Tags
Christianity, feminist, God, Jesus, liberation, love, praxis, social concerns, theology
God does speak to me from time to time. He has a particular way of going about it. I can never be sure at first, which is why he beats me over the head with what ever it is he wants me to know. To explain, he tells me the same thing over and over by diverse ways. Finally I see that, and go, “okay, gotcha boss.”
Mostly this time, God has been reinforcing my train of thought. If you’ve been reading the posts “What is the Message” and my review of Robin Meyers’ book, “Saving Jesus from the Church.” you will see where I’m heading. I’ve been seeing that Church needs to be redirected to praxis rather than a continuation of the ongoing theological conversation of who bests defines Christianity and what is sin and how are we saved.
I mentioned that Presiding Bishop Schori’s remarks about individual salvation being inadequate added to the mix. So that was three things. I had also begun pondering Martin Buber’s “I-thou versus I-it” philosophy, in which he posits that humans are engaged in one or the other at all times. I-thou is subject to subject or in equal respect and mutuality. I-it refers to me and the other as an it, or object. It’s value is only that of enhancing me in some way or furthering my personal aims.
Last night, God let me again visit these subjects, and finally I was convinced that indeed I was on the right track. We were watching Bill Moyer’s Journal. His guests were Dr. Cornel West, theologian from Princeton, Dr. Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary in NYC, and Dr. Gary Dorrien, Reinhold Neibuhr Professor of Social Ethics at UTS. They were talking about the “Christian” take on our world wide economic decline.
Their discussion was wide ranging and involved ultimately what in some sense can be called a reform movement within Christendom. They spoke of the evils of greed and love in action. All three spoke to the fact that the students in seminary today are burning with a desire to live and work authentically following Jesus in full praxis. I suspect that more traditional theology falls by the wayside. It is the time of liberation, feminist, black, and other theologies which seek to reclaim the original message of Jesus.
It got me to thinking late last night as I, in one of my wide awake middle of the night moments, sat on the porch and looked up at the Milky Way, ablaze with stars. Thinking of God, I realized something, something quite obvious I suspect. Once we are past the big three: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, we are essentially done talking about God in the singular. Which is not to say that even this is right. Who is to say that God doesn’t have siblings and parents, and aunts and uncles, all busily engaged on their own planes of reality. But on this plane, we contend there is but One God.
Yet, by the first act, that of creation, God is no longer One, but in relationship, for creation was all about relationship. It continues to be so. My poem the other day about perspective between life on the big and small is but relationship, a shared universe, a shared planet. My piece on vegetarianism and meat eaters again notes that we are in a cycle of shared life and death and symbiosis.
Trinity may or may not be real, it is our way of explaining what we can’t really explain. But if true or not, the message is the same. Intimacy, mutuality, love, compassion, interrelatedness, are the rule, the norm. Man is not meant to be alone as God said, and there are few humans who do well in seclusion. We thrive on relationship, I-thou which is healthy, or I-it which is not so healthy.
Evolutionary psychologists would no doubt claim that this is an evolutionary plus, designed to help ensure the survival of the species by promoting breeding and offspring. Believers would claim that it echoes a design infused in all creation by the Creator. It is why I am “in the image of” after all.
Rather than suggesting that God somehow “looks” like us, in the image of signifies that we are relational as God is relational.
It is not enough to merely state the obvious, but to ingest it, and digest it, and make it apart of ourselves. Relational means truly that I am my brother’s keeper, and it is my perfect duty to help ensure that he is fed, clothed, returned to health, and upheld as fully as I am myself. He is me, and I am him, and we are, and God is.
At the end of Bill Moyer’s conversation with these three, he revisited some food pantries that they had been to some months ago. As you can imagine, the situation is more dire than before. Person after person related their stories of having worked for years, decades in fact, only to find themselves struggling to stretch food, and meagre, simple food it is, from week to week. Children given “enough” but not as much as they would wish, meals of crackers and peanut butter.
I have contributed to our food pantry through our church. I softly said to the Contrarian, “Monday I’ll inquire who is our liaison at “Loaves and Fishes” and. . .”
“Yes,” he replied, knowing where I was going, and not needing me to finish.
It is no longer just enough to drop a bag of cans in the basket. Jesus walks before me beckoning me and you to much more than that. “Okay, gotcha boss.”
Existential Ennui 
Hi Sherry,
“Man is not meant to be alone…”
Sometime back in eternity, the Father inaugurated a policy of profound “self-distribution.” In other words, there is something in the loving nature of the Father which causes him to keep only those powers and authority which he apparently finds impossible to delegate or to bestow upon other creatures.
He has actually bestowed all of himself and all of his attributes, everything he possibly could divest himself of— in every way, in every age, in every place, and to every person, and in every universe— except that of his central indwelling in Paradise.
From the Paradise Trinity to the lowliest of finite worlds, the continual and never-ending creation of every sort of Divine and personal being, in numbers far, far beyond our humble imaginations, will continue throughout eternity as we make our way to Paradise and beyond. Thus all these children here, our fellow travelers, unaware of who, or even what they are, make up but a tiny fraction of the vast family of universe children that we are learning to serve as brothers and sisters; members of the endless family of God.
Michael, the vision of Urantia is compelling. An eternity of growth and learning of service and relationship is indeed a beautiful idea. I remain hopeful!
Thinking about this post and the Meyers discussion below it occurred to me that perhaps we are really talking about two different types of ecclesiology…
I thought you might be interested in the ideas expressed in this article:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0601.asp
Peace,
Missy
I’ll take a look Missy. Thanks for the link
Sorry, Sherry, but it is the Traditional True teachings of Jesus which is growing fastest in the world, especially Africa and Asia. Yes, African highly educated Priests are going to Ireland, where Rampant Secularism, especially Media, makes Religion look old fashioned.
Women ministers is a new idea that is not too successful.
The National Council of Churches February Denomination by denomination report a couple years ago reported that independent unaffiliated Ministries were the biggest Decliners.
There are so many new idea christian ministries around, with all kinds new ideas Christ and the Bible warned against: Tickling the ear teachings He rejected.
Indeed, an NPR Religion report Sunday on the Episcopalian Church said that the New ideas of blessing Same Sex, and same sex ‘married’ bishop had reduced membership to 80% of a decade ago: 2 Million from 2.5 Million.
And Media ignores the Big, the Growing Church: Catholic, which is too ideal for smaller fringe churches and ministries.
Christ endorsed no “New Ideas” outside his new Christianity, which He founded, not the Apostles.
And Sherry, do you Really beieve that the Apostles were Power Hungry and invented Mathew 16: 18 – 19 to get “Control” of people? Really?
Think the Apostles were into themselves and their Control? Very few believe that. One can not be Christian, I submit, in calling the Bible to be written by men, not Divinelly inspired, and the Apostles and early Church out to “Control” people with new spins.
That stuff ain’t Christian, Sherry, I submit.
Really think that Jesus supported Same sex unions? Think He wanted Women Ministers?
I think He, and the Bible, place women on a higher pedestal than men, by far. That is especially true in the Catholic Church!
See? This is exactly what I meant about the average guy in the pew.
Good grief–update yourself, Man! Follow the link above and read that article for starters.
Jesus did not found the Church–the apostles and disciples founded the Church after His death, resurrection, and ascension. Matthew was written in the 80s CE–fifty years after Christ! Couching your criticism in such negative terms as “control” and “power hungry” doesn’t make it correct.
The Church developed in multiple locations over time–that is why we have more than one Gospel. Each of the four Gospel accounts was written for a specific Christian community to help respond to conditions in their community at that time. Matthew’s audience in Antioch were conservative Jewish-Christians who wanted structure and were struggling with issues such as circumcision and purity rituals; Mark’s audience in Ephesus a decade and a half earlier needed to keep faith despite suffering under the first wave of Christian persecutions under Nero; Luke’s Gospel was written for Gentiles and reflects the universal and forgiving nature of the new covenant; John’s Gospel reflects that the writer in Ephesus had decades after Jesus life to consider the meaning of His Resurrection. And I submit that, despite their Christological differences, John was very much influenced by Mark.
Anthony–here are some more links to help you update yourself and grow in your faith.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0800.asp
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/EDC/ag1106.asp
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0598.asp
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Nov2005/Feature5.asp
And just so you can feel good about it all–this is coming to you from your patron saint! The Saint Anthony Messenger Press.
Good luck and God bless~
Anthony I always appreciate your opinions though we often disagree. I’m more in line with Missy. You reflect what I consider a very conservative voice in the RCC, which conceives that modern ideas (200 years old or so) are somehow dangerous and means that somehow earlier writers about the church (ECF) were wrong. They were wrong in many respects but not through deviousness, but through lack of the modern tools of exegesis.
There really is no good explanation of why the 4 Gospels are so different in some respects but that they faced different issues in their respective audiences, and thus tailored the information at hand to meet those particular needs, leaving out stuff that wasn’t addressed to helping their problems.
This is not dangerous, it is merely an attempt to recover as close as possible the genuine beliefs of Jesus. And no, I don’t think Jesus would have any trouble with a female priesthood, and I believe he would be most tolerant of our GLBT community. His treatment of “others’ and the clear undesireable in his community speaks rather forcefully I think.
I am most aware that the RCC attempts to gloss over women by making them somehow “better” just not able to confect a host. That is pretty much just “separate but equal” and I find that unacceptable.
That was just about the most smartypants rude thing I have ever written in a comment. Sorry Anthony.
Missy, Anthony is very clear about what he believes, and I’m sure didn’t take your comment badly. We have been able to amicably disagree on a good deal and still enjoy each others comments. I’m sure he took yours in the same vein.
I read something today that I took to heart. I hope my TEC doesn’t schism with the Anglican Communion, for precisely the reason that it is important that more than one voice be present in a church. It is in the discussions that we move forward, enlighten each other, recall the importance of tradition and history and together worship at the end of the day. I’d sorely hate to lose that.
Missy, I deeply appreciate your links and comments. I gave you my first “Rate This” Thumbs Up. The links are great.
I disagree that the Apostles or Paul “Invented” Christianity as a History Channel Hour about the
Christian Sect (All spun spins).
PS: As I recall, the First Gospel (The Oldest) Was the St Mathew Gospel. The British made major claims a Century ago that part of the Original St Mathew Gospel was found in Egypt, and dated at a couple Decades after Christ.
Sherry, No one in my Life has ever called me “Conservative”. I’ve been called the Opposite, in Politics. Political and Religious terms should not be mixed, as Media began.
Am best described as Open Minded, always searching for Truth, and the Truth in History. Sherry, your and a couple new authors preaching that Christ was just a great guy, That the Bible was By Men Only, no divinity, and new idea Religious views of blessing gay unions, women ministers, etc, etc does not wash in History. It is No return to the ‘original Christ’ philosophies.
Again, I and the RC Church have highest respect for Every One, Handicaped as well as Olympians, Minorities, Heavy focus on the Poorest, the most hurting, etc, etc.
And, folks, the Centerpiece of the earliest Church was the Last Supper Feast (Jewish Sadar modified) with Readings and Especially Real Presence (Not a memory) Eucharist.
And only the Apostles (Chosen by Christ) could celebrate it. Deacons and Presbyters were added as Asistants. “Presbyters” were ordained with the Apostolic Powers by Laying on of Hands by the Apostles, when there were too many new congregations, and the authority bestowed on them By Christ.
Christianity was not an invention of the Apostles. The Bible is far too Brilliant in Wisdoms (Even Genesis sequentially describes in Correct order the creation of the Universe) how did the writers guess correctly Thousands of years ago, with no scientific knowledge.
Sherry, we only disagree on some basic Religious topics. 2000 years shows what works, what doesn’t. (I shouldn’t say this but about a dozen years ago, an Anglican Diocese in Florida split about the Women Ministers issue; My Online Friends said that many of that Diocese, led by Ministers, changed to Orthodox Church, Liturgy and all. Am speaking of the mid 1990’s.)
Sherry, Missy, what do you think of Mary? Just a regular mom with many children, regular sex with Joseph? Jesus was just the Special Talented kid? Joseph or a human was the dad?
Anthony, I surely agree that you are a political liberal. But I do take you as a religious conservative. I respect you in every way as you well know. We just disagree on interpretation.
As to Mary, I think it is unknowable whether she and joseph had other children. The bible is not at all clear. The times would assume she did. I certainly don’t negate that Jesus was divine. I just think that that is over emphasized at times and inhibits us from following him as we should. I think his humanness was of vastly more value to us and makes him exceedingly more amazing.
Anthony, in June I attended a Castelot Summer Scripture Series on the Gospel of Mark facilitated by famed Jesuit scholar from the Holy Land, David Neuhaus. Now, if what he was teaching me last month is correct, Mark is indeed the first Gospel–some scholars even place it’s date as early as 65 AD–five years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
I would like to recommend a book to you which might help with your understanding of the early Church. Already 20 years old, it still stands as a masterpiece of ecclesiastical scholarship, Frederick J. Cwiekowski’s The Beginnings of The Church.
As for Mary… I’m going to point to another well known and well respected book. I recommend Elizabeth Johnson’s Truly Our Sister.
I have a special fondness for Mary and I believe that she conceived of the Holy Spirit; and much like my ability to hold a belief in both evolution and creation I can believe in both a human father and the power of the Holy Spirit.
What can I say? I’m an intellectual hard case.
Missy,
Thanks for this interesting comment; I believe scholars are very close to the actual date of Mark’s writing, which was completed near the end of A.D. 68, according to The Urantia Book. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. But the record was considerably changed; numerous passages were taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. But Mark’s record, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.
It may be of further interest to know the origins of the other gospels; since it’s hard to isolate the paragraphs online, I’ll post them.
“The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.
“The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthewwas written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.
“Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.
“Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.
The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”
“As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.
“The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus’ work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several timesbeen edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.
“All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul’s theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years.”
Michael, very interesting. It seems to be in line a good deal with subsequent scholarship at least as to the order of the gospels and agrees that Matthew was not written by the tax collector etc. I find, as I have said before Urantia to be a fascinating explanation of things,and one that I would find very happy to find true.
Thanks for the serious work you have done in giving us this view.
My pleasure, of course; and thank you for always stoking the spiritual fire. And trust me: “very happy” won’t even come close to expressing how you will feel. 😉