Why December 25th?

Why do we celebrate Christmas just a few days after the winter solstice when almost no one thinks that Jesus was born on December 25th?

An important clue lies in the Gospel of Mark.

Mark? You say. The author of Mark didn’t even write about the birth of Jesus.

Exactly: this earliest of the surviving gospels doesn’t mention anything about Jesus’ birth. Sometime after Mark was written, theological questions about the incarnation arose: What does it mean for God to become incarnate?

The authors of Matthew, Luke, and the non-canonical gospel of James each chimed in with DIFFERENT accounts of a miraculous birth of the baby Jesus.  (The author of John went a different way, emphasizing the eternality of Christ (as opposed to the birth of Jesus)—he only refers to the “Word” becoming “flesh.”)

This is to say that the account of the birth of Jesus (i.e. Christmas) is the answer to a theological problem about what the incarnation MEANS. As theological commentary, the placement of Christmas on December 25^th is a reference to a familiar theme. It is an allusion to pagan notions because those were the common parlance, tropes, and memes of the day.

Co-opting solstice celebrations is not theft or borrowing, but the use of something familiar to explain something unfamiliar.   

Comparing the contested genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke

Immediate observations:

·         Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is a Jew, showing that Jesus is the son of (i.e. the descendent of) Abraham

·         Luke emphasizes that Jesus is the son of God (and hence available to all, not only the Jews).

o   Besides the genealogy Luke also does this via Jesus’ reference to “my father’s house” meaning God’s house (Luke 2:49).

The women of the genealogies:

·         There are four women mentioned on Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus

·          There are no women on Luke’s genealogy—including no mention of Mary

o   Luke’s failure to mention Mary should be troubling for those who see Luke’s genealogy as the Genealogy of Jesus through Mary

o   An early (and still prominent) view holds that Luke’s genealogy details Mary’s ancestors, not Joseph’s

§  This is in no way clear

§  It seems, at the outset to be, merely an easy ploy to explain away a contradiction (as if that were an important goal) rather than learning from the contested stories

There are  4 women mentioned by Matthew and at least one can be inferred:

1.       Tamar – was accused of being a prostitute (Gen 38:6-30).

2.       Rahab – a former prostitute who provided shelter to Joshua’s spies sent to Jericho (Joshua 2:1-24).

3.       Ruth – a Mobite widow who left her own people to follow her mother-in-law (Naomi’s) Israelite tribe and religion rather than return to her own people (Ruth 1:1-14).

4.       Mary – a pregnant teenager carrying a child who is not her husband’s (as in Matthew), or her betrothed husband (as in Luke.)

5.       Bathsheba can be included by inference. We know that she was the mother of Solomon (who appears on Matthew’s list (but not Luke’s). Bathsheba was an adulteress. She was already married when she had an affair with David (he was too).

Numbers of Generations

You will note that there are several more generations on Luke’s genealogy than there are on Matthew’s.  Some will say that Matthew skipped generations (after all, to say that Jesus is the son of David, just means that he descends from David. It doesn’t necessarily imply that they are in adjoining generation.

How are the numbers 7, 70, and 77 relevant?

If we accept the view that Matthew wasn’t concerned with stating the exact number of generations, but was merely making note of some famous ancestors, then what are we to make of Matthew’s claims about the numbers of generations?

·         Matthew explicitly states that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David,

·         14 from David to the deportation to Babylon, and

·         14 from the deportation to the Messiah (Matt 1:17)?

·          If Matthew skipped some intentionally, then why would he directly refer to an exact number of generations and the pattern of three sets of 14?

Seventy seven

·         Note also that 3 sets of 14 is 6 sets of 7. And what would come after Jesus is the start of the 7^th set of 7. This sounds a lot like 77.

·         Curiously, Luke’s genealogy has 77 generations from God to Jesus.

·         Augustine suggests that the number 77 symbolizes the forgiveness of sins.

·         In the non-canonical book of Enoch the Lord instructs Michael (the Archangel?) to “bind them [meaning humans] fast for seventy generations” due to their uncleanness. Note that Enoch (the great grandfather of Noah) is in the 8^th generation, starting with God as the first. Thus, the generation after Jesus (who is in generation 77) would be 70 generations past Enoch. The book of Enoch claims that this will be a time of judgment and new beginning.

   Who is who on Luke’s genealogy?

·         From God to David, Luke follow the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), not the Masoretic text (which is the authoritative Hebrew version). We see this in that Luke includes Cianan who is mentioned in the Septuagint, but not the the Hebrew versions.

Who is who on Matthew’s genealogy?

·         From David through Jeconiah, Matthew lists the legal Kingly line

 Solomon or Nathan?

·         Luke shows that Jesus descended from David’s son Nathan (not Solomon, as on Matthew’s genealogy).

·         Matthew shows that Jesus descended from Solomon

·         Why the discrepancy?

o   Because from Solomon we have the descendants of the legal kingly line from David up through Jeconiah. In Jeremiah, it is reported that the line that descends from Jeconiah would be cursed and never again rule (Jeremiah 22:30). If Jesus were to have been a descendent of Jeconiah, this curse would mean that he could not be the King of the Jews.

§   Luke solves this by going back to Nathan so that Jesus does not descend through Jeconiah.

§  Matthew seems either unconcerned (this would be surprising as the Jews of Matthew’s time would recognize the name Jeconiah and immediately think of the curse and its relation to them their current subjugation) or else Matthew solves it with the virgin birth. This too would be very surprising in the sense that one hearing the story for the first time would not see this plot twist coming.

The Nativity story (or lack thereof) as found in the four Gospels

Matthew:

·         At the beginning of Matthew, the genealogy of Jesus is given from Abraham through Joseph (The genealogy shows that Jesus is Joseph’s son—and, by extension, David’s son (i.e. descendent) , and Abraham’s son.)

·         Mary discovers that she is “with child” by the Holy Spirit (This part implies that Jesus is not Joseph’s son, but is the Holy Spirit’s son. This seems to contradict the afore mentioned genealogy. Unlike Luke’s account, there is no mention in Matthew that Mary is visited by an angel.)

·         When Joseph discovers that Mary is pregnant, he decides to set aside the marriage contract. An angel convinces him to stick with it.  (His consideration of setting aside the marriage contract seems to indicate that Mary and Joseph are already married; compare this to Luke where they are only betrothed to be married.)

·         The author of Matthew makes a reference to a prophecy of virgin birth [from Isaiah]

·         Matthew reports that Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew’s account contains minimal birth details. There is no mention of traveling to comply with a census, a manger, or shepherds.)

·         Astrologers from the east “see” a star that indicates the birth of the king of the Jews. They come to Bethlehem looking for the child. [It seems that the star does not point to the manger like an arrow in the sky that anyone could follow, but points only in a way that can be understood by astrologers. I say this because Herod didn’t simply follow the arrow to find the child. Instead, he consulted astrologers to find the child that the star indicated.]

·         King Herod consults either those same astrologers that came from the east or else consults his own astrologers and asks them to find the child, Herod’s astrologers find Jesus, but don’t go back to Herod

·         The astrologers offer gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the baby Jesus and warn Mary about Herod, then return home avoiding Herod

·         An angel tells Joseph to take the child to Egypt to protect Jesus from Herod (Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt and they stay until Herod’s death) This also, according to Matthew, fulfills a prophecy about the Messiah coming out of Egypt.

·         Herod is angry that Jesus (said by the astrologists to be the king of the Jews) slipped through his fingers. He reacts by massacring all the children of Israel under two

·         Jesus doesn’t return to Judah (specifically to Nazareth) until “about” the time that John is preaching. [If Luke is correct and John is only six months older than Jesus, then the time of Jesus’ return to Nazareth contradicts Luke who says that Jesus grew up in Nazareth and stayed there until he was twelve.]

Mark

·         The Gospel of Mark contains no nativity story—and no mention of the virgin birth. In Mark, we first meet Jesus when he is baptized by John.

Luke

·         In Luke, Jesus’ birth is related closely to John the Baptist’s

·         The angel Gabriel visits Elizabeth (who was “well on in years” and “barren”) and announces that she will give birth a son. [We later know him as John the Baptist]

·         Six months later, Gabriel visits Mary. Mary is surprised given that she is a “virgin.” [In the Greek , virgin (παρθένος, parthénos) generally just means “young woman.” It generally does not directly imply anything about not yet having sex. ] Gabriel announces to Mary that she will give birth to a child named Jesus.

·         When Elizabeth is about six months pregnant, the pregnant Mary visits the pregnant Elizabeth and the Holy Spirit enters into Elizabeth on this occasion

·         Emperor Augustus orders census and Joseph and Mary travel from the Galilean town of Nazareth up to Bethlehem (to a City of David) to comply, since his ancestors descended from David.

·         Mary (betrothed to Joseph, but not yet married, as reported by Luke and possibly contradicting Matthew) gives birth to a child on the way. (The child is not yet given a name.) Mary wraps the baby in swaddling clothes and lays him in a manger. Luke states that there is no room in the “house.” There is no mention of an Inn.

·         Nearby shepherds are visited by an angel and go visit the baby (Mary ponders their visit)

·         Mary and Joseph do legal Jewish stuff. (It is interesting that the only Gospel that mentions these things was written by Luke, who is a Gentile):

o   Per Jewish custom, Joseph and Mary “buy back” their first born, who by Jewish custom belonged to God, with a payment of two turtle doves (two of the gifts mentioned in the Twelve Days of Christmas song)

o   Eight days after birth, Mary’s baby was circumcised and named Jesus

o   Two prominent Jewish people recognize that there is something special about Jesus:

§  Simeon (an upright and devout very old man) says that Jesus is the Messiah. Simeon could not die until he saw the Messiah. (Mary and Joseph are full of wonder at Simeon’s reaction to Jesus)

§  The prophetess Anna also told Mary and Joseph that Jesus is special

·         Joseph, Mary and Jesus return to Nazareth in Galilee where Jesus grows up. Jesus doesn’t leave Nazareth until he is twelve. [This account of Jesus growing up in Nazareth contradicts Matthew’s account that has Jesus growing up in Egypt up until the time of John’s preaching.]

·         Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is given on the occasion of Jesus’ baptism.  [Luke’s genealogy shows 77 generations from God—emphasizing to many that Jesus is the son of God—not just the king of the Jews. Luke also shows 43 generations from David to Jesus, contradicting the 28 generations for the same period that are in Matthew’s genealogy. There are very creative ways apologists have of hand waving over these contradictions. All of these attempts take liberties with the actual Biblical texts and treat them as secondary to the presupposition that there can be no contradictions in the Bible. An early, and still widely held view, is that Luke’s genealogy gives the ancestors of Mary (although it never mentions Mary), and is not the genealogy of Joseph as it literally claims to be.)

John

·         John emphasizes thae eternal nature of Christ—emphasizing that Christ existed prior to creation.

·         There is no mention of the birth of the historical Jesus

·         There is, however, a reference to the Word becoming flesh. (In John, there is no Nativity story, no mention of a virgin birth, there are no angels announcing Jesus , and astrologers, and no star.) 

Scary Thoughts

Our first reading today consists of two passages that, in keeping with Halloween, might fall under the category of “scary thoughts.” At least that is how some evangelists try to use them. There is a tradition among fundamentalists Christians to attempt to convert others using small pamphlets known as “tracts.” These tracts often contain scary questions such as: “If you died tonight, do you know where your soul will go?”

To add a sense of authority to their message these tracts usually contain a couple of scripture passages. Two popular ones are ones I will read today.

Now, at the outset, lest there be any confusion, I do not intend to put down the writers or users of these tracts, and I certainly don’t intend to make fun of them. I understand them to be quite earnest, if a bit desperate in their faith. I would no more make fun of someone reaching for spiritual certainty and help than I would make fun of a dying family member whose last words seem theologically unsound. There is a time for discussing theology and a time for comfort.

But, in reading the scriptures as we do every week, as a Christian who looks at these matters in a different light, I do want to reclaim these Bible passage from the way that they are being used in these tracts. Theirs is not the final word on the subject.

The first passage is John 11:25-26

Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and I am the life. If a man has faith in me, even though he die, he shall come to life; and no one who is alive and has faith shall ever die.”

The second passage comes from 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown in the earth as a perishable thing is raised imperishable. Sown in humiliation, it is raised in glory; sown in weakness, it is raised in power; sown as an animal body, it is raised as a spiritual body.

Notice the scary theme: Death. The John passage is even more scary in that it implies conditional resurrection. That is, one will be resurrected if one has faith in Jesus. Faith is a tricky thing. I can decide walk down this aisle and then immediately walk down the aisle, but I can’t decide to have faith and then just simply have faith.

This creates an unsettling feeling in many who hear these passages. I am reminded of the poster on Fox Mulder’s wall in the TV show the X-Files. The poster stated: “I want to believe.” Well, I may want to believe, but wanting isn’t enough. To satisfy the criteria of the John passage, I actually have to believe. And if I waver, then I get scared. Or I am sure that many people are scared at such loss of faith.

The remedy for many is more certainty and less doubt. The more one witnesses about one’s faith, the more he or she convinces themselves that they are indeed certain. And the more certain, the less scary are thoughts of death.

But certainty comes at a high price. If you are looking for your keys, you stop looking as soon as you find them. This method may work for keys, but does it also work for more nuanced and complex things like Biblical interpretation and an understanding of the body, soul, and death?

You stop looking for your keys, because you are sure you found them, but just because you are given a simple and comforting answer about death and your soul, does that justify that you stop looking further. Does your spiritual growth stop with the first answer?

I have heard testimony of faith that, to me, is just too flat, and superficial to believe, and yet I believe that the people who present this testimony truly believe it. It goes something like this: I was down and out (drugs, prison, divorce, teenage angst) and then a friend offered me a prayer and said that Jesus was the answer and I was saved.

Now, I should repeat, I do not wish to make fun of such stories, even though they seem all too simple and lacking in reflection. To me they read like I was hungry and sitting in the parlor. A friend came up to me, extended a cookie and said, “cookie?” and I was satisfied.

Now, there is clearly more emotional content to the acceptance of salvation than there is the acceptance of a cookie. But I am not sure there is any more cognitive component. And that, to me, is a scary thought.

We learn some math in kindergarten and 1^st grade, a first grader might even be certain that 3+3=6, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t more to learn.  Indeed, it is a little too early to be certain and to “stop looking” to get back to the key analogy.

Just as a final caution, 3+3 isn’t necessarily 6. It is in the base 10 number system that we learn first, but 3+3=1 in base 5. 3+3=2 in base 4. To clarify this analogy, let me suggest a system of modular arithmetic that you are all familiar with: the analog clock. What is 7 hours more than 8pm? It is not 15pm. It is 2am. Here is a case in which 7+8=2.

My point is that math is more complex than our initial instruction would imply. I think that faith is too. To me, the scary thought isn’t “what will happen to my soul if I die tonight?” The real scary thought is, “What will happen to my spiritual growth if I rest on a comfortable certainty and stop seeking.” To repeat: The real scary question is, “What will happen to my spiritual growth if I rest on a comfortable certainty and stop seeking.” 

Isaac's Initiation

Today is Children’s Sabbath and so we have a father-son story: that of Abraham and Isaac.

I think that most of you know the story:

• Abraham prays for a son. 
• He finally gets a son (Isaac). 
• God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. 
• Then at the last second, God spares Isaac.

It is a bit of a difficult story to hear. It is brief, yet full of possibilities. I don’t suppose to tell you definitively how you should interpret the story, but I will offer you a way out: a way to hear the story and not hate Abraham.

When we hear the story of Abraham and Isaac we often pause to ask, “What was Abraham thinking?” Was he insane? What kind of religious fanatic would even consider killing his own son, let alone making preparations to do so?

But, since our focus is on children today, I propose to ask another question: What was Isaac feeling?

Fear, I am sure as he lay bound and Abraham raised the knife for the offering, but what beyond that: disillusionment?  Contrast this feeling of disillusionment with how Isaac would have felt about his father just days before.

Consider who his father is: Abraham. We know him as the father of three faiths (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam)—the great patriarch. He wasn’t just any man, he was someone who talked to God. He made a covenant with God, and God was already making good on his end of this covenant. Isaac himself was the fulfillment of this promise that God made to Abraham. I wonder if Isaac knew this. Imagine if he did.  He would have idolized Abraham for his relationship to God, and he would likely have felt woefully inadequate as a gift from God.

But perhaps we are looking at the story with too much hindsight. What would it have been like to have been Isaac just before that trip to Mt. Mariah?

Abraham at this time is not yet a great patriarch. He is an old man with only two young children. He has no grandchildren. He has some wealth. He has slaves, property, and live stock.

So how does a man like this—well off, but not particularly special—become a patriarch? How does he raise his sons so that they will carry on his family name? He can’t simply spoil Isaac and baby him. We see this lesson retold in second and third generation industrialists. They often become playboys—men with no particular moral or leadership distinction, and adult children who squander the wealth of earlier generations. (We see this with girls too. Paris Hilton comes to mind.)  

Isaac had to be different. Abraham has to make Isaac tough—he has to turn a boy into a man, and a father, and not just any father, but the father of all the tribes of Israel. He has to make Isaac a patriarch too. Isaac has to be his own man. He can’t just be an imitation or a follower of his father—he has to come into his own.

Isaac, like all of us, knows his own flaws. He knows his own shadow side. He knows he has fears, and doubts, and fragilities. Indeed, in what we learn of Isaac from the Bible, things are often happening to Isaac. We see it in this story, and the other big story involving Isaac is how his youngest son and wife conspire to trick him.

But, for now, in Isaac’s eyes, his father, as seen in the eyes of a young child, is a little too perfect. Most fathers are for young children. Fathers are like gods. They are all powerful. Hopefully, they are powerful for good, sometimes for ill, but powerful and they speak with authority. Their presence brings deliverance (and sometimes fear), and their absence brings longing and lack.

How could Isaac ever hope to measure up to a father like Abraham—a father who speaks to God—and a father whom God makes a covenant with?

There is notion that is ingrained in the psyche of premodern people. Abraham knew it—perhaps he wouldn’t articulate it in these modern psychological terms, but he knew it (as did others of his time and as do the gangs, drill sergeants, fraternities, and secret societies of today). Their knowledge is evidenced by their respective initiation practices; each knows the dangers of an idealized father.

What better way to transform a childish boy into a man and eventually into a father than to show that boy that he can attain what the father is—indeed even to surpass the father in some way. The first step it to bring the father down to earth—down to reality. The father cannot continue to be a god to the son. The father cannot be an idol. In a coming-of-age initiation, it may appear that the son’s life is in danger—that Isaac’s life is in danger—but the reality is that it is the idealization of the father than ends up dying.

The son gets to live as his own man, only after the idealized father is killed and the son can see the father as a man (not a god): a man of faults, doubts, fears, and excesses.

Despite what the story implies at the beginning and as it unfolds, Isaac doesn’t die. Isaac gains his life. It is often said that in substituting the Ram, God gives Isaac to Abraham a second time. That is to look at the story from above, but from Isaac’s perspective, in his initiation on Mt. Mariah, Isaac is able to see his father clearly for the first time. (Compare this story to the Star Wars saga. It is like when Luke Skywaker first sees his father without the Darth Vader mask. You will recall that just before this scene, Darth Vader tries to kill Luke—that is, he tries to kill his own son. It sounds a little like the Abraham and Isaac story.)

 For Isaac and for Skywalker, each in this pivotal moment first sees both the dark side of his father, as well as the frailty and the light side, and, in seeing this juxtaposition in one all-too-human individual, the two of them share a bond and the torch is passed to a new generation.

Now that you have heard me talk about the story, let us now hear the enduring words of the story as found in the book of Genesis.

Psalm 137

A reading of Psalm 137:

By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept

    when we remembered Zion.

There on the willow-trees

    we hung up or harps,

for there those who carried us off

    demanded music and singing,

and our captors called on us to be merry:

Understand what is going on here. This psalm is written in Babylon by Israelites who were taken there after the fall of Zion. The Israelites sitting by the rivers in Babylon are sad. They have hung their harps in trees because they have no interest in playing them. And yet their captors come to them and demand music. The Babylonians say:

‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’

But the Israelites reflect:

How could we sing the Lord’s song

    in a foreign land?

Making a promise to remember, the Israelites express their love for Zion—the land and life they were forced to leave. Further remember that this is not just land, but the place where their temple was located. It was where they talked to God—where they were protected by God—and governed by God. In remembering Jerusalem, they remember their life in closeness to God:

If I forget you, O Jerusalem,

    let my right hand wither away;

let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth

    if I do not remember you,

if I do not set Jersalem

    above my highest joy.

The next line, I think, asks for the Lord to take some revenge upon their captors. Using “remember” and “against” in an ominous manner, the Israelites pray:

Remember, O Lord, against the people of Edom

    the day of Jerusalem’s fall,

when they said, ‘Down with it, down with it,

    down to its very foundations!’

O Babylon, Babylon the destroyer,

    happy the man who repays you

    for all that you did to us!

Happy is he who shall seize your children

    And dash them against a rock.

Psalm 137 starts out as a sorrowful psalm about Israelites in exile after the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. It starts in sorrow, but takes a vengeful turn at the end. As a result of this last line, the Psalm becomes controversial and problematic for use in worship. As a result, some worship leaders take the easy way out and choose not to include it as part of a worship service because it is too difficult to explain.

Others wish that it weren’t even included in the Bible, counting it as one of the least likely lines present in the Bible to have been inspired by God.

Some try to explain it by drawing attention to the mindset of the Israelites at the time: Jerusalem had just been sacked by the Babylonians. Many of their men were killed in battle. Many of their children were no doubt killed and many of their women were raped as spoils of war. The Babylonians would have killed the infants of the Israelites so that these young Israelite mothers would, in that way, be free to raise new children fathered by Babylonian soldiers. So we can see it as an “eye for an eye” expression.

We can also see it as expressing, not hatred against infants, but the length of time that the Israelites foresaw as being their time in captivity. If captivity lasted a generation, then the Babylonian babies of today would be their captors of the future. Dashing babies against a rock is a bit like the human version of the expression: nipping it in the bud: deal with something little before it becomes bigger and tougher.

As a way of taking away some of its shock, some would also point out that there was an emptiness to their “wish.” Given their subjugation, there is little chance that the Israelites actually could dash any Babylonian babies against a rock.

Others yet refer to this a “cursing” psalm and understand its use as a way of dealing with human frustration and anger. Its inclusion is an example of how the Bible can be “brutally honest” when addressing human emotion, even when what we want isn’t what we should want.

One thing is clear: The inclusion of Psalm 137 (in the Bible and as a reading in a worship service) poses a challenge to the reader and to the listener. It nearly jumps off the page demanding a response. Do we apologize for it? Do we excuse the Israelites for wishing it? Do we justify their request given their own hardship? Or do we address it in some other manner?  

Divine Truth

I used to think that truth about divine reality was simply too big for us humans to grasp in its entirety. As I saw it then, we were each like the blind men in the parable who each feel and describe part of an elephant. One man, feeling a front leg, describes it as an upright pillar. Another man under the belly describes it as an expansive ceiling. A man at the back being flicked by the tail describes it as a fan that brushes him lightly.

Each man captures a piece of the truth, but none can see the whole truth—the whole elephant.  

I used to think that the religions of the world were like this: blind attempts to describe a reality beyond our grasp—each partially right, but all incomplete. No one ever saw God in God’s entirety.

But in this metaphor, it is assumed that there is a truth to be known—it is just too big for any of us to grasp. This truth is the Elephant.

Now, I am not sure that the elephant is really present in any kind of objective sense in which a statement about it could, at some theoretical level, be judged to be right and a wrong. Rather than an elephant, I now consider God to be more like you and I in that moment right before we come to a decision. In that moment of unrealized pregnancy of possibilities, we hold mutual exclusivities in the same compartment. (I could go to the store. I could make dinner. I could take a walk.) At that moment I am all these possibilities and none of these objective truths. I wonder if this is the way God is at all times.

In quantum physics light is described as having properties of both a wave and a particle. Each of these states is mutually exclusive. It cannot be both. Yet, prior to observation it seems to be both. Then along comes a scientist running an experiment that forces the light to make a decision: wave or particle? I need to know right now. Then, as a result of that observation (that perspective) the pregnancy of possibilities that is the light in its natural state is forced to make a choice. Sometimes it chooses particle, sometimes it chooses wave.

I wonder if God is like this too: a reality, not just too large for any of us to grasp (like the blind men who cannot see the entire elephant for what it is), but like you and I prior to a decision, or like light prior to observation. Perhaps divine reality is not yet an objective fact, but a plethora of possibilities offered to the world.

So long as you remain in that moment prior to a decision, I cannot know you. I have to wait until you act, then I know you as the one making dinner, or the one taking the dog for a walk. Prior to your decision, there is no objective fact to be known about that decision, for it has not yet happened. I now think God is like this: a host of possibilities not yet concrete.

What would it be like if God came to a decision? What would it be like to see God as an object of our perception? The writers of the Bible seem to realize its danger. “No one can see God and live” they caution. The Messiah would wipe out the world as we know it.

Our lives are a fluctuation between a moment of indecision followed by a moment of expression. We see the expressions of others—the indecision, the holding of mutually exclusive possibilities, remains hidden in the other’s interiority. What if God is like this moment of the other’s interior indecision: not something to ever be witnessed second hand; not something objective about which one could utter something true or false about, but forever possibilities for us to make actual?

Did God speak to Moses from a burning bush? Is Jesus God’s begotten son? Did God bring Mohammed up to heaven? Does God play hid and seek with “himself” in creating multiplicity? Is any single truth to be found here, like the single elephant beyond each of the blind men’s reach? Or is God all of these at once: both particle and wave, both the God of Christians, and the God of Islam, both the God who lead the Jews out of captivity, and the Hindu God who plays hide and go seek with himself?

Some will demand that it has to be one to the exclusion of the others. I suspect that God is none of these in any concrete sense, and all of these in a potential sense. God is a God of the future, calling creation into existence by the lure of possibilities. We must not look to the past to find God as a concrete object, but to listen to God’s call, drawing us to something beyond where we are right now, to something better.

Faith in science

Gillette wrote:

... I don't have FAITH that the room light will go on when I flick the switch, or that the elevator will go up and not crash when I press the button. I KNOW it will form past experience
I have lots of prior empirical evidence and evidence form others in my culture that a light will turn on when pressed.
No "faith" required.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. We have plenty of evidence for science and for daily mechanical phenomena.

Let's sharpen our pencils so as to make finer distinctions. As David Hume argued, one cannot prove that the future will be like the present. Past experience just tells us about regularities. It does not guarantee that the light will come on with the flick of the switch.
What kind of faith must I have about light switches, elevators, and rockets?
It is obviously not blind faith, for I have some strong indicators about what will most likely happen that are based on my experience and my understanding of science. Despite all my experience, however, I have no guarantee. So, strictly speaking, this is akin to faith.
Indeed, the faith that the future will be be described by the same natural regularities as the present is the faith (or founding assumption) upon which all science is based. It is not blind faith, but is is still faith.

Christianity is a relationship, not a religion

Some will make the claim:

It is a relationship w/ Jesus Christ. You can be religious and still not make it into the Kingdom of God. Religion can not get you into Heaven only Jesus can. When you die and stand b4 God it wont matter how religious you were, what will matter is if you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Remember the Bible says that everyone who says Lord Lord will not go to Heaven. Religion is false but Jesus is the real deal.

Whenever I hear this "relationship" version of Christianity, it is always expressed in just this way and in almost exactly these words. This consistency of expression clearly points to an organized system of belief. What is religion but organized belief?

Now, why would someone want to claim that Christianity was not a religion? Christianity has a long history of exceptionalism. Hegel is exemplary in this regard.

The motivation, I suspect, is that these "relationship" Christians have an emotional need to feel special. Since there are many religions, as Christians they would be one type of religion person among many. This is hardly special. But, if all the rest were religions and Christianity was unique -- a "relationship" -- then Christians would be exceptional.

Proof text

One proof text does not establish a "Biblical Truth." The Bible says many things, not all of them in logical agreement. You distort its complexity when you proof text.

Jesus tears down walls

Let us consider the historical context to the events leading up to the time that Christians commemorate on Palm Sunday. Passover was (and is) a big deal for the Jews. When Jesus entered the city, many Jews were already gathering in Jerusalem for Passover. Rome responded by sending in extra troops and stepping up their terror campaign of crucifying petty Jewish criminals in hopes of using terror to keep in their place. As Jesus approached Jerusalem he would have been walking past several bodies hanging from crosses on the road leading to the city.

He was walking into a politically charged, terror influenced environment. To the Jews in power, he posed a threat. Jesus threatened to destabilize the uneasy but not completely chaotic balance of power that existed between the Jews and their occupiers.

It is in this context that "King of the Jews" should be heard.

The Jews were expecting a new King. The expected a new Joshua. Jesus shares Joshua's name and Jesus comes from to Jerusalem by way of Jericho. Jesus was also depicted as the new David by way of his two genealogies and the shepard analogies.

Like the Kingship of Joshua and David, the Jews were expecting deliverance here and now in this life and by means of a military victory in this Jewish Kingdom.

Jesus, however, poses a challenge to this Jewish notion of Kingdom. Like Joshua, Jesus also tore down walls, but the walls he tore down were not made of stone and earth, but prejudice. The Kingdom of Jesus was no longer us (Jews) vs. them (Gentiles). In Jesus's Kingdom everyone was welcome. Tearing down these walls was upsetting to some Jews. People like to feel special. As the Passover story reminds them, Jews think of themselves as a special people who have a special relationship with God. Jesus was changing this special status: he touched leapers, he took water from a Samaritan woman at the well, he took license with the law and healed on the Sabbath. As a new baby threatens to divide her parent's attention, so does Jesus' welcoming of outsiders into the Kingdom of God. The Jews are no longer God's special people.

A Hebrew reading of Kingdom of God would suggest that the Kingdom of God was not something up in the sky, but "on earth as it is in heaven". As this notion was communicated to a gentile audience, the language and images would have been Greek. As such, this Hebrew image would have been translated into Greek neoPlatonic language of "ideas" and otherworldly perfections.(Both the Hebrew and the Greek images views have Biblical support. I do not suggest to collapse the two or to argue for one over the other.)

As an alternative to the "King of Heaven" image that is often invoked, I am prompted to ask, what kind of Kingdom would this have been? One answer is the otherworldly Greek image, another comes from Luke 22:27. In this passage, in the Kingdom Jesus was heralding, the greatest is not the ruler at the table, but the servant. To illustrate this, Jesus pointed to himself as the model servant, "Yet here am I among you like a servant."

So often modern Christians set themselves apart from the world and give the impression that they think themselves to be special or uniquely suited to get a special reward in an otherworldly heaven. Against this too common image, I suggest that it is also Biblical to see that the Kingdom that Jesus brought did not have "us" versus "them" distinctions and that the greatest in the Kingdom of God are not the ones that receive the most rewards or who sit in a place of prominence, but are the ones that offer the most in service.

Hebrew and Greek Syncretism

The Hebrew and Greek world views are in many ways different. The Hebrew world view is of a God living with his creation. This life is important. The patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible are promised that their progeny will multiply and prosper. This life in this body is key. References to other realities beyond this one are rare. The Greek world view is different. The Greek world view is not of a God living within creation, but rather representing a perfection above and detached from creation (cf. Plato's Ideas). All those notions of the omni's are Greek notions (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient). When the Hebrew world intersected with the Greek world (at the time the dominant view) Hebrew notions were thought about and written about in Greek terms and the Greek language. (The NT was written in Greek.) This produced a syncretism in which new notions arose as a result of this translation of Hebrew notions into the Greek world view. Principle among these are notions of an other worldly Heaven and a Hades like Hell (but even worse) as well as apocalyptic visions.

Kingdoms

In Jesus' day, there were two kingdoms: the kingdom of Rome and the kingdom of the Jews--aka the Kingdom of God. (Of course, the kingdom of the Jews was subordinate to the kingdom of Rome.) There were also two "sons of God." Cesar declared himself to be the son of God. Jesus' followers also made the politically subversive claim that Jesus was the son of God. To the Romans this would have sounded like Jesus was posing a threat to Cesar's power. This challenge to the throne is part of the motivation that the Jews in power had to turn Jesus over to the Romans for execution: The Jesus movement threatened the status quo of power between the Jews and Rome. When we read the terms "kingdom of God" and "Son of God" out of their historical context we imagine and project onto those terms "otherworldy " meanings that distort their original political meanings.

Scary Thought

Doug Pagitt, in "A Christianity Worth Believing" points out that the "scary thought" type questions such as: "If you died tonight, would you wake up with Jesus?" or "If you died right now, where would you spend eternity?" are similar to the loaded false choice questions such as, "So, do you still steal stuff from work?" Both of these questions pose as legitimate questions while subtly being subversive. Both presuppose a world view that the one being asked the question just doesn't buy. The "scary" questions presuppose heaven and hell. They presuppose the "afterlife interpretation " of the kingdom of God (a view of questionable Biblical authority). Although the question is set in the near present (tonight or the next moment), it nevertheless presupposes that the kingdom of God represents a future condition that comes after death, not one available in the present for the living.

These "scary thought" questions put undue emphasis on certainty. An open, doubting, and questioning spiritual search results in a more genuine and deeper faith than will a quick assent followed by a dogmatic claim to certainty.

You go to church because:

Ask not what your church can do for you (give you salvation, entertain you, introduce you to potential friends, or give you an appearance of respectability in your community), ask what you can do through a church to make the world a better place.

Does the Bible imply that God and Satan are the same being?

1 CHRONICLES 21:1 and 2 SAMUEL 24:1 were written by different authors who each projected their own interpretations upon those events. One saw an act of God, one saw the hand of Satan. There is clearly a difference and clearly a tension that "The Bible" does not resolve. Strictly speaking, however, there is no contradiction. A contradiction can only occur within a single set of premises. Since each of these premises comes from a different book by a different author they don't form a single set and cannot strictly contradict. Is one or both a "mistake "? Since any human attempt to describe reality as it really is bound to fall short, I suppose that both of these descriptions as well as every other description is technically a mistake. But surely that type of criteria takes things too far and deprives the word mistake of its usefulness. Those who seek "contradictio ns" and "mistakes " in the Bible to discredit it and those apologists who spin the text so as to make such "contradictio ns" disappear, both make the same mistake. Both treat the Bible as a single set of propositions. Why? What is the justification for this single set view?

Is witnessing door to door a good idea

One day when I was working on my truck in the driveway, two young Mormon "elders" came by. We had a nice discussion about Mormon beliefs (they were very well versed) and they even offered to help me put my transmission back in. They went to change cloths. (This is not exactly work for white shirts, ties, and dress slacks.) By the time the returned, the transmission was already in. Nevertheless, I respect the two young men for their willingness to be helpful. Helpfulness is part of their mission. I have learned a lot about Mormonism from listening to these and other missionaries. Some time ago another missionary came by (a man and his young son). The man started our discussion out with what was dressed up as a philosophical question: "What do you think it means to be happy?" Of course he did not want to have a philosophical discussion. He came to tell me that I was wrong and that he had the answer. This conversation did not go on for long, nor was it pleasant. Two teenage Jehovah Witness girls stopped by last year to share "a message of hope" from the book of Revelations. "Doesn't that sound nice?" they asked after reading the passage. "Sure," I replied, "but in what context was it written, who said it, and in what way does it relate to me?" I asked. "It is a promise that God is making to you," they replied. To which I replied that they were not taking the Bible seriously by pretending that it was a book written for me. I sent them away with some contradictory passages to give them a sense of the polyphony of voices that make up the bible. They said they would talk these over with their pastor and return the next week. Alas, they never came back. Here is the etiquette for witnessing at my house: (1) If you come to my door to witness, be prepare to listen as well as to talk. (2) Be humble. I recognize that I don't have all the answers, you shouldn't pretend to either. (3) Don't assume that I am a "lost" or "uninformed. " If you want to share your beliefs, I welcome it. Just don't tell me what I must believe. Finally, one last point about attitude: I work in neighborhoods where I occasionally see door to door missionaries. I have noticed that many tend to walk slowly and solemnly. They never speak to people working in their yards, only to people who answer a door. They walk like they were going to the gallows, not delivering the good news. If you really think that you have good news, then let that news liven your walk. To be a convincing messenger of God, you should look at least as happy and walk with as least as much purpose as does the man who is mowing the lawn.

Accidents and mistakes

Progress by "accident " does not imply that you end up with a "mistake. " Sure, a new mutation may arise by accident. But natural selection selects the beneficial mutations from the mistakes. Thus, if you start with enough accidents and allow natural selection time to work, beneficial solutions will emerge. The “mistakes” will be left scattered along the side of the evolutionary road.

Why would God create bacteria?

Have you ever wondered what purpose bacteria serve? I understand that worms and ants are extremely important for the soil. Algae are extremely important as one of the main converters of carbon dioxide into oxygen. But, one might wonder: Why would God make bacteria? Don't bacteria only serve to make more complex organisms sick? Perhaps God does have a purpose for bacteria that is not generally understood. Although many Christians will deny so called "macro evolution" many will acknowledge that evolution takes place at the "micro" level of bacteria. The evolution of bacteria (and virus) is particularly noticeable in the field of health care. Antibiotics that used to work, don't work anymore because the bacteria have evolved. This is hard to deny. So, to return to my question: What purpose do bacteria serve, besides making us sick? With this question in the back of my mind, I read "Acquiring Genomes" by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. Here I discovered that bacteria function as the "test labs" (my word, not theirs) of evolution. Every little thing that more complex organisms can do (metabolism, light sensitivity, conversion of sunlight into chemical energy, etc.), was first done (and still is done) by a bacteria. Upon recognizing that bacteria are breaking evolutionary ground, I came to see that they have an important role. More complex organisms don't have to "stumble upon" a new genetic code by random mutation in order to acquire a new trait or start a new species. All an organism has to do is acquire and incorporate into its genetic code a genome that was tested out in the fast paced evolutionary test labs of bacteria. In cases where such an acquisition doesn't make the organism sick, it may serve to provide a benefit. Bacteria provide the "intelligent design" that drives evolution. Beneficial changes remain due to natural selection. It was eye opening to discover that bacteria play an important role: they drive evolution. So, if the question is: Where do new genetic codes come from? The answer is from the trial and error and quick reproductive cycles of evolving bacteria. Micro-evolution enables macro-evolution.

Judgment day

I tend to think that Judgment day is (and will always be) a future event. That is, I don't think anyone will ever see it. It is a future event like tomorrow is a future event. It is an event always deferred. It is an ideal, never realized.

Evidence of the soul

Introspection is the evidence for the existence of the soul. You have experience. That proves that the soul exists. But, I think you are asking, What is the evidence a) that your soul is immortal? or b) that your soul survives the death of the body? or c) that your soul is separable from the body? These are more difficult questions to provide evidence for.

When my grandmother was in a care home and suffering from dementia, she would occasionally mention things that had recently taken place at the house she previously shared with my mother. Somehow my grandmother knew that furniture had been rearranged--and in what manner. She knew that my mother now had a dog--even though no one told her. It was as if her soul would occasionally leave her body during these moments of dementia journey back to her old home and look around. Perhaps death is not a magical change that involves the life of the soul. Perhaps, as Shamans will attest,the soul can take journeys while the body is alive. Perhaps when the brain is comatose or dead, it is like turning off the TV. The soul that was so focused on the program of the life of the body now isn't distracted by the body's program and can have broader experiences.

First, introspection is a kind of evidence. It lacks intersubjectivity, but that does not invalidate it. As for the whether the soul is immortal or can survive the existence of the body or can live without the body, I think there is evidence that speaks to those issues as well. Reports of Near Death Experiences are one form of evidence, though we must be careful no to learn more from them than they can teach. Religious and mystical experiences are also a type of evidence. There clearly are beliefs about these issues as well. A belief may or may not have a relation to empirical evidence.

Gaps in the fossil record

The fossil record indicates leaps, not gradual blending. Thus, following the evidence it would seem that evolution proceeds in jumps too. Additionally, the story of "one" species turning into another is misleading. It seems to suggest that one species exists independently of many others. You very body is not entirely human. Something like 20% (don't quote me on this percentage) of your weight contains living organisms that do not share your DNA. Most of these live in your colon, but some live on your skin, in your eyebrows, etc. A human being is a society of many organisms working together. Generally, these organisms keep their DNA to themselves. In some rare cases, DNA from one of these organisms will slip into the genetic code of another. Generally, this alien DNA is unwelcome and not helpful and is short lived. Rarely, such a mingling of DNA results in a symbiotic organism that is better suited to survival in some particular environment. When this happens, there is an evolutionary jump. Although the advancement of a symbiotic relationship turning into new species is rare, it does occur. Evolution is all about the preservation (via natural selection) of these rare and unlikely symbiotic combinations.

Contradictions, Lies, and Errors

Question: Are you telling me that you believe John 3:13 is a LIE and in ERROR??

Reply:

There is yet another possibility. I argue that John 3:13 need not be viewed as either a Lie or an Error even if Genesis and 2nd Kings are understood to say that Enoch and Elijah both ascended to heaven. How can this be? Here is why: There is no need to be concerned with supposed "contradictions" if we see the Bible as a collection of stories rather than a single set of true propositions.

It seems clear enough that the Bible is a collection of stories. Etymologically, the word Bible comes from "books." It is quite literally a collection of books. One doesn't falsify a book case if two books that it contains disagree. One expects disagreement. It adds interest.

The question is, why would one expect all Biblical statements to be part of a single set of true propositions, none of which contradict. Where does this view come from? Does it have scriptural support? It seems to me to be an extra-Biblical projection.

Was Enoch taken to heaven?

Question:  Show me anywhere in the entire bible it says Enoch want to heaven. Can you?

Reply: 

First off, it should be noted that by asking this question you are avoiding the question I asked. Nevertheless, to I will address the issue you raise and use it to reformulate my question.

I suspect that if most people were to read Genesis 5:24 without reference to John 3:13, as one would normally read a book -- from the beginning to the end -- they would understand it to mean that Enoch, in his old age, did not die but "was seen no more" because he was taken away by God to heaven.

Now, as you so astutely note, Genesis does not say he was taken "to heaven." (2 Kings 2:1, however, does specifically state that Elijah was taken to Heaven. I hope you do not ignore the more difficult case to argue about an easier one.) Perhaps Enoch was taken to Argentina or the moon. But, such possibilities seem fanciful given what was said about Enoch. It is noted that the reason that Enoch was seen no more is that he, in his life, walked with God. One would naturally assume a causal relationship between Enoch walking with God and God taking him away. In light of this, it is a natural reading to assume that God took Enoch to be with Him in Heaven.

This is what a narrative reading of the Bible would suggest.

On the other hand, if the Bible isn't a story, but a series of true propositions, then in order for John 3:13 to be true, Gen 5:24 must not be understood to say that Enoch was taken to heaven. This seems to be your view. My question is, why do you propose that the Bible is a series of true propositions as opposed to a collection of stories. What is your scriptural warrant for such a claim?

Arguments for the existence of God

Since the Enlightenment science has made many considerable advances and discoveries. In recent years, science has taken on certain working assumptions: it acts as though there is no God and it assumes that all things are physical things. Based on such assumptions, science can still not explain either consciousness or free will. While the God of the gaps has been getting smaller as the gaps in human understanding are filled with scientific explanations, I believe that this will eventually stop at just the right size of gap for the God that does exist.

While it is not conclusive proof, I argue that this failure indicates that there may be something besides physical matter that plays a role in our world.

I suggest that besides being a physical body we also are a soul. Now, I am not arguing for a Cartesian dualism that needs a God to explain the otherwise unconnected “thinking thing” and “extended thing.” In its place, I am arguing for a temporal distinction between subject and object. In the present moment, there is an aspect of me that is influenced, but undetermined by my past. This (loosely speaking) is my soul-at-the-moment. It is not a physical thing in that it cannot be seen or detected as it is in itself. As soon as my soul decides/acts, its expressions become part of the physical world. Until that moment, it exists only for itself, not for others.

Is there an analog of the soul’s relation to the body that is God’s relation to the world? While many things can be explained without such an assumption, there are some indications that point towards that possibility: the big bang and the origin of life.

The big bang might be called an ultimate irrationality in that no reason for it can be given. It is unpredictable just like the free actions of the human soul.   

The next phenomena that points even stronger towards the presence of a God is the origin of life. Life seems to possess an internal desire—a will to live. Either life has always been part of the universe or else it was an emergent property that developed with sufficient complexity. I tend to think that life has always been a part of the universe and that God is the soul of the world.

Is it a proof? No, but I maintain that it provides an explanation that has more explanatory power than is possible with an atheistic / physicalistic  world view.

Does worshiping Jesus break the first commandment?

In many places in the Bible, Jesus seems to be other than God. Since both are worthy of worship it would seem that Jesus is very close to being another God and the first commandment forbids worshiping any other God by YHWH.

Of course, to "solve" this embarrassing problem fourth century Christians formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not, however, strictly derived from a reading of the New Testament, but is one of those extra biblical narratives that the reader brings to the text so smooth out the rough edges.

Adult theology kindergarten

There was a megachurch pastor named Carlton Pearson who changed his mind on this topic. It occurred to him that Jesus died to save everyone. He came to realize that a God who would condemn people to Hell was incompatible to what he knew about God and love. He started preaching a gospel of inclusion as opposed to a gospel of exclusion. People walked out on him. His church went from thousands of people every week to only a few hundred. It turns out, that people like Hell. Take away Hell and you take away the draw. Many in his congregation didn't even want to listen to his opinions. Whereas once they were content to "learn" from him, as soon as he said something controversial, he was no longer credible in many of their eyes.

It seems that no matter how much one studies or knows about the Bible or religion, certain fundamentalists will ask you certain qualifying questions. If you answer simply (no room for complications or shades of meaning) and correctly according to their party line, they will listen, so long as you say what they already believe.

Fundamentalists like this remind me of dogmatic kindergarteners who think they know about math. They have been taught about counting and addition and think they know math. An older sibling mentions negative numbers and multiplication and division to them. The dogmatic kindergartener knows that this so called "math" is contrary to what he has been taught. He tells is older sister that she is wrong and refuses to listen to her.

The adult kindergarteners in Pearson congregation were like this. They knew their kindergarten theology and when something contradicted it, they dogmatically refused to listen and consider that just maybe things are more complicated that what is taught in kindergarten.

Why does evolution produce better organisms?

It is not clear that life is evolving "better" creatures. Yes, evolution has brought about more complex creatures that are more capable of introducing novelty into actuality, but it is another question as to whether such ability makes them "better. " Better always carries with it the questions, better for what? and for whom? As to evolution producing creatures more suitable to life, this seems not to be a universal rule. Cockroaches are more suited to life than are humans (it is suggested that they would even survive a nuclear blast), yet they evolved before humans did. It seems that evolution is not always directed towards the production of more hardy life forms. I say that it is directed towards life forms more capable of introducing novelty and experiencing higher forms of enjoyment. I think that this direction is not imposed upon life by an external creator, but is the driving force within life always wanting to live, to live well, and live better.

What is the point to evolution if it all goes back to nothing?

Asking why it goes back to nothing? is only a valid question if there is a final cause that directs it back to nothing. It is legitimate to ask, why did you go back home after work? because people do things for a reason. The reason for a person's action is the final cause of the action. Final causes are the goals that we wish our actions to achieve. If you want to rest, your desire / intension to rest is a final cause. You go home because you wish to satisfy this final cause. Now, ask why a mudslide brought down a pile of rocks onto a mountain road and you get a much different type of answer: you get an answer involving efficient causes. An explanation involving the efficient cause of a mudslide will involve rain causing erosion that loosens boulders from the mountain side and gravity causes them to slide down. Now, what is the point of the mudslide? There is no point because there is no final cause. That is, there is no intention that brought it about. (Note that I am not implying that it is random, just that it was not brought about by a final cause.) As for their being a point to life in general, that is an open question. We cannot assume that there is some final cause behind it or else we beg the question. Similarly, we cannot assume that there is no final cause. The principle of Occam's razor seems to be able to go both ways on this question. Creation is a pretty simple answer to state, but it makes a big assumption: God the creator. A bottom up evolution involving quantum particles that desire to express themselves in novel ways and eventually evolve into cellular organisms is less easy to understand, but it doesn't require a supernatural origin. Indeed, it is no more speculative than are suggestions about the also unseen (but inferentially suggested) Higgs Boson--the particle that the CERN Large Hadron Collider is looking for. Perhaps there is a God shaped hole precisely at the origin of life in the universe. If so, we might have reason to suspect that there is a God that can act as the missing organization and direction that we seem to observe in nature. Even if there is such a God, there is no reason to make the leap that such a God must be the God of the Bible, for such a God seems more likely (and less speculatively) to be the God of Deism.