will enter into that life which God has promised and God alone can give.

Wow!

Jerry+

The Beatitudes: Part 2

Quick Review

The word translated as “Blessed” with which each Beatitudes begans, seems to be a promise of things to come. But, as I said last post, the word is better translated as “O the bliss...”  Bliss is a word that properly belongs only to the gods. Yet, Jesus is stating that it is his followers’ now. As William Barclay says, “...The Beatitudes are not promises of future happiness...they are affirmations of the bliss into which the Christian can enter here and now.”

Today’s Beatitude: The Sorrowing

Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Matt. 5:4

It may be this Beatitude is meant to be taken literally. There is a Arabic saying, “All sunshine makes a desert.” The composer Elgar once said, upon listening to a young woman with a beautiful voice and faultless technique, “She will be great when something happens to break her heart.” When I have been at a nadir in life, it was there I learned who my friends were and who loved me. So in this sense, sorrow has it’s own blessing to bring.

But, there is another possibility. O the bliss of the person who is moved to bitter sorrow at the realization of his/her own sin for they shall be encouraged and comforted. We often forget that the way to the fullness of a relationship with God is the realization that we aren’t worthy of the love that God gives us. Grace, as we say, is unmerited love. New life, in every sense, begins with the an awareness of dissatisfaction with life as it is.

Some years ago, seeing myself in a photograph, I realized I was dramatically overweight. I didn’t like the way I looked, nor the way I felt. My diabetes was hard to control. I decided at that moment I wouldn’t continue on the path that led to the many extra pounds and that I would turn my life in a new direction. And I did. This process is the same one that addicts face if they are to begin moving toward sobriety. They come to the sad and sorrowful realization they are out of control and need the help of a Higher Power.

In a very real sense, we are talking about penitence. But, this Beatitude doesn’t stop there. If we were to truly to come face to face with the depth our own sinfulness and our lack of merit before God, we might feel crushed and hopeless. This Beatitude says, “No.” The awareness of how far short we have fallen of acting like citizens of the Kingdom of God brings comfort. The Greek word here parakalein means comfort or console, but that is the rarest of it meanings. It also is the word used to call someone to become an ally, a helper, a counselor. It is also the word used to invite someone to a banquet. Quoting Barclay again, “God does not only accept and receive the sinner back again. He treats him, not as a criminal, but as an honoured guest.”

The word means even more. It also means to extort or to encourage. So the awareness of our sin, not only promotes forgiveness and joy, but we become filled with courage. Our minds are stimulated to new thoughts and new understanding. Though Andrew Lloyd Webber didn’t intend the description of love in his song Love Changes Everything to refer to God, it clearly has a deep theologial meaning. Think of God love for us as you read the lyrics.

Love changes everything:

Hands and faces,

Earth and sky,

Love,

Love changes everything:

How you live and

How you die

Yes, Love,

Love changes everything:

Now I tremble

At your name.

Nothing in the 

World will ever 

Be the same

Love

Will turn your world around,

And that world

Will last for ever.

Yes, Love,

Love changes everything,

Brings you glory,

Brings you shame.

Nothing in the

World will ever

Be the same.

Peace, Jerry+

The Beatitudes Part 1

Most of us are familiar with the Beatitudes, even if we can’t remember exactly what they say. They have been seen by many as the heart of Jesus’ teaching. While the Gospels record them as part of a sermon Jesus preached, more likely they were things he said from time to time. Some scholars think they were included in the Gospels because they represented a theme to which Jesus returned again and again. I tend in that direction on purely pragmatic grounds. If Jesus was roaming the country teaching and preaching on an almost daily basis, creating enough new material to satisfy that task would have been daunting. More likely, he had ideas he wanted to proclaim wherever he went so he used them over and over.  However they came to be, they are powerful, though potentially confusing for modern ears.

In Matthew, each begins with the words “Blessed are the...” for example, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:3) Luke’s version is, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.” (Luke 6:26b) There are other differences between the Matthew record and the Luke record. So to keep this simple, I’m focusing only on Matthew’s list. Perhaps another time we can look at the reasons the two accounts differ as much as they do.

To properly understand what Jesus is saying, we need to translate the word historically translated as “blessed” a different way, says William Barclay in his book on the Beatitudes, on which much of this topic is based. The word, he says, is “bliss,” as in “Oh the bliss of...” The word in Greek was an attribute of the gods. It represented the ultimate sense of pleasure, happiness, well being, or as one writer put it, “spiritual prosperity.” Consequently bliss carries more of that meaning than blessed. With that in mind, let me offer you a different way to think about these Beatitudes in this post and the next several.

Poor In Spirit

O the bliss of the one who has realized his/her own utter helplessness and utter inadequacy and who has put his/her whole trust in God; for then that one will humbly accept the will of God, and doing so, become a member of the Kingdom.

The idea behind this translation is that a citizen of any kingdom or modern state is expected to obey the laws of that entity. A good citizen is one who is upright, does his/her duty, serves the good of the kingdom, and bends his/her will to the greater good. To be a citizen of the Kingdom of God would imply one would follow the commandments of God and live in a way that is characterized by gratitude, discipline, and obedience. To do that, one would reasonably have to assume that God knows what is best and that left to our own devices, we may make bad choices as citizens. If then, we seek to know and follow God’s lead, then we humble ourselves. (Note: if humble is opposite of arrogant, we could define arrogant as “unteachable” and humble as “teachable,” rather “than having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance.”) Or to put all this another way, we put our complete trust in God’s grace and mercy and seek to know and do God’s will. That makes us members of the Kingdom, by definition.

Next time: Blessed Are They Who Mourn. Here’s a preview: O the bliss of the person who is moved to bitter sorrow at the realization of his/her own sin for they shall be encouraged and comforted.

Peace, Jerry+

Dirty River

The Old Testament story of Naaman and Elisha is very human story. Naaman is a foreign general who has leprosy. He learns there is someone in Samaria who can cleanse him of this disease and Naaman’s king writes the Israelite king to request a cure for Naaman. The prophet Elisha takes on the job. But not in the way Naaman expected.

Naaman rides up in front of Elisha’s house with his entourage, no doubt expected to be greeted by an awed Elisha. What an honor it is to be asked to provide a cure for this very important man who has come such a great distance. But Elisha doesn’t come out to meet him. Instead, he sends word that Naaman is to go to the Jordan River and wash seven times. It’s helpful to know that the Jordan river generally is a slow moving, muddy little river, hardly bigger than a creek in many places. When Naaman hears what he is to do, he’s incensed. In a rage, he and his horses and chariots turn from Elisha’s house and head off.

Here’s what he says. “I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy! Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?"

Naaman came to Elisha with a preconception about what the interaction would be like. He was clear about what a man of his stature deserved. So when asked to bathe in a muddy river, he left, uncured. It’s as if he’s saying, “My way or no way.” As I thought about this story, I reflected on two important periods in my life where I was sure of the outcome that would be best for me. My prayer wasn’t “Show me the way.” It was more like, “This is the outcome I want.” When that outcome didn’t happen the way I wanted, I was disappoint in God’s unwillingness to provide what I wanted the way I wanted it. Yet, in the two instances I thought about, what did happen because I didn’t get my way was at least as good for me as if I had. 

Naaman acted like a petulant child when he didn’t get the attention he wanted and it prevented him from getting the cure he needed. To his credit, when his servants tried to reason with him, he listened. "Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, `Wash, and be clean'?"

The story doesn’t tell us if Naaman struggled with the decision. I suspect he did. I imagine it took his servants more than one try to help him get past his rage. However long it took, he did go down to the humble little Jordan and give himself to it’s muddy embrace. Just as Elisha had promised, as he emerged from the seventh dip, he was cured.

His reaction was interesting. He headed back to Elisha with all his company. Face to face with the prophet, Naaman said, "Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel." Perhaps that was as close as he could come to an apology and a show of appreciation; I don’t know. I’d like to believe he was a different man from that moment on, though.

I know I was when God mystified me with his love in the face of my lack of imagination.

Peace, Jerry+

Saints

This week the Vatican announced that Pope John XXXIII and Pope John Paul will be recognized as saints of the Church. In a month, we will celebrate All Saints' Day. Since The Episcopal Church recognizes certain saints, you may wonder what this is all about. Here’s the short version.

The Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church are the three large Christian bodies that officially recognize or name saints. They each have a different process for doing so. For the most part, the Anglican Communion acknowledges those who are recognized as saints in the Roman Church, but I’m not aware we do so with those named in the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Church. It is also true that we do not officially honor all those whom the Romans recognize. 

One estimate is that there are as many as 10,000 acknowledged saints in the Catholic Church, though not all are given feast days or continued to be venerated on a Church wide basis. The Episcopal Church routinely revises the list of those it calls saints as well as those who are not called saints but are worthy of Christian respect and remembrance and includes them in a list of those who have a feast day. These are included in a book called Lesser Feasts and Fasts. 

You can see a list of saints and others commemorated at the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Episcopal_Church) or you may view a pdf of the Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2006 at http://www.richardliantonio.com/anglican/Lesser%20Feasts%20and%20Fasts%202006.pdf. Both indicate who and when, and beginning on page 88 LFF, why.

But what exactly are saints? Originally, the name was used to refer to all believers. It is in this sense that Paul uses the word in his writings. Later, the name began to be reserved for those who were martyred for the faith and then finally, only for those who meet certain criteria. However, in the naming of Pope John XXXIII, Pope Francis declared that a second miracle was not needed for him, so there is flexibility. Francis’ recent pronouncements about Vatican reform and his intention to try to actualize more of what John started in Vatican II indicates the high regard in which he holds John.

Before the recognition by the Church proper of saints, they were universally local figures who were remembered in a parish or perhaps a diocese. The first saint officially proclaimed by the Roman Church was Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg in 993. In 1153, Pope Alexander III decreed that from that time forward only popes could recognize people as saints, though this decree eventually only applied to what we call the Western Church. 

In no branch of Christianity are saints worshipped, at least not officially. They are venerated, that is, revered or given honor due them for their lives. Their function is to inspire us to live more holy lives. 

Saints are commonly asked for help by the living, especially in Catholicism. Usually they are asked to intercede with God on behalf of the person praying to them. Because of that, some saints have been named “patron saints,” in that, they are particularly “useful” in problems in a certain area. For example, St. Francis is considered the patron saint of animals, while St. Stephen is the patron saint of deacons.

Since the Protestant Reformation, Protestants assert the only mediator needed between humans and God is Jesus. Still, some Protestants (especially Anglo-Catholic Anglicans) argue that asking a saint to pray on your behalf is no different from asking a living person to do so.

Go be a saint. Go honor a saint.

Peace, Jerry+

Francis I

The media are all abuzz with the latest interview with Pope Francis. If you haven’t already heard or read his comments, here’s the very short version. Francis I said the Church should spend less time focusing on doctrinal matters, which are a kind of legalism, and more time being pastoral. Welcome people, he said. Heal the hurting, he said. Reach out to the needy, he said. In short, be more like Jesus.

Well, on the face of it, it’s a wonderful message and surely one the Catholics and other Christian denominations and groups would do well to heed. Hard to go wrong being more like Jesus. “A house of prayer for all people,” the Cathedral of St. Mary in Memphis proclaims. C’mon in.

I don’t wish to diminish the importance in this change of emphasis Francis brings to the discussion. At the same time, there is something that is not getting very much press. Francis isn’t suggesting the doctrines and dogmas of the Church be changed, or even re-examined. He’s simply saying, “Let’s stop talking and arguing about our fundamental beliefs and emphasize something different for now.” 

Get that? What was a sin in the eyes of the Church is still a sin. We just intend to talk about it less. Are you a divorced Catholic who has remarried? We love you and we want you to come be a part of our parish and community. Except when the Eucharist is being administered. Are you a non-Catholic Christian worshipping with us today? We welcome you! Except, please don’t consume the bread and wine. Are you gay and in the hospital? Call a priest and we’ll come pray for you, but at the same time we’re doing it, we will be mindful that you are living in a state of sin.

Maybe I’m being too harsh in my assessment of what Francis did and didn’t say. When the interview first came to light, I felt a surge of excitement like I did when John XXXIII “threw open the windows” with Vatican II. Of course, the hope and promise of that Council has never been fully realized. Altars got moved from the wall and nuns took off their habits. Abstaining from meat on Friday became optional. But, the issues of women’s place in the Church, human sexuality and more, are about where they were way back then.

One more thought. When Francis speaks like this, he is not “ordering” anybody to do anything. His off the cuff remarks, whenever he makes them, do not have the force of doctrine or dogma. It’s his opinion and many priests and bishops are content to allow him his opinion. They respect his office, but not necessarily his opinions. In the non-Catholic Christian world, it’s as if the pastor of your parish makes a statement about something in, say a sermon. It’s his or her opinion. It is in no way binding on you. You may consider it and follow what he says is right. But you’re also free to consider it, disagree with it, reject it, and in the extreme, take steps to get a new pastor.

Maybe Francis is setting the stage for real changes in the future. I hope so. However, given the pace the Church has moved, I won’t live to see any difference in substance.

That’s my take on the matter. What’s yours?

Peace, Jerry+

War Or Peace?

As our national leaders struggle with a response to Syria’s apparent use of nerve gas in its civil war, it seems appropriate to stop and remember something of our heritage and ask a few questions. 

4 September is the feast day of an Episcopal Bishop, Paul Jones. Bishop Jones was bishop of Utah from 1916 to 1918 when he was forced to resign. Why? He was opposed to World War I and was apparently quite vocal about it. He was also considered a socialist as well as a pacifist. His opposition, especially to the U.S. entering the war, was considered an affront by those who held that entering the war was a moral duty. Consequently, anyone who opposed that decision was considered immoral. Bishop Jones finally yielded to the pressure and resigned in April 1918.

Bishop Jones served as a bishop only once more when he temporaly held the see of Southern Ohio while a new ordinary was being selected. In 1933, he was allowed to resume his seat in the House of Bishops, but was deprived of a vote. From his resignation until his death, he advocated for civil rights for African Americans, for social reform, and economic justice. He was very involved in founding the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. Toward the end of his life, he helped resettle Jews who were displaced by the Nazis.

Bishop Jones seems to have clearly have paid a dear price for his stance. When a person responds to God’s urgings to take the stole of ordained ministry, it is seldom with the awareness of potential pain that may be associated with that decision. Usually, it is with a sense of what good one can do. Additionally, one does not accidentally become a bishop. One agrees to stand for election, indicating that he or she feels further called to this particular expression of God’s work. I imagine there is at least some feeling that some important work can be done from this position that might not be done without the mitre. Reflect then, on how it must feel to have that pulpit taken away because you believe you’re doing that work. 

As Christians, each of us is called to take moral stands as an expression of our faith. We can’t be so naive as to believe it will not be without costs. I believe it is indisputable that the Church has often embraced military action as a just cause, or sometimes in its history, embraced it because it served the political needs of the institution. It is also indisputable that many Christians have argued for the cause of non-violence and rejected the idea of a “just war.”

I suspect at this point in our history, we are all weary of war. Our current dilemma is made more difficult by a prior announcement that the use of gas crosses a red line that requires a response, not a debate. But now how do we respond? And what is our individual position on whatever decision is to be made? This is the conundrum. We don’t wish more death, but we  may also have some sense of moral imperative to kill into order to diminish a greater number of deaths. 

I don’t offer an answer. I do offer this prayer that is to be prayed on Paul John’s feast day.

Merciful God, who sent your beloved Son to preach peace to those who are far off and to those who are near: Raise up in this and every land witnesses, who, after the example of your servant Paul Jones, will stand firm in proclaiming the Gospel of the Prince of Peace, our Savior Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

Peace, Jerry+

Angel Memories

Recently while clearing my head of other things, I used Google Earth to look up my old neighborhood. It’s here in Memphis, but a satellite view seemed just the thing rather than a drive. I entered my old address and clicked. In a few seconds, I was hovering over the house I lived in for the first twenty years of my life.

I have the most wonderful memories of that neighborhood. I knew all its twists and turns, the good people, the odd people and the occasional bad person. The alleyway two houses away from my house, allowed access for the few people who owned garages to park their cars in the rear of their house. Sanitation workers used it to collect our garbage. We kids used it, among other things, to treasure hunt. For at least two summers, we made a contest out of finding bits of glass in the gravel. Each color had some predetermined value; red more valuable than beer bottle brown, blue more valuable than either. Broken Pepto bottles were a great find!

One house to the north of mine was Cambridge Avenue. It was almost two blocks long with a dead end at a good sized field. I played lots of “war” in that field. There was a shallow depression in the center which was our foxhole from which we defended our neighborhood and our country. The other end of Cambridge was about a block long and it was a dead end too. There was a sweet gum tree at the end that supplied us with countless sharp pointed little balls we could throw at each other. When they were green, they were hard and stung as if a rock had hit you. When they dried out, they stuck your skin, leaving a half dozen or so little “wounds.” Great fun. Almost as much fun as our rubber gun battles in which pieces of innertubes were fashioned into half inch wide rubber bands and shot at each other. Totally unpolitically correct today, along with the water pistols we used to cool off on those hot summer days.

Just off that dead end, St. Thomas Catholic Church had their school playground. In the 40s and 50s when I played there, it was gravel. That didn’t stop softball, hardball and even football games from being played by the neighborhood kids. Behind the Church, actually the convent, there was a garden and a grotto. The backside of the grotto, was about eight feet off the ground, and formed a little space we pretended was the conning tower of a submarine. We were frequently run off from there by Mr. Kerbackie, the sexton. He also rang the Angelus on the church bell every morning at six, at noon, and at six in the evening. You could set your watch. I can almost hear it now as I type this.

Just down the street, less than a block away, we had a little shopping district. A small grocery, an ice cream parlor, a hardware store, a five and dime, a barber, and a doctor. Across the street we had a shoe repair shop, a dry cleaners and one of two beer joints. A few hundred feet away, we had a service station, a drug store, a dry goods store, another beer joint, and the Royal movie theater, where I spent an untold number of Saturdays watching a double feature, a serial and a cartoon. All for fifteen cents until I turned twelve. Then it went up to thirty-five and the owner and his wife knew exactly when we turned twelve.

From my front porch swing, we could watch the neighbors go by on Lauderdale. We could see the Catholic priests in the two story rectory just opposite us come and go and sometimes, we could watch them play poker in front of a second floor window where they could catch the breeze. Hardly anybody moved in or out of the neighborhood in the many years I was there. When it did happen, we were ready to meet their kids to see if they’d fit into our tight little group of fifteen or so. The did.

There is so much more I could tell you about that neighborhood and its people, all the adventures we had together from backyard camping to summer nights of capture the flag. But, that’s not the point of this post. From my sky view, I could see the bell tower of the church was half gone, a huge hole in the roof of the church was were the first quarter of it used to be. The service station opposite was an empty slab and the drug store, dry goods store and more were gone. The grocery, and all the wonderful little businesses I spent so much time and so many dimes in, were gone. A pile of rubble was clearly visible where the grocery had been. The field at the end of Cambridge had been paved over, connecting it to a cross street.

It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at the old neighborhood. It wasn’t like this then. Oh, I knew the Catholics had torn down the school and the convent, but the church was still functioning. That is until they sold it to the Baptists, who sold it to COGIC, who left it to decay. Oh, did I mention my elementary and high schools had both been torn down too? But seeing all the rest was a visceral shock to my system. Not only did I feel sad, and more to the point of this post, I felt completely disconnected from my childhood. Frankly, it was a rough couple of days.

What I finally realized was, that though the structures and people were gone, the way in which they had shaped and formed me were not. I still remember the lady up the street who used to invite me to her porch when I still had baby teeth, just to talk. I remember the pain of being “kicked out of the club” by my next door neighbors, David and Johnnie, and the encouragement Lily, who ironed for us once a week, gave me to play by myself in the backyard as if it didn’t matter I was alone. “You watch,” she said. “When they see you having a good time without them, they’ll invite you back.” She was right and I also learned I could very well entertain myself without them anyway.

I remember the “old couple” who must have been at least fifty, from the church in which I grew up, also in that neighborhood, spending their time with rowdy and unruly teenagers, loving us into good behavior. I remember sitting on the porch with my best friend from our nursery days together, comforting each other when life handed us something bad. We did that off and on until she died two years ago. In short, these people who loved and accepted me, who give me fifteen cents worth of ice cream when I only had a dime, who told my momma on me when I misbehaved around them, who taught me in school and in Sunday school, these people are...us.

Yep, the bottom line is these people, and I’m hoping we all have some like these in our lives, these people are counting on us to continue to accept, support, encourage, teach and genuinely love those around us. When the “structures” of their past are gone, we will still be with them, angel memories in good time and dark times. Just like all those from my old neighborhood who still live in my head and heart even though wreck and ruin wiped out my neighborhood.

At least, that’s what I think.

Peace, Jerry+

Keep the Main Thing, the Main Thing

I once had a secretary who kept a little saying taped to the phone on her desk. It said, "Keep the main thing, the main thing." I loved it. Today's blog is about "the main thing."

This coming Sunday, the Gospel reading from Luke is a story about Jesus and a woman in need.  Jesus is in a synagogue, teaching on Sabbath day. As he taught, a severly crippled woman, bent over, likely with some spinal disease or deformity, is sighted by Jesus. There’s no indication she approached him and asked for help. She knew her place. She was almost certainly in the balcony, the area reserved for women. Perhaps Jesus saw her as she ascended the steps toward that gallery, or perhaps he saw her once she was in place. We don’t know.

What we do know is that when he saw her, he called her over to him, and healed her. She immediately was able to stand up straight for the first time in eighteen years. What do you think the reaction would be next Sunday at your church if someone were healed of a long time infirmity? I suspect even in the more staid of our parishes, there would be some gasps, maybe even a few “Oh, my God!” prayers of astonishment. 

Maybe that happened back then too. We don’t know, because the very next verse tells us that the synagoge leader or president, was horrified. Maybe he was happy that the woman had been released from her burden of pain somewhere deep inside. But his immediate reaction was to, in modern language, freak out. Not because she was healed, but because she was healed on the Sabbath.

The Jewish Law forbade any work on the Sabbath and since healing was the work of a physican, as far as the leader was concerned, Jesus had violated a major tenet of Judaism regarding keeping the Sabbath. Jesus was not pleased with the synagogue leader’s reaction which was, “There are six days on which work ought to be done; the Sabbath isn’t one of them.” So displeased was Jesus, he called the leader--and others present--hypocrites. “You water your cattle on the Sabbath. That’s work is it not? Why would you forbid this woman to be set free on the Sabbath?”

Well, that’s the story, but is there more to it than appears? What’s the motivation of the synagogue leader to focus on Sabbath keeping rather than on this act of power and grace? To vastly over simplify the concept of Jewish Law, it was understood to be a way of life, the path one should follow as a part of the Chosen. As my first Old Testament professor taught, “The Law was not a penal code; it was a means of grace.” It’s purpose wasn’t to restrict activity; it was to assure that one’s life was pleasing to God--a duty owed to God.

With that understanding, the synagogue leader is probably thinking something like this: “Yes, this is an act of kindness and mercy, but it could have been done tomorrow as well as today. If we begin to pick and choose which statute to follow, where will it end?” It’s an example of the “slippery slope” school of thinking, and in some important ways, it’s hard to argue with. 

Jesus isn’t persuaded, however. There are seven separate instances of Sabbath healing by Jesus in the New Testament. Pretty clearly Jesus must believe that, as important as Sabbath keeping is, it’s not the be all and end all. “The Sabbath is made for us, not us for the Sabbath,” he famously said. Jesus clearly believed that the whole of the Law was summed up in what we call the Two Great Commandments--love God, love neighbor. Following that precept, loving this woman called for immediate action, not a delay of even a few hours. 

Perhaps we can call this story to mind when we get bent out of shape over some “violation” of our own religious traditions or rules.

Peace, Jerry+

Mary the Virgin?

Thursday 15 August is a feast day for Mary, Jesus’ mother. In the Roman Church, the Orthodox Church and a few Anglican Churches, it is celebrating her assumption into heaven at the end of her life. This idea, which has no clear Biblical support, became dogma on 1 November 1950, which Pius XII defined the dogma. The was pronouncement is the only time a pope has issued an infallible teaching since 1870 when the Church declared his ex cathedra pronouncements infallible. (It’s a long, technical story which has nothing to do with this post, so I’m not going there.) Whether or not Mary was dead when the assumption took place is left unspecified, so one may believe she was still living when taken to heaven.

The idea of her assumption flows naturally, the Church argues, from her perpetual virginity and the doctrine of her as Mother of God, as some call her. However, it’s interesting to note than for about the first 50 years after Jesus’ resurrection, belief that she was a virgin was not on the radar.

Paul’s surviving letters date from the 50s and 60s. These were the first known Christian documents and, in none of them does Paul mention directly or indirectly Mary’s virginity. For that matter, he also makes no mention of the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. Paul’s Gospel is built around the idea of Jesus’ death and resurrection and their benefits to humankind, and in fact, all creation. 

Did Paul know anything about Jesus’ birth or his mother and just failed to mention them? It’s possible. We know that he visited Jerusalem and met with at least some of the Apostles. One would imagine they talked about more than whether Gentiles could become followers or whether they need to be Jewish first. But, there is no evidence to support that idea. Could it be that Mary as a virgin wasn’t a belief of the early Jerusalem followers?

Well, twenty years after Paul started writing, a Gospel emerged which came to be called Mark. This is generally believed to be the first Gospel and it dates from about 70. Mark’s story of Jesus begins with his baptism. He isn’t interested in Jesus’ birth or its circumstances. The next Gospel Luke or Matthew, date from about 15 to 20 years later. Both have well developed stories of the birth and seem to indicate that Mary was a virgin. Ten or so 15 years later, John’s Gospel is written and Mary isn’t a part of the story. The take away is that for many years, pockets of Christians did not hold the belief that Mary was a virgin as a part of their core beliefs.

The earliest baptismal creed was the statement, “Jesus is Lord.” In the second century, (125 or 135) Rome seems to have developed a creed which has come to be called the Old Roman Symbol (or Creed) which was used at baptisms. This Creed includes the phrase of Jesus that he, “Was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” The Apostles’ Creed is thought to have developed from this older and shorter creed.

So, somewhere between 85 or so and 135 or so, those to be baptized had to profess their belief in the virgin birth. Prior to that it is likely that some communities required it and some didn’t. With this background, we can now ask, “So what?”

I take the minimalist position on Mary. We certainly owe her a debt for her part in rearing Jesus, no matter how he came to be conceived. I think she was present at his death, and I can’t imagine the pain she must have felt to have lost her son this way. Was she a virgin when he was conceived? 

In Hebrew, the word that was translated as virgin in the Old Testament is more correctly, “young woman” or “woman of marriageable age.” Which in Mary’s day would have been sometime close in time to a girl’s first menstrual period, probably 13 or so. In the Greek of the New Testament, the word used in the story is parthenos which can mean “virgin” or “chaste.” When Matthew 1:22 states (quoting the OT), “A virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, etc.” he uses parthenos. But, as stated above, the Hebrew word he is translating is ambiguous. Bottom line on the question: many Christians have believed she was a virgin, others never made it a test of faith.

What you decide to do about Mary can be supported by tradition and/or by reason. Both are necessary as we shape our beliefs. For me, it’s not troubling to think she wasn’t a virgin. But, then, I’m okay with the idea that Jesus might have been married. Both ideas give you something to chew on. Finally, more important than Mary’s virginity is the baby she bore, our relationship to him, and our faithfulness in living what he taught. At least, this is where I come down.

Hope you’re not too confused. Jerry+

A Reader's Question Answered

My Faithful Reader sent me an email question. “Is God truly ‘immutable and eternally unchangeable’? If so, why do we pray?”

Before I offer my opinion, let’s talk about “immutable and eternally unchangeable” as a characteristic of God. What does this mean and who established this as one of God’s characteristics? The words essentially mean the same thing: unchanging over time or unable to be changed. From where does this idea come as applied to God? Quoting from NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia, 

“In God there is no change, nor shadow of alteration" (James 1:17); "They [i.e. "the works of thy hands"] shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment. And as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the selfsame and thy years shall not fail" (Hebrews 1:10-12, Psalm 101:26-28. Cf. Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8).” 

There are other references, but these make the point. But why attribute this characteristic to God? If we believe God is in God’s being, perfect, then there can’t be a movement away from perfection to become less perfect, or by definition, God isn’t God anymore. Nor can God become more than perfect, since by definition, perfect--like the word “unique”--describes a singular state than can’t exist in degrees. To wit, if you’re almost perfect, you ain’t perfect. And if you’re perfect, well then, you can’t be more perfect.

This characteristic of God describes God’s being, nature, and perhaps ultimate will for creation. Yet, we read in Genesis 6:

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 

7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (Emphasis mine)

Pretty clearly, God changed from viewing all creation as good, to being sorry about creation. Did God make a mistake? I think we can say, “no.” It was not creation that was no longer good, but humankind that was evil. Having been given free will, humankind decided to use that will inappropriately. God’s greater plan for communion with humankind endured--Noah, et al--and was ultimately expressed in Jesus.

So why do we pray to an unchanging God? Because that God is a God of love and mercy, who apparently longs for the best for willful humankind. [For more on prayer, see my blog series on prayer than began in January 2013.] This God is not immobile, just unchanging.

Okay, now to part two, who established unchangeableness as one of God’s attributes? When the Catholic Church was the only game in town, it spent a lot of time and energy nailing down the answer to all kinds of questions, including the one: what is God like? These musings became doctrine or dogma. And the Church was, and still is, rigorous in assuring that Catholics believe these. But, we aren’t Catholics. So are we bound by these formulations? Of course not.

Still, many Protestant theologians also assert unchangeableness as a God characteristic. Are we bound by their assertions? Nope. The Reformation changed a lot of things and one of them was an individual Christian’s ability to think for him/herself and to develop his/her best understanding of faith. Of course, this is best done in community so others can help you test your beliefs, but, right or wrong, we have the right to come to answer faith’s questions for ourselves. This is why we have functional heretics who are avid, active and devoted Christians--they just differ from the mainstream in their beliefs about various things.

Hope this helps, Faithful Reader. If not, I can probably change it.

Peace, Jerry+

Not Enough Righteous

This past Sunday, many congregations heard an Old Testament lesson from Genesis. In it, Abraham and God are having a conversation about Sodom--a notoriously wicked city. God has heard bad things about the city and is going to investigate. If the reports are true, he tells Abraham, he is going to destroy the city and all its dwellers. Then begins a dialogue between God and Abraham which is startling. Abraham, very politely it has to be said, begins to question God’s decision.

“What if there are fifty righteous in the city? Will you destroy the righteous with the ungodly?” Abraham asks. “No, for the sake of fifty, I’ll spare it,” God replies. And thus begins the negotiation. Forty-five? What about forty? Finally, Abraham settles on ten and God agrees if there are ten righteous people in Sodom, he’ll spare the city.

If you’ve listened at all in Church and Christian Formation classes, you know Sodom is not spared. Not even ten righteous were found. But, there were a few righteous living in Sodom. Four, in fact: Lot, his wife, and his two daughters. God warns them to flee the destruction, but he doesn’t spare the city. 

I have a couple of comments to offer for your consideration. Abraham’s challenge to God is not an isolated event in Scripture. In Psalm 10, the Psalmist takes God to task for allowing wicked people to prosper. Clearly the Psalmist’s sense of justice is offended by God’s inaction. Another example is found in Psalm 22 in which God is accused of forsaking the writer. In a nutshell, “We trusted you, we worshipped you, and still you have forsaken us.” And, of course, the story of Job is a third example of questioning God’s mercy or justice. 

This is a not uncommon kind of prayer, especially among Jewish folk. A modern example can be found in Fiddler on the Roof in which Tevye scolds God for not making him a rich man. “Lord who made the lion and the lamb, you decreed I should be what I am. Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man?” 

So, point number one: Christians do not have to simply say in the fact of bad things, “It was God’s will.” Really? Maybe not. Maybe a bit more persistence and God will have another will for that situation. [This is a troubling reality and warrants more space than I’m giving it. Perhaps another post.]

Point number two: Maybe Abraham didn’t get to four in his negotiations because Lot had lived among the inhospitably and wicked people of Sodom for so long, that he had disappeared from sight. As Christians, we would do well to try to establish (re-establish?) ourselves as counter-cultural so we don’t face the same charges. The danger is always present that, in our desire to not offend, we overlook the truly offensive in our culture. Doing so certainly undercuts what is often called “our witness.”

Think on these things.  Jerry+