Self-Serving Interpretations

Tags

Christianists, David Barton, Enlightenment, fundamentalism, John Locke, Matthew, minimum wage, religious right, Rousseau, Vineyard owner

I haven’t posted much here lately of a religious nature. And I usually describe this blog as part political commentary and part religious commentary.

Yet, I’ve been sensitive (probably too much so) to the fact that a good many of my readers are either agnostics or atheists and have little or no interest in things spiritual.

But, of late, I’ve been thinking hard about David Barton and his awful pretense of “historical” revising. We all know of course, his proclivity to proclaim that America was “founded on Christian principles.” While we agree that most of the Founding Fathers were Christian in some form or another, it is equally clear that the dangers of a religious-political union were well-known from history and there was a deliberate determination to not allow that unholy alliance to be the government of the new nation.

Barton, who has a BA from Oral Roberts University (which tells you a lot in and of itself) in religious education, has the temerity to hold himself out as “expert on historical and constitutional issues.” What he actually does, is cherry pick statements from historical documents and the bible and create a web of arguments that favor his view–that America is meant to be a nation ruled by Christian principles (supposedly as defined by him and others who agree with his fundamentalist notions).

Ironically, the Founding Fathers were steeped in exactly the opposite philosophy. The long history of the Roman Church and its marriage with the kings of Europe served an object lesson in how not to govern. Moreover, the FF were men of the Enlightenment, and any high school student in the US knows that they were deeply influenced by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, both Enlightenment thinkers, who posited that man was more than capable of learning the secrets of nature and governing himself. One’s personal belief in a deity, was just that, personal.

One of the dangers of people like Barton is that they use their “talents” to create a history that favors their agenda and that of the party they affiliate with. In this case, Barton provides the “philosophical” underpinnings to the Republican notions of free market economies unfettered from regulation of any kind. In other words, toss out all the anti-trust, anti-child labor, minimum wage, safe working conditions legislation. This is God’s will.

Of particular interest to me as of late is the continuing claim that “Jesus opposed the minimum wage.” Setting aside for a moment the obvious idiocy of this, since there is no reference to “minimum wage” in the bible, let us examine the crux of the argument.

Most often cited in this discussion is Matthew 20: 1-16. In this parable, a wealthy vineyard owner seeks day workers for his fields. In the morning he finds some and agrees to a wage, and sends them out. At noon, some more are found, and they too are sent to the fields. Late in the work day, a few more are found and sent for a hour’s work.

As the men line up for payment, those who worked a full day are chagrined to see that the owner is paying those who worked only an hour the same wage as those who worked a full day. They complain. The vineyard owner points out that they agreed to their wage before they began working. What is it to them how he deals with others? And here is the phrase that the Christianists hang their hat on:

“Have I no right to do what I like with my own?”

To the so-called Christian who wants to protect his/her own wallet, more lovely words were never spoken. Why God says that a business owner has the right to do with his money as he wishes! The government has no right to order them to pay people any set sum of money!

Such greedy and selfish people virtually ignore the obvious point Jesus makes, and see nothing but that one sentence; that along with various verses strewn throughout the psalms and scriptures which talk about not placing undue emphasis on wealth. (Except the wealthy I guess did place a lot of emphasis on money in order to become so.)

This is then married to the “Jesus never said that Rome should care for the poor” and “it’s the job of charitable works to take care of the poor” (the poor being those people we conclude are deserving). There you have it. A perfectly constructed argument that allows “Christians” to keep their money in their pockets and the government out of social safety-nets. (An amazingly high percentage of these fools do take their Social Security and Medicare when they reach retirement. Shocking isn’t it?)

Actually the clear import of the parable is this: The vineowner was a good man. He recognized that all those who worked for him that day had to eat and probably had families they had to feed. He had no idea what may have prevented the later arrivals from getting to the town square earlier. Who knows how far they traveled to seek work?

He provided a decent wage to all who worked because they had themselves and their families to support. He recognized the need to make sure that all were cared for. If you struck an agreed-upon bargain, what was it to you if the owner struck more favorable bargains with others? The implication is, that the long-day workers were the greedy ones! They wanted more if the owner was paying the latest workers a “living” wage.

This is the kind of thing that fundamentalists do with scripture, twisting and dishonoring it in order to serve their personal desires. And of course, in doing so, they dishonor God, the Bible, and other Christians.

And sad to say, Barton continues to be the darling of the likes of Bachmann, Huckabee and Gingrich and others who play to the fears and greed of the “religious right.” 

Related articles

• Liars for Jesus: Exposing David Barton and Other Revisionists (atheistrev.com)
• GOP’s Favorite Fake Historian Spins The New York Times (alternet.org)
• Lying: A Virtue (aafwaterloo.wordpress.com)
• David Barton Claims Founding Fathers Debated Creation/Evolution (jonathanturley.org)

Fa La La La La and All that Stuff

Tags

chimpanzees, culture, evolution, Jesus, Mad Men, Matthew, Nativity, Poetry, weird hobbies

Last night was the longest night of the year, the shortest day. We had an eclipse that I didn’t see because of cloud cover. It’s only four days until Christmas. The Baby Jesus is coming! Since I’ve got all I need for a cozy holiday, I don’t give a flying fig newton if it snows us in.

For all these reasons, I’m not gonna talk about any of the repulsive, idiotic, evil, buffoons in Congress and elsewhere, until after December 25. We are gonna focus on funny, sweet, interesting, mind-opening, items that enrich, enliven, and empower. Promise.

But come, December 26, well we will be our old snarky self. Count on it.

Now to actually find some nice news.

I know I posted a book review yesterday. You’ll probably want to pick this one up too: It’s called Swallow and would make a great coffee table book, guaranteed to start a lively conversation.

Proving that there is a hobby out there for everyone, one Dr. Chevalier Jackson, began collecting items that he had removed from the bodies of his patients. Umbrella tips, opera glasses and padlocks. There are stories galore of people with strange desires to ingest all manner of bizarre “things.” Mary Cappello tells the tale I am told, with wit and aplomb. Take a look if you can swallow that kind of thing :O

***

Every parent knows that children, both boys and girls, attempt to emulate their parents and parent themselves. They use pets, and dolls mostly.

Well it turns out that chimp youngsters, especially girl chimps try to do the same. They carry sticks around, cradling them, and other wise mimicking the “mothering” behaviors of their moms. Although in chimp society, females do most of the child care activities, even a boy or two has been seen caring for his stick. (Don’t you dare go there!)

Which just goes to show, that girl apes are really just chimps off the same block. :O

***

Namelessneed is one of those real poets. You know what I mean. The kind of stuff I can’t write, but wish I could. You should always pay attention to such people because they touch you in the most unexpected ways. Go read W O R D M A T H S because I said so.

***

Some families read Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus, as a Christmas Eve ritual. They mostly don’t read the opening part, with  all that genealogy stuff. Boring you know. Tim, at Straight-Friendly, shows us why we should read it, and what lessons we can learn from it. If you don’t read Tim regularly, you’re, well, missing more than you know.

***

Do you miss Mad Men?  I do. Awfully bad. Really. Big Think has an article on it and why it’s still the best of the best.The message speaks volumes to our lives today. I wouldn’t argue with that assessment. Funny I should, since I have about as low an opinion as one can get of Ad men. I mean they are creatures of some other planet. I guess, their excesses, portrayed so elegantly on the show, are a lesson to us, one we should look at seriously.

What is my bitch with Madison Avenue you ask?   It’s that  their ads never bespeak a world that is actually real. Case in point.

There are, at this time of years, innumerable ads urging us to go out and buy cars as gifts! wrapping them up in big bows and surprising our beloved with their favorite brand. Except, that 99.9 percentages of us cannot afford to do this. Do they really thing the .01 percent who can watch television? Somehow, I rather doubt. it.

***

What’s on the stove: t-bones with baked potatoes/sour cream and cauliflower with cheddar cheese.

Is Anyone the Wiser?

Tags

bible, Corinthians, God, Jesus, Matthew, parables, Paul, Talents, truth, wisdom

I’m often befuddled by why the certain scriptures are joined together in the daily and Sunday readings. I often do not see the fit.

Today, for better or worse, I do. Beware: I know not what this may mean. Either I’ve been enlightened, or what passes next will be worthless.

In the first reading, Paul speaks to the Corinthians: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; . . .” 1Cor.1:27.

There are many other instances where Paul, the psalmists, and others enjoin us to set aside our worldly wisdom and pride and listen to the Lord. Jesus himself did as well.

Now the fundogelicals (coined by Grumpy Lion), would have us believe that higher education and all that “fancy” learnin’ is being condemned here, and God is really telling us that the common average person need only read the actual words of his book, and receive the perfect truth unto all things.

But I don’t think that is what Paul or any of the others is really saying. And I believe the attached Gospel reading informs us as to the true meaning.

In Matthew 25: 14-30, Jesus tells the parable of the Talents. In the story, the Master, going on a trip, parcels out his wealth among his servants to care for. He gives no instructions, but gives the largest amount to the most competent, giving only one talent to the third, and apparently, least competent of his servants.

The first two servants take the Talents given them and invest them, by trading. The third, fearful of losing the Master’s money buries his Talent for safekeeping. We don’t know what kind of speculation and risk the first two ran, only that they were successful in doubling what had been given them. But the risk appears to have been certain.

The Master receives his servants and is pleased with the first two, and outraged at the third who exclaims that knowing the Master to be harsh and one who by apparent quick wits is able to make money without any work, has thus hid his one  Talent without risking anything.

I have often been puzzled by this parable. Certainly I see that Jesus is saying that God is sending out servants to do the work of conversion and bringing the people to God. The third, fearful of God’s wrath, doesn’t “preach” to anyone, but only remains “secure” in his own salvation. This I get.

But the story seems not the way of the world, not how we would expect the Master to respond. Why does he congratulate those who took his money and risked losing it, and condemn the one who protected his funds?

This is what Paul is referring to. Jesus upsets our standard thinking. The way of the wise, in the world, would praise the third servant for protecting the assets of his Master. But God wants us to risk ourselves because only in doing so do we really gain our salvation. It is by risking ourselves for the sake of others that pleases God.

We are taught that the lessons of God are not the lessons of the world, and are framed in ways that jar and upset us. They make us think!

This is no denigration of learning or conventional wisdom. God has no desire that we remain in caves living simple hunter-gatherer lives. He gave us marvelous minds and he wishes us to use them. We are to discover electricity, the uses of the atom, the live-saving properties of plants. We are to learn the methodology of how live evolved upon this planet.

All this is good and proper. All this can enrich life and make it better for all.

But, only if, IF we remember that God’s wisdom is quite another thing. God has no need of wisdom about thermodynamics or string theory. He knows the ways of His universe all too well. His wisdom is “other” and is at odds with our world of logic and induction and deduction.

This is why Jesus’ parables are always difficult. They cut across the grain of our sensibilities and alert us that important stuff is about to come. We cannot dismiss the seeming illogic of the parable of the talents because it was told by our Lord, and thus we must ponder and think it out, and realize the hidden truth.

The truth is not made obvious, because superficial acknowledgement is not true faith. Faith requires time and attention. If we seriously love, we seriously spend time thinking about God and what he would have us do.

If we seriously love God, then we seriously love each other, and we seriously do our important brainy things with the good of all in mind. We turn our considerable mind talents to increase the betterment of life for all God’s creatures, the good, the bad, the gifted, the simple, the eager, the lazy, the old and the young. For great and small, we prepare and risk ourselves in doing our best to express our love through our works.

And thus, we are able to proclaim as Paul does “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Plain Meaning?

Tags

bible, ethics, Jesus, love, Matthew, violence

Today’s Gospel is Matthew 10:34-39. To those who are deeply trained in biblical scholarship and know the difficulties of interpretation, this passage brings shudders.

Shudders, because in the hands of those who believe that there is such a thing as “plain meaning” much evil can be wrought from it.

I had no desire to tackle this passage myself, but unfortunately apparently I am supposed to, since I read an article in a theological journal this morning on Christian ethics and integrity and authenticity, and, well, this passage simply makes the point so well.

So you see, I really had no choice. I’m learning that being hit over the head once is sufficient, thanks be to God!

If we are to live an ethical life, the writer argues, then consistency is called for. He claims a couple of ways of looking at it. First there is the “purity” paradigm wherein the person claims a dominate value (loving God) and subsumes all of life’s decisions to it. The other is called the integrity paradigm and reflects a coherence among all life’s capacities and needs coming to unity in a richness of existence. ¹

It is a bit technical but what I think the author gets at is the idea that we can become quite rigid under the purity paradigm. We get caught up defining what constitutes proper “love of God” by how ever we interpret that to mean, and by what means we use to determine it. Biblical literalists would obviously see it differently than a social justice progressive.

Along comes Jesus, telling us that:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

We are headed for trouble here. The literalist can easily in his “plain meaning” mode, suggest that Jesus here endorses violence to attain the ends he promotes. Certainly those demented souls who shoot doctors who perform abortions, so read the passage. Loving God means upholding their interpretation of what God wants. They must wield the sword.

But as we say again and again, context is everything here. First of all, read the entire chapter. If you do, you will see that Jesus is telling his disciples what they will encounter in spreading the message. He sends them out to do good words and to preach the message of love, hope and repentence. But he warns them that they will not always be met with friendship and welcoming.

The Word is a sword, calling forth extraordinary effort that some are unwilling to make. To these the disciples are admonished to leave those towns “shaking the dust from your sandals.” They are not told to beat unbelievers into submission or to stone them. Hardly are they told to take up sword against them.

No, Jesus, merely reminds them that the Gospel message, though one of hope and joy is also a difficult one to live by, and there are powers who will find it in opposition to their lives of greed and priviledge.

So difficult is this, that entire households will be split between those that will come unto them and those that won’t. They are not to fear, for God is with them and will protect them.

If indeed families split over his teachings, then let it be so. For love of God does comes first, or should. But indeed, remember, it is following Jesus that is the way to show that love of God. And Jesus message is always about healing, forgiveness, love, and hope. There are simply too many references to Jesus’ admonishment of violence as not the “way” to think otherwise.

When Jesus says at the end,

Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

he does not speak, in my opinion of martyrdom so much as he tells us that we only think we have life. Until we are willing to risk all for love and justice and our neighbor, we have no real life, only a shadow ephemeral life. When we are willing to set that aside, and offer our lives fully to other, then we will finally gain our real life in God.

The cross is not suffering on behalf of Jesus or God. Rather it is the willingness to actuate love in all circumstances, regardless of consequences. We find love at the center of all things. We support and congratulate love. We celebrate it in each other without reference to status, gender, orientation, or any other human thing. For God made all to his good desire.

That is the sword–the sword of radical love-that will one day be beat into a plowshare when all bend the knee of the heart and confess that God is where we each and every one of us move and have our being.

Amen.

———

Footnote

1. Schweiker, William, Consistency and Christian Ethics, The Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 90, #3, Summer 2008, pg. 567.

What are Your Talents?

Tags

biblical essay, God, Matthew, religion

The Gospel parable in today’s readings is from Matthew 25:14-30. It is one that has always troubled me, which is not saying a great deal, since many of them do. I often read parables and have difficulty relating to them. Jesus, of course, does allude to the fact that the parables are not always simple in their meaning. How much worse then for those of us in the 21st century?

The common theory is that in understanding parables, it is often helpful to know something about the times in which they were written. Some, become clear when you learn the life styles in play during the time of Jesus and his followers. Some, however, don’t seem to give clarity with this fact alone. This is one of them.

As you remember, this is the parable about the talents. A master, going on a trip, gives to his slaves certain of his funds for safekeeping. Five talents to one, two to another and one to another. (This itself is weird no? Who gives their valuables to slaves for safekeeping?) But no matter. Let us continue.

Upon returning, the slave given 5 talents has traded the talents and in the end, doubled the value. The slave given 2 talents, also doubles his. The third, fearing the master’s wrath should he fail in his investments, decides to bury his and returns the one talent to the master.

Now, I recall the first time I read this. My first reaction was that the first two would get in much trouble for risking the masters money, and might well be chastised even though they had succeeded in making more money. I thought the third would be praised for protecting the master’s money. As you know, I was exactly wrong. Nay, the first two are highly praised and the third vilified and thrown out on his ear.

Somehow, it seems that we are being told that greed is good but that careful prudence is punishable. What gives? Today I got a very good answer, or at least a way of looking at this parable in a way that makes sense for today. Perhaps it is not at all what Jesus meant, but I think it hits the mark in explaining why a master would react as he did.

Consider that the talents are not money, but gifts of love. Now this makes so much sense doesn’t it? If you are generously gifted with love by God, are you better to hoard it, bury it and keep it or are you better off investing it, trading it around, offering it? Using love by offering love, usually does return love to the giver in increasing amounts, far in excess of that which was originally given.

Any parent knows this only too well. No matter how many children, the heart seems to always have enough for another. Pet lovers can tell you the same. Love used, by being offered to others, multiplies a hundredfold. If we consider the Master to be God, his gifting us with love (blessings) bear the most fruit when we turn and give that gift to another. We are not pleasing God by hoarding our blessings, enjoying them solely to ourselves.

I am indebted to one of our congregation who gave the sermon today. She was speaking of her experiences in Swaziland, our sister parish. She saw first hand how the giving of self increased the blessings to the giver so very greatly. She learned first hand the truism that every one who volunteers seems to echo, “I received ever so much more than I gave.”

As with the master and his talents, to those who have, more will be given. I like that. As I prepare to enter into my ministry whatever that turns out to be in the end, I trust that in doing it, I shall be the bigger beneficiary. That is not a reason to engage in the work, but it is a lovely benefit I think. God is smart like that.

Here I Am Lord

Tags

bible, Episcopalian, Exodus, Matthew, Roman Catholic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I was a Roman Catholic, and was convinced that my serving was through becoming a sister in the Dominican order, one of my favorite, no, not one of, but my favorite hymn was one called “Here I am Lord.” I think there are a couple that go by that name, but this one went something like, “here I am Lord, I have heard you calling in the night. If you call me, I will follow, I will lead your people. . . .” or something to that effect. It was the only hymn that would drive me directly to tears, for I felt that in offering myself to the convent I was in effect following.

The gospel passage that speaks of giving away all that one has and following Jesus, was and is connected to that hymn to me. It broadsided me I guess you could say the first time I remember actually reading it as a Christian. It frightened me, and at the same time compelled me to look deeply at my life and where I was going.

If you read the bible often, you will no doubt realize that throughout the Old Testament particularly, when God spoke directly to humans, they always, always responded with “Here I am Lord.” I always thought it a bit funny, given that God clearly knew where they were, a simple, “Yes?” would have been sufficient. But it seems the writers who wrote of these encounters with God always saw a sense in the recipient of readiness for service that the phrase seems also to convey.

In the OT reading today, Moses responds to God’s call of him from the burning bush with “here I am, Lord.” Oh indeed I suspect that at least initially Moses wished he hadn’t since God had a great deal in store for Moses, much of which he wanted no part of.  Mostly Moses felt inadequate to the tasks set before him. Yet, of course, God supplies us with what we need, when we need it. According to a Midrash comment about Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, the Midrash writer says that God did not part the sea when Moses raised his staff. No, not until Moses, in faith stepped forward did he do that. (I am stealing shamelessly from our Priest, Barbara today, who taught us this.)

And in the Gospel reading from Matthew today, Jesus tells us that we must lose our lives to save them. To become his follower, we must take up our cross and follow.  And it seems to me the message is clear. God will be there to both sustain our journey and will provide us what we need when we need it. All else may be quite mystery to us. We may know almost no details, we may not know the purpose nor the end. We need only have that faith that sustains and upholds and provides as needed to continue. The cross is the fearless going forth in the following, not having any assurance as to the destination or the means by which it will be attained. And of course, it also means it may be done against the good wishes of many or most of our friends, family or even strangers.

Therein of course lies the rub. Just how do we discern when we are following the call of God, and when are we merely allowing our own preferences to slyly dictate a subconsciously chosen path? I confess I have no real clue. I can say easily that it is a intuitive thing, a deep feeling, one that seems, feels, right. But truthfully, “entering the convent” seemed the intuitively right thing to do at the time.  Similarly, moving from Roman Catholicism to Anglican Episcopalianism seems the right thing to do as well right now.

I have turned this over a bit in my head lately and while I don’t have clear unrefutable answers, I think I many have a clue or two. I came from no faith at all, and with exposure pretty much only to Roman Catholicism as a child. It defined my concept of church. I don’t think it is possible that I would have entered the arena of “church” unless it had been Roman Catholic. So I can but think that God accepted me where I was and saw this as a beginning.

Now with a more mature outlook, having spend years trying to reconcile my faith, my Church, and my deeply abiding personal views about a whole range of social issues, I have come to see that I must release that “childish” adoption for a more mature one.

Now I in no way claim that adherence to the Roman faith is childish. But my reasons for adhering to it were in a sense based on childish misunderstanding of what constituted “Church” in the first instance. I have no bad feelings against the Roman Catholic faith, none whatsoever really. I just realize that is not for me. It does not fit my mind and heart. And a religion should do that it seems to me. And no I don’t mean that churches should be “feel good” places either. But I do mean that we, each of us, is like a puzzle piece looking for our place in the picture.

We must, it seems to me, find a place where doctrine, ritual and congregation intersect in a mutually rational way for us. I met with the assistant rector of my church last week. She said to me, that as much as she worked for interfaith dialogue, we put too much emphasis on establishing agreement on all kinds of doctrinal issues. There is nothing so very wrong about envisioning God and/or Jesus in multiple ways. What is important is that we respond to the call of service to our neighbor. That should come first, and in that I think she is very right.

Rome spends a lot of time working, so they tell me, to collect all of us back into the fold. I suspect it will never happen. And I suspect God is quite happy about the arrangements we have now. More than likely, not a single one of us with our massive or not so massive denominations behind us, is totally right. We each bring threads of “getting God” to the table. The sad thing is that instead of creating a tapestry, we try to get everyone to agree to dye all the threads the same color.

So I see myself mostly as just another fellow traveler, climbing the mountain, meeting lots of different folks along the way. Some crossing my path, some traveling with me, others along a parallel or angled path to mine. Some no doubt are confusedly backtracking.  I have, at least for now, found a community of fellow travelers who seem to see the world as I see, and who see God’s call the way I do. So I’m not traveling alone right now.  I’m in fact having a joyous time. God seems closer than he has in a very long time for me.

While I could say, that this is me now, and that five, ten years from now, I might be some place else, I just don’t know. I tend to think my present Episcopal Church is broad enough, wherein I can lie with ease for all my years to come. I guess, it seems a church which continually calls itself to examine and re-examine itself. And that to me is essential. Times change, and God has new and previously unknown challenges for us.

In the end, I’m not sure that there is more that any of us can do than our best. I am here, Lord. I am doing my best, trying to discern your will, trying to uphold your will, and please you. Here I am Lord.