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.”

And What of Tomorrow?

Tags

ascension, Inspirational, Jesus, Paul, religion, social justice

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded of you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (MT 28:19-20 NRSV)

Today, most Christians mark the ascension of Jesus into heaven, the formal end of his time upon earth in human form.

And, as should be, we ponder the meaning of his words. It should I hope cause us to ask ourselves some questions, one’s that will help define what we have done, and what we should do, should those two be different.

Ironically, in our Adult Ed class last Sunday, we viewed a piece on the “Lives of Jesus” in the Living the Questions series. Yes, lives, not life. For first and foremost, we each define Jesus for ourselves. We all do this, even atheists, since they presumably have some concept of what they reject I would think. And it must be apparent to all, that we do not all vision Him in the same way.

During that class we were asked what I think is a profound question, and one that fits perfectly with this most holy of days. It asked: If Jesus were to return today, what would he make of what we had made him into and what we have perpetrated, and are doing, in his name?

And the two questions seem to dovetail so perfectly. What have we made of this Jesus, this man who lived for a few brief years in the dusty back roads of Palestine? And given what we believe about him, what are we doing, as his followers to respond to his call in Matthew?

I read just a day or so ago, and then lost the location of the article, that one of the reasons that the ultra right Christian doesn’t feel compelled to social justice issues, is that they see Jesus almost entirely as Savior and Redeemer. In other words, the see salvation as the message. It is one’s personal future that is answered for them in the Gospels. Insofar as Jesus spoke about the poor and so forth, was merely to illustrate that even they (the greatest sinners presumably) could find salvation. Beyond that, the message of “social justice” was a personal call for individuals to be charitable.

I can attest that at least one person has defined it so to me as well, so I think this analysis may have some weight.

The more mainstream Christian, however, cannot avoid that mostly what Jesus had to say, (as opposed to what is said about him) dealt with his inclusion of the marginalized in  the world, and our collective responsibility as community to include and care for them.

Part of the problem, I suspect is that the evangelical right often stresses everything but the Gospels. Fully half of the New Testament is of course comprised of Pauline writings. Sadly, this group doesn’t differentiate, as  do the vast majority of scholars and believers, between the seven affirmed writings and the rest, who are either clearly not Pauline in origin, or highly dubious at best.

But Paul tells us “about” Jesus, and, through his understanding of what he has learned of what Jesus said, or through private revelation, he tells us how to BE saved. This is the kind of stuff that the religious right can get their teeth into, and indeed they do. Timothy I and II are cited frequently for propositions that place people in their proper slots in life. Unfortunately Timothy is almost assuredly not Pauline in authorship, and in fact may well have been written to “walk back” Pauline doctrine viewed in later years as too subversive to stand.

But the Gospels, are replete, from beginning to end with what Jesus purportedly said. And there is no question that he was indeed subversive. Subversive of politics of the day, and of social arrangements. He told us to forgive our enemies, and he didn’t mean just giving lip service to it. He told us to sell off our hard won “goods” and go and serve the poor and spread the message that God’s kingdom was here and now, and they were included. He made it clear that Mary had the better part in not serving but in learning, and learning is the first step to teaching. He spoke and dined with harlots and the unclean.

I come not to denigrate Paul, for I think properly read, Paul saw the message well, and he seemed in his authentic writings to tear down the artificial barriers between men and women, rich and poor, slave and free. Still, he focused on personally being “right” with God, from advice to the married and unmarried, and to our relationship to “good works.”

What indeed would Jesus make of what we have made of him? I can only speculate of course, as we all do. I approach the question through the portrait of Jesus that I have created from the bible, from non-canonical writings, and from a plethora of scholarly experts who have studied these issues in a depth I can but barely approach.

But I can’t help thinking that Jesus would be sad mostly. Sad that people actually deliberately murder in his name, and that they would willingly deny access to medical treatment to those who are “undeserving.” Sad that they invoke him for every petty personal desire or conclusion that they in their selfish minds can concoct.

So what of tomorrow? How am I different today in how I reflect upon my responsibility to go among the nations and teach what I have learned? I can only conclude that my mission remains to speak truth as best I know it. Always truth. Now that means not that I actually succeed. I may well be wrong in much, but my heart must honestly seek truth and relate truth as I believe it to be.

This is what I believe to day.

**

Much thanks to Tim at Straight-Friendly who provoked this post, and do  read his ascension post today, here.

A poem:

Man with God is on the Throne

Why Church, (Part II)

Tags

bible, church, doctrine, fundamentalists, God, Jesus, New Testament, Paul, preaching, teaching, theology

Today, we look at the New Testament in pursuit of understanding the place of teaching and church within Christianity according to the Bible.

If taken, literally, of course, it is clear that Jesus spoke directly when he told Peter that “upon this rock I will build my church.” Of course that has been open to lots of interpretation, from being taken quite literally, as does the Roman Catholic Church, to those who claim that “church” refers to the body of the believers wherever they might be.

I, however, do not take it that Jesus said this at all, rather I agree with most experts, that it was a later addition made to the text reflecting and giving orthodoxy to a fledgling body of Jesus following “churches.” There is plenty of evidence within the texts to substantiate this conclusion.

Jesus during his ministry, from the age of twelve on, taught in the synagogue and Temple. At no time did he reject it in favor of organizing some other forum. At no time did he reject Judaism. Moreover, up until his crucifixion, he quite obviously still followed the holy days of Judaism, including the Passover meal. So Jesus both upheld the idea of organized faith community as the norm, he also by his very being, upheld the office of “teacher.”

Jesus as the itinerant preacher was not unusual in his day. He in fact did what other rabbis of his day did, traveling in the company of students, and depending on the largess and hospitality of local homes for rest and food along the way. In return, as he taught, all were welcome to listen, not just the students (apostles) who accompanied him.

Additionally, he send forth those he taught to teach others. Paul of course followed in this tradition, and dispersed with other apostles to teach the Gospel through the land. It is little mentioned but the means by which Paul did this is telling.

Paul for the most part, entered towns and metropolises and began his teachings about Jesus in the synagogues. One may ask why, if indeed he was preacher to the Gentiles. The reason that Marcus Borg and J. Dominic Crossan put forth, is that Paul in fact didn’t take his case to the Gentiles as such, but to a special type of Gentile, “God followers.” These were Gentiles who supported the Jewish faith, and attended the synagogue, many in transition to joining the Jewish faith.

This conclusion, of course, explains a lot. It explains the use of Torah in Paul’s letters of education and teaching to Gentiles in the cities where he had set up churches. How would Gentiles have understood his Torah references if in fact they were not reasonably well versed in the Torah to begin with? It also explains in part the dispute that arose between Paul’s outlying churches and Jerusalem, and the famous meeting to sort out theological differences. This event speaks directly to the idea that doctrine mattered and people were not free to “go it alone” and teach their own version of either Torah or the Way.

The other point that is clear is that followers of the Way, continued to practice as members of the Jewish faith. This bolsters the idea that they had no impression that Jesus had started any new church, they were in fact “dissenters” in a sense within Judaism, arguing that Jesus as in fact the long awaited Jewish messiah. They in fact remained within the Jewish faith until formerly removed by the Jews themselves sometime after 70 CE.

Paul’s letters testify by their very existence that people were expected to listen to experts in the faith and accept those teachings. Self-interpretations were the very cause of Paul having to write to Corinth, Philippi, and so forth, to correct confusions that were resulting from multiple interpretations. Paul replies again and again, that the people should be relying on those Paul left in his stead to teach and preach. They had the correct doctrine, others did not.

Of course, the various letters and so forth, written by Paul and those speaking on his behalf, testify additionally that church structure was coming into play. Deacons were made as were elders. Although, as is clear in the authentic Pauline corpus, worship was still coming via the local synagogue, as time went on, the house churches became more and more viable as entities themselves.

Paul claimed direct revelation from Christ himself. Clearly he did not believe that Christ had objections to church nor to authoritative preaching. Paul certainly continued in that vein, as did all the writers, right up to Revelation, which of course addresses the various churches directly, giving clear evidence that they were the norm.

All the writings in the New Testament are essentially preaching devices, meant to claim the right to be definitive as dogmatic theology to their hearers and readers. As it became necessary to some to combat the voices of the Ebionites and Essenes, later material, now within the canon, carried clearer and clearer references to authoritative church hierarchy. There were multiple teachings, and in some cases, that which today we refer to as “heretical” was in fact the majority opinion in some areas. The resultant church more and more argued that only it, was unbroken in line from Christ, only it had the true and definitive teaching. Once declared the winner of the theological wars, they stamped out all others as heretical.

From this, I think the evidence again is most clear. Not only was church as a physical entity envisioned by Christ and his early followers, so was the concept of learning at the feet of those who were “experts” in the subject matter. So far, I find no basis for concluding that the unchurched self-interpreter can find any biblical basis for their position.

Tomorrow: What church today has to offer: trinity and teaching.

The First Paul

Tags

bible, Book Reviews, Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, New Testament, Paul

I mentioned a few days ago, that one of the reasons why my book reviews tend to be favorable, is that I don’t ask for books that I truly don’t care about. I ask for the ones I’m dying to read.

Those of you who know me, know that I am a huge fan of Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, so you can assume I was utterly delighted when HarperOne sent me their latest for review.

I can tell you hands down, this book doesn’t disappoint, rather it exceeded my expectations in ways I had not expected.

They start out by echoing my own conclusion, that Jesus never intended to start a new church, he was and remained to the end a Jew, working to reform Judaism. Paul, so Borg and Crossan claim, was of the same general opinion.

It comes as no surprise to any general student of the Bible, that there has been for a long time quite a number of scholars who contend that not all of Paul’s attributed writings are in fact his. This is the stated premise of this book as well, but they break down the entire corpus of “Paul” into the authentic letters (those everyone agrees are Paul’s) as “revolutionary  Paul,” the disputed letters (those where the jury is still out) as “conservative Paul,” and those that are simply not Paul’s (those where the majority believes they are not Pauline) as “reactionary Paul.”

Viewed this way, Paul’s theology becomes entirely intelligible. And Paul was, as they contend, exceptionally revolutionary in his thinking, echoing the Jesus he met in mystical visions. Referring to the “authentic Paul” as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon, we see the radical Paul who really meant what he said when he declared that all were equal, whether Jew or Gentile, slave or master, male or female.

Paul juxtaposed the teachings of Jesus and “The Way,” as radical departures from life as usual. Wherein the Roman Empire expressed the world as Emperor as Savior and Son of God, leading to war as a means to achieve victory and thus peace, Paul deliberately again and again declared that this world view was wrong. He submitted that Jesus was Savior, Son of God, which led to nonviolent love,  leading to justice and peace. This was “The Way.” Paul was in every sense a traitor to the Empire, supplanting Emperor with Jesus.

Borg and Crossan take us carefully through an analysis that shows that the later pseudo-Pauline texts were written by probable disciples of Paul. They either misunderstood his radical vision and thus Jesus’ too, or they were deliberate in their determination to “correct” Paul’s faulty upsetting of the patriarchal applecart. As we move into Timothy of course, we find the horrifying references that so anger women, wherein they are told to remain quiet, and to take their questions to husbands. Categorically they are denied the right to teach, which is in utter contradiction of what we find in the authentic letters where we find Phoebe a deacon, and Junia, an apostle. (note that Junia remained as she was,  female, for centuries before being “masculinized” to agree with Church teaching.)

As an example of how for instance, Paul understands slavery, the authors delve deeply and thoroughly into Philemon. Step by step, line by line, they explain Paul’s letter to Philemon, and by the end, we see that poor Philemon has little choice but to do his Christian duty as Paul has outlined it, and free the slave Onesimus. This is in keeping with Paul’s theology that all are equal before God.

Following this, Borg and Crossan show us how this doctrine of equality was eroded in Colossians and Ephesians, where slaves are now advised to be obedient to their masters. There is no longer talk of equality. Finally, we move to the reactionary “Paul” of Titus, where slaves are admonished to be “submissive.” The return to norm has now become complete, we have come full circle and are back in the world of Rome. These were the verses used in the South by Christian masters to justify slavery in America.

Concentrating on those seven authentic books, the authors turn to Paul’s use of the cross, and what he meant by it.  As they see it, Paul was not addressing the afterlife effect of the cross, but rather how we live as Christians, as participants with Christ. The risen Christ is every bit as significant as the crucifixion.

Contrary to much common Christian theology, neither Borg nor Crossan see the blood atonement as a sacrifice of God of his son. Such, they claim leads to a very bizarre picture of God. Rather they see Jesus’ sacrifice as a means of reconciliation offered to us by Jesus. Christ crucified, for Paul, means that imperialism has lost, in the risen Christ, God has said no to imperialism and yes to power of love and justice. God said no to domination systems, and yes to redistributive justice for all.

We participate in Jesus’ atonement not, they argue, by his being a “substitutionary atonement” for our sins,  but by dying to the old way of life of domination/Imperial rule, and rising as  with Jesus in New Life, as new creations. This, Borg and Crossan claim, was what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. He experienced an “internal crucifixion and death” and rose, a New man. This new creation is no longer of the world of Rome and things as normal, but is in the world as witness to “The Way.”

Perhaps no part of this book was as much a surprise as the chapter on Romans. I, as have countless thousands, have struggled to understand Romans with its discourse on justification, grace and works. I’ve been caught up in the debate between Catholics and Protestants as to whether  it is justification by grace? or justification by grace and works? Whole libraries could be made up of all the books and articles written on this subject.

And the authors clear the table in one sentence that should, I would argue, cause us all to roll back on our heels. This cannot be complicated, it cannot require a degree to understand. Why?

. . .[I]t had to be comprehensible to the artisan communities and shop churches in Rome to whom it was written. It was carried to them. . .by a deaconess named Phoebe. She would have had to carry it from one Roman community to the next, read it, explain it, and answer the questions about it.

   Think about that for a moment. If Romans were so abstruse as commentators have made it over the centuries, Phoebe would need to have been an even greater theologian than Augustine or Aquinas, Luther or Calvin.

Enough said, read the book if you want the explanation. You should read this book for a hundred reasons, but if for no other than to finally “get” Romans.

There is much more in this small volume. So much more that you will wish it would not end. I learned more about Paul and what he and Jesus meant here than I have in a dozen others put together. If you truly wish to learn what Paul means, then you owe it to yourself to read this. I am aware that there are scholars who do disagree in some respects with their conclusions (Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza in a couple of respects, for one), but on the whole I think their conclusions are fairly based on the facts. They make a strong case, and one well worth your investment in time and money.