Serendipity Do, I Love You, or Words to That Effect

Tags

bible, dominionists, exegesis, fundamentalists, Ted Cruz, US government

There is a definite payoff to being an eclectic. I think all great minds are actually. Not that I am comparing myself to being a great mind. I am all too aware of my limitations to do that, but at least my nose is pointed in the right direction.

Which all goes to say nothing more than that my interests are myriad and lets just say, broad, broad, broad. I read a lot of stuff in any given day or week. And I’m convinced that because of that, I draw a parallel sometimes or should I more perfectly say, an idea seems to form, informed by all that flotsam free-floating around just waiting and looking for a hook to grab and attach itself.

Utterly confused? Yeah, I know, I get so in love with the flowery shimmer of words kissing that I end up just babbling. I would compare myself with Sarah Palin, but unfortunately she never manages to ever reach an idea ever, just snippets of phrases strung together in some effort to look Wall Street Journalish.

Back to business.

So my friend Tim is going to the Chicago Theological Union working on a Masters in Divinity and he sent me his book list for the semester, and I’m reading one of those (figuring out that textbooks required from that place are certainly useful for my scholarly endeavors). It’s a dry subject to most but fascinating to me–biblical exegesis–methodology to be exact. It’s called Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

And given the political landscape, I’m reading a lot of crap about Ted Cruz, that lunatic genius from Texas who has designs on America the Beautiful that should they comes to realization would make you cry.

And I just finished reading another tome about creationism and the crazy people who believe in it, which I hated for a variety of reasons that we don’t have to go into here, but nonetheless offered real nuggets of truth too.

And can you believe that those three things all swirled around in me old head for a few days, and is now busting out in urgent spews of words and phrases all because something important is to be learned in all this? And since you haven’t (unless the universe is way more crazy than I think) been reading these same things, I just got to let you know all about it.

So let’s start at the bottom and work up. About these creationist believers. You know the one’s I mean, the silly folks who are just sure that Genesis (chapter 1, 2 or together) describe in REaLitY just exactly how the earth and everything around it were created? Them? The cognitive dissonance folks? The compartmentalized fools? Them.

They like their bible their way, as has been pointed out innumerable times. God said it, I believe it, ‘nuf said. God actually said it in the pages of the King James Bible, the only one worth reading from their point of view. And he said it, dictated it, so that the average, only sorta educated person could easily understand it. Why do they know that? Because they understand it, just fine.

No amount of showing them that they don’t understand it will be allowed. Mostly that is true, because they way they understand it suits them just fine. It allows them to hate whom they naturally hate, and condemn whom they naturally wanna condemn, and look down upon those they think should be looked down upon.

Now to suggest to them that they are wrong in their understanding is well, easily dealt with. That’s where the red guy comes in.

See, Satan is a real dude, and he is everywhere, making it his personal job to screw all mankind and womankind as well, after raping them no doubt. Satan is behind everything bad.

Satan is also the most devious trickster ever invented (and God did that, but a good fundamentalist doesn’t dwell on why too much–it was no doubt for our own good). Satan gets in people’s heads and messes them up.

Fundamentalists are pretty sure that any time somebody–anybody–says something that they don’t like, Satan is behind it.

Are you getting the drift?

So, if somebody tries to present actual facts that the bible is not as they say–that’s SATAN working again. They actually call you that to your face if you aren’t careful. Or words to that effect. I was once asked, “Sherry, why do you hate Jesus so much?” all in response to my trying to explain why evolution was actually true and believing in God and believing in EVOLUshun was really okay.

Which all led to this remark by a geologist (a real one) speaking at a creationist convention:

“. . .I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.” (Amongst the Creationists, pg 213)

That pretty much tells you that these people are not to be trifled with.

Now, Ted Cruz is a fundamentalist of the first order. His daddy is a preacher who talks about Ted being a royal priesthood, a king, and Obama of course being a Kenyan devil. These folks are serious about their fundie ways. Ted is also a dominionist among other things.  A dominionist is defined as:

The theocratic idea that regardless of theological view or eschatological timetable, heterosexual Christian men are called by God to exercise dominion over secular society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. Competes in Christianity with the idea of Stewardship, which suggests custodial care rather than absolute power. Used here in the broader sense, some analysts use the word only to refer to forms and offshoots of Reconstructionism.

Basically these folks believe to one degree or another than they should impose a Christian government over the US, based on biblical law as they understand it, and go on to do so across the world. People who are not Christian or don’t adhere to proper beliefs are to be eliminated (How that is to be done  depends on how hard-core you really are.)

Where do they get this notion? Why they get it from Genesis 1:28 where in God gave Adam “dominion” over all the earth.

See, they read this and define it as the way we would use the words today. Subdue involves or can involve force. Dominion means dominance, power and control over.

So they feel very righteousy in all their planning to destroy the Constitution as it is, in favor of what it really always was, but somehow got perverted by the LIBERALS, those heathen God-haters, also known as the N word of all words SECULARISTS, which is really an S word, but no matter.

And they mean business and no bigger proof of that is grifter girl Annie Coulter, who probably could care less, unless she can see a way to make a dime off it, but anyway, she in seriousness or jest said this:

And well, we don’t know how close to Mr. Cruz this is or isn’t, but for some, this is what they really believe, and if you try to explain to them that they are probably pretty wrong in this, well, as I said, you get Satanized.

So what is the truth about all this dominion stuff?

Well, I was reading my Method Matters and I was reading about the methodology called Comparative Methodology which to make a long story very very short, means comparing biblical texts with other textual material from other areas and groups such as Egyptian or Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and so forth. Do we find similar stories say to the flood story? And of course we do. And that helps us understand the Hebrew flood story in some context. Get it?

So when we look at the “man made in the image of God” we wonder what that means. And it suggests that in Mesopotamia, the king made images of himself for the temple (to be worshipped) and in territories taken in war. So if God made an image of himself (in man) is this similar to showing off one’s victory–humans are the capstone of God’s creation. Except that in Mesopotamia, the images are cast to revel in war victories or hunting victories, the latter reflecting on the former. They reflect violent acts by the King.

Is this the same in the bible or different. The author of that essay, argues different. Why? Because when we read Genesis 2:16, we see that the “dominion” previously alluded to, is tempered in the second Genesis story using the Hebrew words šmr (serving) and ‘bd (preserving). We can see that the Hebrew writer who joined the two creation stories changed the royal rhetoric of violence which we see in Mesopotamian texts to a non-violent image of caring and nurturing of the earth by this image of God–humanity. (*please note I am not suggesting that the Genesis redactor was aware of the Mesopotamian textual or iconographic rhetoric)

The lesson is quite different. And rational people thus informed and having a better idea of what dominion means in the Hebrew bible, no longer can or should use it as a basis for a forceful control over others.

But of course we run into that old demon Satan once again.

I might be telling you the truth, and honestly I am, but then again, my mind might be so warped by my companion Beelzebub that I only THINK that I’m telling you the truth, and I’m really doing Satan’s handiwork. Or as they say in Star Trek: Everything I say is a lie–I’m lying.

You have now entered a circular argument and will never be released–or a black hole–or the inside of true-blue fundamentalist.

Related articles

• Rafael Cruz is an avowed creationist (dailykos.com)
• Ted Cruz’s Father is a Dangerous Religious Fanatic (politicususa.com)
• Creationist Ken Ham: Vote for godly candidates, not for policies that benefit you (rawstory.com)

 

Advertisements

Henry, They are Messin’ with the Word of God!

Tags

bible, biblical exegesis, Blaze Nincompoops, funadamentalists, Humor

Hey ho, Ralphie, come on. Take a load off. Oh just throw that hot water bottle over there on that pile of newspapers. I took a little spill yesterday and landed on my hip. Damn kids in this park. You know as soon as you see them pull in with those trailers with wheels, they are no good lazy. Got them a passel of kids that sleep stacked up like sardines, and one of the little hoodlums left a bike on my lawn. I tripped over it coming home last night from Lou’s. I had a few beers, but that damn bike shoulda never been there. A double wide, now that’s a whole ‘nother class of people.

Anyway, Thelma called, and said that those Israelis were messin’ with the bible. I know we gotta support them and all, cuz of God,and end times and all, but a man’s gotta take a stand ya know?

Thelma is bringin’ Gert, and Jack is comin’ by with Arnie. Beer in the fridge, help yourself. Thelma is bringin’ something to eat. That woman can’t drink without stuffin’ her jaw, if you know what I mean. She broke my only kitchen chair last week with that wide rear of hers. And then Jack plugged up the terlit, but that’s another story, so don’t get me started.

Anyways, the Jews over there got them some computer “soft” ware that somehow, so they claim, can tell ya who wrote what. Says that it verifies pretty much what them elite “intellect-u-als” claim. You know those atheist God-haters and their crap that the bible, God forbid, was written by men. Well Thelma thought we should talk it out and decide about what to do, though I can’t figure out what we can do.

Anyway, I copied out some of the comments from the fine commenters over at the Blaze, to see if they had any ideas. You might want to look it over.

• TRONINTHEMORNING

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 9:37am

The Bible is real from Old to New testament; (sic) you can’t have one without the other. Christ is the Saviour (sic) of the world and we are shut up to the cross to make a decision for or against Him. Ah the simplicity of belief and faith.

Troninthemorning: It’s nice to remain in utter ignorance isn’t it? So simple and easy. Just shut the old brain case and swim in stupid.

• hauschild

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 9:47am

I can’t imagine a bigger waste of time and money. I wonder how much this one cost the taxpayer in grant monies???

Houschild: it helps if you read the article first dude. Why do you care what the Israeli taxpayers laid out?

• Bearfoot

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 10:18am

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16

Bearfoot: okay, so what has that got to do with the price of beans?  And dude, the actual text says , “all scripture that is inspired” and don’t forget, that didn’t include the NT which hadn’t been gathered together yet.  Full steam ahead.

• Anonymous T. Irrelevant

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 10:40am

I wonder what they‘d find if they ran it on all of Obama’s books?

Anonymous T. Irrelevant: I wonder what they would find if they ran it on your brain? Or any of your books? Oh I bet there aren’t any are  there?

• Joseph28

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 9:44am

Anything beyond the old testament and the teachings of Jesus is just speculation amongst these scholars.

Joseph28: funny, they say the same thing about your intelligence. Pure speculation.

• hi

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 10:48am

It’s pretty amazing how the Bible was written hundreds of years, but it has a beginning and an end and all of the middle fits together.

Also, 3/4 of the Bible is prophecy and Christ fulfilled 300 specific things written about him 500 years earlier.

Fulfilled prophecy is evidence of divine intervention. Man cannot predicted 300 specific things someone is going to do 500 years from now.

Hi: The bible wasn’t written “hundreds of years” sweetie, and funny, but humans have the ability to place books in order. You’d be shocked that the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament to you) are in a different order.  I prophesy that you are nuts. Let’s see how I come out on that in 500 years.

• NOBALONEY

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 9:51am

God spoke to the writters, and they listened.

Nobalony: was that critters? What proof you got there that they listened? Oh the words themselves? Is that circular reasoning? Do you know what circular reasoning is?

• affinnity

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 10:13am

Let me see if I understand this – Israel needs Christian American dollars and moral support to continue to exist so they spend time and money inventing software that tells Christians that their entire faith is based on a fake book (the Bible). Why?

Affinity: now I’d say they are pretty darn smart wouldn’t you? Kind of like the Koch brothers, but on a larger scale.  And who said anything about fake?  Who first said it was the “word of God” tootsie?

• Country

Posted on June 30, 2011 at 10:49am

Christians do not stone thier children. Shellfish is a food law because it is bad for our bodies. Just think, if we obeyed the food laws we would not have obamacare. 😉

Country: But some children still get stoned, and yeah, we’d all live to be 500 if we just didn’t eat shellfish. And pork, you must include pork. Satan sent us pork way back when, just to get  the Affordable Health Care Act. You are a moron Country, seek help.

 And so my dear friends, if you woke up feeling a bit on the dumb side, cheer up, you are way smarter than these folks. In fact, you might qualify as super human by comparison.

The Human Faces of God

Tags

bible, bible contradictions, bible inerrancy, Book Reviews, Christianity, fundamentalism, God, Jesus, Thom Stark

Seldom have I anticipated a book more than Thom Stark’s The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When it Gets God wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) . I can tell you, that the book does not disappoint.

Stark takes on the biblical inerrantists and simply demolishes them. Inerrantists, (fundamentalists) insist that “the Bible is inspired by God, without error in everything it affirms historically, scientifically and theologically.” Stark begins with their own founding document: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, formulated in 1978. In it is found its hermeneutic tool: the historical-grammatical method. Stark shows how this method is used, except when it is not used. In other words, inerrantists profess it, and use it, until it doesn’t accomplish their result: an inerrant text. Stark calls their actual practice one of the “hermeneutics of convenience.”

A series of methodologies are alternated, all directed to reach the result that the bible does not err. This at times involves plain meaning, literalism, scripture defining scripture, fuller meaning, and in the end a resort to throwing up one’s hands and declaring that “God has not as yet seen fit to reveal the meaning to us.”

Stark moves through the troubling passages that allude to a belief in a pantheon of gods. Anyone familiar with the Hebrew scriptures knows that there are odd pieces here and there that seem to suggest that there were other gods than Yahweh. The Psalms are replete with such sayings such as God being mightier than the other gods. Exodus and Genesis make such references as well, as well as mention of the “council of the gods.”

Indeed, Stark’s claim that polytheism was the order of the day in ancient Israel, is nothing new. Yet he explains it to the lay reader perhaps better than anywhere else I have seen. The same can be said of his hard-hitting analysis of the  God of genocide, found in and throughout Deuteronomy, and the God who at least condones and accepts human sacrifice. These difficult and troubling texts are explained, carefully, and patiently with excellent reference to archaeology, other relevant texts of the time, and good literary critical exegesis.

Perhaps the area that will cause the most concern is his claim that Jesus, while many things, was most certainly an apocalyptic prophet. Stark points out that his prophecies regarding the end times were accurate, until the last one, the imminent return of himself, ushering in the full kingdom of God. In this Stark claims that Jesus was simply wrong.

This is hard to swallow, but Mr. Stark makes a very convincing argument, one well worth the time to read carefully and seriously. I suspect that if you get to that point in the book, you are trusting of  Stark’s careful analysis and will listen with an open ear and heart.

What is accomplished here, in this book, is more than just showing the errors and contradictions of the bible. There have surely been dozens that have done that already. Rather, Stark, explains how the “book” we call the bible, came into existence. Understanding it as a collection of documents written over more than 1000 years, and containing within disparate, and contradictory voices, helps us to see it for what it is: a people’s walk with God.

It is most singularly a human document, written over a long period and containing oral traditions that span even greater times. There are voices within it that argue for opposite things. In some cases, even some of the Hebrew writers attempted to reconcile difficult passages that were at odds. (The stories of David and Goliath are instructional here, and Stark lays out a wonderful explanation for the two different explanations for Goliath’s death, and why another writer, the Chronicler, tried to cover up the contradiction.)

Stark convinces, I think, that having to face up to the difficult and ugly passages in the bible is worthwhile and has much to teach us on their own. Rather than shrug, as inerrantists often do, or try to twist and warp them into some apparent sense, it is much better to accept them as human failings in living and in understanding of their God.

Better to allow God to speak through the hateful and unacceptable passages to us today and allow them to inform us as to our own shortcomings and roads to growth.

Stark is a believing Christian, one who has struggled with scripture and found that facing the unpleasant realities allows one to grow into a mature faith. In fact, he claims, and I tend to agree, that fundamentalism is an adolescent and immature view,  clinging to a world that one would prefer, but which simple does not exist.

We would all like certainty. But certainty doesn’t exist. The Bible cannot give us that, no matter how much we might wish it. We can pretend otherwise, but that leaves us mired in a fantasy world and helps us not at all in addressing the troubles of our world.

The last chapter is delightful, giving Mr. Stark’s own reflections on what these hard passages can offer us today.

Speaking of the problematic stories of Abraham and Isaac, of Jephthah and his daughter, and King Mesha and his son, Thom Stark reflects:

Today we denounce such practices as inhuman and reject as irrational the belief that the spilling of innocent blood literally affected the outcome of harvests and military battles. Yet we continue to offer our own children on the altar of homeland security, sending them off to die in ambiguous wars, based on the irrational belief that by being violent we can protect ourselves from violence. We refer to our children’s deaths as “sacrifices” which are necessary for the preservation of democracy and free trade. The market is our temple and it must be protected at all costs. Thus, like King Mesha, we make “sacrifices” in order to ensure the victory of capitalism over socialism, the victory of consumerism over terrorism.

If you would learn to understand the bible, and actually get the most out of it, then do read this book. It is about the best I’ve seen at showing us the dangers of inerrancy, and how we can grow in our faith through a truthful, honest and courageous examination of our sacred books.

* I am indebted to WIPF & Stock Publishers for sending this book free of charge for review. The only agreement is an implicit promise on my part to read, review and publish the results.

Luke: A Theological Commentary

Tags

bible, biblical studies, Book Reviews, Justo L. Gonzalez, Luke, theology

Today I review the second in the new Belief series published by Westminster John Knox Press. Luke: (Belief: A Theological Commentary) is written by Justo L. González.

Again, I give my deepest thanks to WJK for giving me the opportunity to participate in reviewing this extraordinary series.

If Plachter’s book on Mark was excellent, this  second offering by González, meets that standard in every way. While Plachter perhaps placed more emphasis on the exegetical-historical aspects of the gospel, González focuses a bit more on the theological implications of Luke to our world today.

In the end, this seemed most right to me. Quoting Gustaf Wingren:

All good interpretation of the Bible is contemporary. If it were not so, it would not be good. . . .The Bible is not on a par with the subsequent interpretation; it is above it, as the text is antecedent to the commentary. And the interpretation is always an interpretation for the time in which it is written or spoken.

There is also a distinctive flavor of liberation theology which permeates the text. This also seems logical to me, since any fair reading of Luke renders the conclusion that Luke portraits a Christ who favored the poor and the marginalized as the true inheritors of the Kingdom of God.

Paramount in González’s theology of Luke is that the evangelist emphasized above all that Jesus’ teaching was one of the “great reversal.” His teachings were indeed revolutionary to his world. His was a world of power held by Rome, of patriarchy, of Temple priests and church hierarchy. His teachings again and again told of the coming Kingdom where none of this would be so.

The poor, the marginalized, the unclean, the unwanted, the unworthy, the sinners, the children, the women–all these would find a new world in God’s Kingdom, one in which those who were served would serve, those first would be last, those most religious and pious would often find themselves judged less than the most simple of the country folk of Galilee, that most marginal of lands.

In fact, Mr. González suggests that if one were to remove all the “reversal” stories from the text, there would be few pages left.

Perhaps the most stunning theological commentary comes with González’s explanation of the Paralytic. He shows how Luke weaves a story of how the teachers and scribes, the Pharisees sat around listening to the teachings of Jesus. The friends of the lame man could not get through the crowd of the listeners to reach the Healer. The end up opening the roof to lower the man to Jesus inside.

González reflects on these “circles” about Christ that we as church construct. We sit as pious listeners before the Word. We block the way for those who come in need of healing and comfort.

“Today, just like then, there are lame people who cannot reach Jesus, because access is blocked by the numerous and tight circles, circles of religious leaders and wise and profound theologians, circles of ecclesiastical, academic, and social structures. . .”

He points out that these people are not necessarily bad, but in their zeal to be at the forefront, they (we) block the way of others. We are cautioned to open the doors to those who are marginalized outside the circle. These are the people Jesus most came to help.

Of special importance to me, are the continued references to Jesus’ table hospitality. Too many of our churches set themselves up as arbiters of who is invited to the table of Christ. Any fair reading of Luke, suggests this is a grave error.

Time and time again, as González points out, Jesus welcomed the sinner to the table, and did not require any repentance as a condition to the invitation. He teaches that we should be inviting those who cannot repay our offer, instead of those who will extend a return invitation to ourselves.

González powerfully reminds us that:

“All too often  Christians have claimed control of the Table as if it were ours, and not his. We decide whose belief is sufficiently orthodox to share Communion with us, who is sufficiently good and pure, who belongs to the right church. . . .Rather than inviting those who seem most unworthy and cannot repay us, we invite the worthy. . .”

There is example after example of gentle, and not so gentle reminders to us as readers, that the Gospel of Luke calls us to a discipleship that is not easy, and not comfortable either. Luke tells of a Jesus who comes not preaching so much an afterlife of bliss but a life offered that is truly life. A full life, filled with the Spirit, faithful to God, bearing the cross of discomfort with the joy of knowing that we are doing God’s will as did He who was his image.

At the end, Mr. González ponders the church of tomorrow. And as we see a decline in the Western Church and a rise in the church of the South, the African, and the East, we see new thinking, new interpretation. We see reflections through the eyes of the poor and the marginalized. He asks:

“. . .could it be that God’s great gift to the worldwide church today is the growing church of the poor, who are teaching us to read the Bible anew? Could it be that God is using the last, the least, the poor, and the excluded to speak once again to the church of the first and the greatest?”

Is this the final reversal? Such questions as these do we ponder as we read this most excellent book. Do buy it. You will not regret the decision.

Looking at the Finer Side of Life

Tags

bible, blizzard, DADT, fundamentalists, gay rights, God, Humor, KJV, Pat Robertson, Poetry, spirituality, virtual church

If your mother was anything like mine, complaints about dinner were met with “the little children in China would be happy to have carrots to eat.” If I groused that I didn’t get the one toy I wanted for my birthday, I was told, “the little children of Africa have probably never gotten a toy.”

So, sadly, and with great grumpiness, I can’t complain about the snow here in Iowa. The stupid East Coast just had to go and have a BLIZZARD. How rude! Coupled with the deluges in California and consequent mudslides, I’m unable to feel the least bit sorry for myself.

And that never sits well with me!

Being able to complain is just, well, so American.

But, I’ve taken an oath of sorts to try to listen to my better angel, at least until the new year. It’s just that there isn’t so much good news as you would think out there. We’re a surly bunch, and we like news that at minimum makes us feel better relative to our fellow humans. That’s just the way we are. How else to explain the likes of Cops on Patrol, and Bridezilla, and Hoarders?

Anyway, if you want to feel uplifted and also called into your better self, do go and read this lovely poem from the Franciscan Missionary Society–Christmas Blessing. H/T from Vox Nova.

***

Speaking of faith, it’s puzzling, and always has been that fundigelicals prefer the KJV (King James Version) of the bible. They cling to it as THE definitive word of God. I’ve never been quite sure why, since it’s basically not a very good translation, and the language, though beautiful isn’t also easy to understand.

History Today has a great article on the history of the KJV. If fundigelicals actually knew this history, I suspect they might be a bit less enthused about it. It was directed, in some sense, to be a polemic for the right of kings, and thus against the interests of the Puritans who were a bothersome lot in England and elsewhere. The only reason why the Puritans in this country ended up using it, was because the Geneva Bible had been suppressed in England and the KJV was the only one they could get their hands on. Worse, the first printings of the KJV were so bad that they were almost heretical–referring to God’s ass at least one occasion!

***

I’ve linked to Andy Borowitz before. His political humor is great. Today he explains what Pat Robertson has to say about the East Coast blizzard. As you can expect, God is punishing somebody that Pat doesn’t like. Go  read it and have a chuckle.

***

Speaking of political humor, Mo over at Whatever Works, offered this gem. It’s a site called Political Irony. Lots of jokes, cartoons, a rundown of the talk show political humor. Just lots of fun stuff. I’m sure I’ll be pilfering from it regularly. Add it to your reader or subscribe to never miss a post!

***

Speaking of more political humor, I saw this in my travels yesterday:

Of course it hurts. You’re being screwed by an elephant.

***

Do you have a ritual for Christmas that you never miss? We watch National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, you know, Clark and his merry band of Griswolds?  We laugh at the same things again and again. It’s a tradition. By the way, the ham was delicious and we can’t stop eating ham sandwiches! Today we are switching to turkey enchiladas, which finishes off the Thanksgiving turkey. And NO it hasn’t been the fridge since November!

***

We are getting three days of melting starting tomorrow! We are so excited. We can’t keep the smile off our faces. We may actually be able to get out without being blown out! Temps of 35, 40, 45 for the next three days! Heaven! Oh and rain too. Then freezing, so no doubt it will be slick as snot on Saturday or Sunday. We looked up our snow cleats for our boots! We are ready!

***

This is a laugh. I mean, it really is funny/sad/pathetic/hysterically knee-slapping humorous.

Brian Fischer of the AFA, the homophobic “family values” group (one of thousands) wrote a “gotcha” column the other day.

“You dumb old gays! You had a pass to get out the army, should the food prove not gourmet, or the shower room not to have the hunks to ogle. You could go to the commander and announce your gayness. Well, no more,” Fischer gleefully slobbers, spittle flying,  his wild eyes darting. “No, your commander will say, ‘sorry Nancy boy’ back to barracks for you! Those days of special preference are over. You’re in the for the duration.”

Yes Margaret, there really is a crazy man who said that. I swear. Makes you blink and look around carefully. Once again, you fear, you might have slipped into the Twilight Zone.

***

Ideas that Create has a post on virtual churches. Can they offer anything “real”? It’s a provocative look at an Internet phenomenon. See what you think.

***

Finding all those retrospectives creepy? Especially the ones that tell you who died this year. I forgot some of them and was shocked all over again.

***

Keep warm!

Related Articles

• The bible that even atheists worship (independent.co.uk)
• The KJV and the English Language (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• FAIL part 2: Bryan Fischer takes another crack at the ‘feminization’ of the Medal of Honor (pinkbananaworld.com)

Mark: A Theological Commentary

Tags

bible, Book Reviews, gospels, Jesus, Mark, William C. Placher

It is with pure delight that I thank Westminster John Knox Publishing for sending me the following selection for review. This is the opening book in a new series entitled: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible.

The first book in the series is Mark, by William C. Placher. It was published along with Luke, which I have also received and will be reviewing shortly.

WJK also publishes the Interpretation series, of which I have long been a fan, but after reading Mark, I suspect this new series may far outstrip that wonderful series.

The idea behind the Belief series is to bring together the latest exegetical work, along with literary, historical, archaeological, and other pertinent advances as they impact how we interpret the bible from a theological point of view.

In Mark, they have certainly attained their goal.  Professor Placher, unfortunately now deceased, has written a simply beautiful commentary. Not content to just tell us what the text means, or most likely means, Placher explores how Mark’s “good news” is still most relevant to the world we live in today.

For example, in the opening pages, he writes:

Americans today, therefore, read the Gospel of Mark–this story of a Middle Eastern man tortured to death by the most powerful empire of his time–when we are the most powerful nation of our time, and our forces are torturing people, sometimes to death. What does this imply about our values and the sort of people we have become?

Peppered throughout the chapters are “Further Reflections” on key phrases or words such as Kingdom of God, Miracles, and Ransom. Each of these probes into the historical record and juxtaposing that against our modern notions, finding common ground and points of comparison.

Quotes are boxed throughout the text as well, and are wide-ranging in their authorship, including Luther, Barth, Basil, Tertullian, Philo, Cicero and many others. These highlight themes introduced and explored by Professor Placher.

What is most compelling is the breath of sources. You will meet the likes of Karl Barth, and Luther of course, but also the likes of Calvin, John Dominic Crossan, and Gustavo Gutiérrez. Majority opinions are explained, but plenty of minority opinions are given with their rationales. Of course, Placher gives his choice and the reasons for it in the end.

We are a  world more and more polarized along religious lines. Placher offers us, for example,  a theological explanation of chapter 12:28-34. Here Jesus is questioned by a scribe as to which commandment is first. Jesus famously says “love God and love your neighbor.” This is all well and good, but in answering, Jesus shows us that even though many of his arguments are with scribes, not all scribes are bad, some come with honest questions. Barth points out that this the Hebrew Scriptures often engage “outsiders” to do the will of God, and thus Jesus shows us that good can often come from those who are not like us. How useful it is to remember that today.

The point always is, that when we read scripture, and Mark in particular, there is much that speaks to our condition today, both individually and as communities and nations. Every minister, priest, and preacher, every teacher seeks to make the scripture relevant to their listeners. This is no more than Mark did himself, in trying to tailor the stories he told to the issues present in his community.

How could Jesus help them? How can Jesus help us? As students of scripture, we have much to gain here in understanding, but if we are also preachers and teachers, we have even more, for here we can find new insights, new interpretations, new connections where we never realized them before. For every minister who has sat late into Saturday evening, still trying to find something “new” to say on tomorrow’s gospel, she or he will likely find help here.

We squabble, some of us in our respective traditions with rules about who can join us, and who cannot join us. We have our own brand of “unclean”. Yet, Jesus did not teach us that. He taught us the opposite. He regularly ate with sinners and those ritually unclean, and he never made it a condition for sitting at table with him that repentance was a pre-requisite. What does that say to us today?

Page by page, Placher explores, teases out, and conjoins text from not only Mark, but from other texts as well both in and out of the bible. The picture sharpens and Mark’s words take on added significance. We see in a new way, hopefully a better one.

I simply enjoyed this commentary more than I can say. I found it easy of explanation, yet profound in its theological depth. Placher has drawn from a broad spectrum of experts, and has intertwined them to make coherent and useful conclusions. He gives us a foundation from which to explore.

As I said, teachers and preachers will find this commentary invaluable as they search for new ways to marry scripture to today’s world. Individuals will see application in their own lives and spiritual journeys.

If the rest of this series can be predicted upon the basis of this opening publication, then we are in for a rich treat indeed. You may indeed want to consider the entire series, as it comes out. I have barely begun Luke, and I can already see that it carries on the fine standards established in the first offering. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up. You won’t be sorry.

Ho, Ho, Ho, Witchy Poo is Back!

Tags

Advent, bible, birthers, Christine O'Donnell, Christmas, Frankincense, fundamentalists, Genesis, GOP, Jesus, Michael Steele

She learned at the knee of the Wasilla Wombat. She learned that when the electorate rejects ya, get up, dust yourself off, and keep on yappin’. You will surely find enough poor souls to pay your way.

So Christine O’Donnell, finding the cupboard most bare, formed a PAC and, now her bills taken care of, she can utter profound (in her ditzy mind) quips, and otherwise try to interject herself into adult conversations.

Not content to get two of the top ten quotes of the year, she’s after more. She’s in a friendly race with sista Sarah to be both the most obnoxious, won’t go away buffoon and the biggest butcher of the English language to date.

If enough isn’t being said about the tax bill being decided Ms. Chatty Christie has weighed in. Of course she’s all for the Bush tax cuts being extended and she hates all the stuff for those in economic free fall. According to the non-witchy one, tragedies come in threes–Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards death, and now these confounded extensions of unemployment benefits. She then tried to explain what THAT meant, and of course failed. Halloween can’t return fast enough.

***

You and I are much alike. Therefore, I feel confident that you too have spent countless hours? maybe even days, wondering what the hell frankincense  is or was. Given the season, well, I went a lookin’ for an answer for us both.

I tried Senator Franken, but he demurred, pointing out that there is an “e” after the K in his name, not an “i” as in frankincense. So I figured Slate would have the answer, and they did. Read all about it here, and surprise friends and family with your new-found sparkling intellect.

***

I think a lot like Keith Olbermann I guess. At least two of his items from last night’s show were links on my blog. We, meaning me and he and his researchers must be reading some of the same bloggers online. That’s comforting to me. And of course, you can know that you’re getting the “best” when you come here. *snicker* and “toot”.

***

It appears that Michael, I’m da black man in the Repiglians world, Steele, has decided to give it another go round. Shocking all the Repoopers with the news he was not gonna go “quietly into the night” he threw his hat in the ring to be the paper tiger in the GOP once again.

Now this pissed off tons of the GOP regulars, since they thought that two years was enough to prove they aren’t the bigots everybody says they are. They were tired of Mr. Steele’s general stupidity, hoof and mouth disease, and all around big spender attitude.

Ain’t it just fun watching the GOP fracture along so many different lines?

***

Let those with brains, think. We, with regularity, point out that fundigelicals are guilty mostly of reading biblical texts in a manner that supports their own needs and general beliefs about the world. They accept as literal those things that seem right to them anyway, and reject/ignore/explain away other quite direct statements when they cut against their needs and beliefs.

A provocative post at Biologos explains how early Jewish theologians were pained to clothe Adam and Eve, to protect their ideas of cultural “rightness” in their day. Indeed, we are all subject to that influence. Read, Genesis, Creation and Ancient Interpreters: Adam and Eve’s Nakedness.

***

If you just want to read something sweet and uplifting and well, Christmasy, then read Five String Guitar’s post about he and his wife’s latest Christmas shopping trip. It will warm your heart! Try it!

***

Hold onto your shorts folks. I have a major announcement to make! I do not DO NOT DO NOT have an opinion on the Julian Assange/Wikileaks affair. Nope, I surely don’t. Stand by: I may have one tomorrow. But so far, I don’t.

***

Take a look at this face, and if you ever see it, you will be looking into the face of a modern medical miracle. This man can actually walk and speak.

This buffoon, a Lt. Col. in the Army just pled guilty at his court-martial and faces eighteen months in prison, all because he refused to go to Afghanistan because the President is not a citizen and thus cannot legally give such an order.

What is worse, he was not ordered to Afghanistan but VOLUNTEERED, just to force this case. It is simply stunningly amazing that anyone can be this stupid, and be a surgeon.

Do not, repeat, do not, allow this man near you with a scalpel. No doubt his medical licence is also at risk due to his felony conviction.

***

The Contrarian is installing plastic sheeting over the bay windows in the living room. Plenty of naughty words are emanating from there. I am not going out there to see. The cats have all gone into hiding. Brandy wouldn’t come up the steps again, the rain/slush/snow had her carpet all frozen up and slick. So now there are towels down, until it warms enough to de-ice. This is all no big deal, except when it’s 4 below zero and 2:30 am and you are out there begging and pleading with her to “try.”

***

What’s on the stove today?  Tostados! Hurrah.

Related Articles

• Christine O’Donnell: unemployment benefits deal a ‘tragedy’…like Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Christine O’Donnell: Pearl Harbor, Unemployment Benefits Extension Both ‘Tragedies’ (huffingtonpost.com)