Let ME Tell You What YOU Think (Trust Me, I Know Best...): The Pharisee's Whitemansplaining

 I had said:

"For people like me, do you realize that I/we are not saying that Scripture is unreliable? We're saying that we disagree with your human understanding of Scripture?"

No, Dan, that's not what you are saying. First, if "people like me" includes feodor, he absolutely denies the reliability of Scripture. He gets direct input from the Holy Spirit which overrides all that falsehood. But even you say that Genesis was myth, not real. You can't take it as written. You say that the Pentateuch was wrong about such things as sacrifices and sin. That would be too barbaric. You say that God didn't command Israel to wipe out that Amalekite clan. Your God wouldn't do that. You have a long list of things, Old Testament and New, that are ... wrong. Further, you adamantly argue that Scripture is not without error. Scripture is indeed wrong in places. And you don't believe it is a reliable source for morality. You don't need biblical morality when you know better. It's only partially reliable for telling us about Jesus. No, Dan, that is not any kind of a reliable Scripture, my interpretation or not.

Look at that. Dan: "I didn't say that, I don't think that."

Stan: "Yes, Dan, you DID say that and it IS what you believe."

For the record, I have never said that "Scripture is unreliable." I do not think that Scripture is unreliable.

I do not think that the pages of the Bible are "unreliable," nor do I think that God's Will is unreliable. It's literally not what I believe. I don't know that I think any group of stories are unreliable. I don't think Harry Potter is unreliable. I don't think that Carl Sagan's book, Cosmos, is unreliable. I don't think that Gilgamesh or other ancient texts are unreliable.

They're literally texts, told in a style or in a series of style. In the case of ancient stories, we do not know authoritatively what the authors' intents were. We just don't. To call such texts "unreliable," is not rational. It's text.

But, HOW we humans interpret such texts may or may not be reliable or valid or rational. You see, it's all about interpretation.

Did Jesus literally say that the reason he'd come was to preach good news to the poor and marginalized? Did he literally mean what the text says? We can't prove it one way or another, can we? But, we can look at the whole of Jesus' teachings as found in biblical text and say, GIVEN the complete text and context, it is reasonable that Jesus was speaking of literally poor and marginalized people.

Did the storytellers passing on the Genesis creation story intend it to be a literal history or something like that? Or was it simply told in the mythic style common to the day with no intention (or understanding of) modern history-telling methods? Well, we can't prove what their intentions were, but we can say the latter is a reasonable conclusion.

To consider a given biblical text to be told in a mythic, legendary, parabolic, historic or other style is NOT to say that the texts are unreliable. It's just using our God-given reasoning to try to understand the genre a story is being told in.

Disagreeing with other humans' opinions on the genre is not saying that "scripture is unreliable." It's literally just not.

Stan:

even you say that Genesis was myth, not real.

The definition of Myth is not "Unreal." The opposite of myth is not "Real." Myth is a figurative storytelling device/genre to pass on explanations for origins of Things. Myth is NOT intended to be literal history. Literal, linear history-telling in the manner we're familiar with today just wasn't employed in any ancient texts (at least that anyone has point out to me or that I've seen). Genesis 1 and 2 are written in what appears to be a mythic style (as are other parts of Genesis). We have no reason to guess, "But MAYBE the authors/storytellers INTENDED it to be taken as a literal history, demonstrating that the universe and earth came into being in SIX literal earth days about 6,000 years ago."

That I don't presume to guess that ancient stories were written in a literal, linear historic method (or something like it) is literally NOT the same as saying Genesis was not real. Any more than saying the story of the World Turtle is not "real." It's a myth. It's a storytelling manner common to the time period. The Bible never says otherwise. God has never told us otherwise.

WHY is disagreeing with modern conservative Christians the same as dismissing the Bible or not believing the Bible? Is this not the folly of the Pharisee? "If you disagree with what WE humans are telling you what God wants, you're disagreeing with God!!!"

Just like the Pharisees, there is a need to humble ourselves. Overt arrogance and  bullying is never a rational starting point.

Dan truly does know best what Dan thinks.

No Sacred Cows, Here (subtitle: Slavery and rape are just wrong, d'uh!)

Craig, on his blog, recently wrote, speaking of me (and not understanding my position correctly):

"He claims that "slavery is evil", which presumes that objective "evil" exists and that slavery meets that objective standards for being objectively "evil". Yet his only evidence to back up his objective claim, is that there is some sort of consensus among some group of people that agree with his opinion on the matter. Clearly there are millions of people who believe that slavery is not "evil" and that slavery is good."

Just to clarify what he's not understanding...

1. I've been quite clear that none of us can objectively prove our opinions about moral questions.  So, of course,  given that clear starting point, saying slavery is evil does NOT presume that we can objectively prove evil. Your premise is rationally flawed and not based in reality.

2. Claiming that "slavery is evil", then, does not presume that objective "evil" exists and can be objectively proven.

3. Rather,  it presumes that we can find rational moral ground based on fairly universal notions of a golden rule and human rights. That, IF a society - or, a group of societies - can agree that humans have basic human rights and generally an obligation to do no harm to others, THEN, we can generate some basic levels of rules and rights that we can agree upon.

4. Furthermore,  it presumes that some actions - slavery, rape, murder... are SO overtly bad and harmful, that it is important for rational, moral people strive to prevent them... EVEN IF Craig (or anyone else) is impotent to objectively prove they are wrong.

I asked Craig if he could agree that HE couldn't objectively prove slavery and rape are wrong? If he agreed that it is important to fight against them even if he can't prove they're wrong, objectively? (Craig doesn't entertain these sorts of questions, strangely. Refuses to answer them directly. Weird. He refuses to stake out a position on opposing rape and slavery as always grotesquely wrong/evil/bad. At best, he'll offer a meek, "Well, I personally find them offensive..." WTH?)

5.He has not proven that millions of people think, as he does, that slavery is sometimes acceptable. (And that is correct,  isn't it...? - I asked Craig. "You do think, for instance,  if "god" commands you to enslave someone or kill babies, then it is not an immoral action in that case?" No direct answer. Marshal has been clear that if he thinks "God" directs someone to kill babies with a sword or enslave others, that it isn't evil... that it's moral, even! Craig, instead, obfuscates.)

6. Even if there are "millions " of people who think slavery is sometimes acceptable, in a world of eight billion people, millions is just a fraction (ie, even if eight million supported slavery - a premise not proven - eight million is just .1% of eight billion).

So, even if .1% disagree, the rest of humanity - the far and away vast majority of humanity - can come to rational, moral conclusions against slavery, in spite of the outliers, and indeed, it is vital that we do so. Agreed?

No answer.

Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil... AND that they don't even blink an eye... they don't wonder why the (no doubt) majority of rational moral adults find that appalling and actually vulgar and evil in the extreme.

Religion/Human Traditions Eclipsing God

I've requested that frequent commenter, Marshal, only comment and make claim facts IF he provides objective proof of his claims. I'm holding him to that requirement because he so frequently offers his opinions as if they were THE Word of God. As if they were objective, proven facts. I am relatively sure that he doesn't even understand that his opinions are not objectively proven, but I can't say that without sounding presumptuous. Nonetheless, that's how it seems.

I also suspect that, at some level, Marshal recognizes that he can't prove his opinions, that they are indeed, subjective human opinions based upon his traditions, but he can't bring himself to admit it.

Nonetheless, I am interested in commenting on a comment he made a couple of posts back (where his non-answers went on for 200 comments and I'm making that a hard deadline).

I had said:

"Also and likewise, I'm much less concerned about the details of Jesus' resurrection and more interested in his actual teachings."

And Marshal responded:

To what "details" are you referring? That He actually rose from the dead, or something like what He wore that day? Regardless, His teachings are worthless and not at all binding without the resurrection. Without the resurrection, He wasn't Who He said He was.

Marshal states that HE personally believes that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless. We should not gloss past that. Listen again:

Marshal personally holds the opinion that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless... NOT AT ALL BINDING.

Wow.

Marshal doesn't care about Jesus' words, apart from a resurrection. In Marshal's own words, he said:

His teachings are worthless and
not at all binding
without the resurrection.

Without the resurrection,
Jesus wasn't Who He said He was.

That's an astounding claim to make for someone who claims to love Jesus and his teachings and to love God and God's way. IF Jesus did not rise from the dead, he was not God.

Put another way, IF Marshal finds out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Marshal would not believe in Jesus as God or Christianity, I suppose. That seems like a reasonable thing to take away from Marshal's words. (Marshal, you may clarify if you'd like SO LONG AS you don't make a fact claim that is actually a subjective opinion and treat it as a given.)

Now, Marshal has not supported his claim that Jesus could only be God IF he rose from the dead. That is Marshal's subjective opinion, not a proven fact. As if God were limited to being God with a resurrection. And he's welcome to his opinion. But he should not treat it as a proven fact or anything but a subjective opinion.

For what it's worth, I happen to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I think there is sufficient proof for that, although it certainly can't be objectively proven. My point is only that I follow Jesus because I follow his Way, his Teachings, what he considered important. NOT because he rose from the dead. Jesus' teachings are sound, impressive, life-giving and life-affirming. His teachings ARE a resurrection, regardless of whether he physically rose from the dead.

I think that I, in the past, was missing the point when I focused on the resurrection and not the teachings, not the Way of Grace.  I hope not to make that mistake in the future. In the past when I held that position, I was limiting God, and that's not a good look.

Harm and Human Rights as a Measure for Morality

Stan, at his blog, recently addressed a post citing my concern about harm done to innocent people. The gist of his post is that "harm" as a measure for morality, is an imperfect measure. We, as people, won't be able to agree on what is and isn't harmful and HOW harmful something is. This, is, of course, not mistaken. Harm - and the extended notion of human rights - is not an objectively definable measure for morality.

Stan's conclusion, then, of course, was, "But we have the Bible and what GOD tells us, and that's a better measure." (My words, not his, but I do not think it's an unfair representation of the gist of his post. My response to Stan (not one that he posts or will post, but he's probably read - I know this because he routinely responds to my questions, even if he doesn't actually answer them).

Given your premises in this post - that harm is an imperfect measure of morality, that maybe your religious opinions and interpretations of the Bible are more reliable, I think a good-faith point to raise would be to consider the benefits of the notions of "harm" and human rights are to considering moral questions and policies and the PROBLEMS of religious opinion and holy texts. Namely...

1. While it is a given that notions of "harm" and human rights are an inexact measure, they ARE at least a measure.  Further, they are a measure that people could look to regardless if they are conservative or liberal, evangelical Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or non-religious. It is a fairly universal measure, and that's not nothing.

2. Broadly speaking, we can see that most religions and secular groups can affirm the notion of human rights and can affirm the notion of the various golden rules, common to all religions - do unto others. In general, that is a widely accepted truth.

3. Further, it's not THAT complex, in broad terms: We should not be able to deprive others of their lives, of their livelihoods, people should not be beaten or raped or have their homes burned down. It's relatively understandable and reasonable and agreeable for most people. Thus, "harm," while an imperfect measure, IS a helpful measure and a fairly universal measure, at least in broad terms.

4. On the other hand, if we're going to appeal to "My Religious Text" or "My religion," we immediately fall into the very difficult problem of WHOSE religious text, WHOSE religion, WHOSE version of that religion, WHOSE interpretation of those texts? What of those who don't SHARE that religion's premises and policies and opinions?

Do you see? There is no universal or objective source or decider to has the authority to make that call/those calls.

5. For my part, as a person of faith and what might be called a religious person, I would want no part of setting up policies based upon my religious beliefs or my views of particular texts wholly to me. To try to force policy based on any one person/set of person/subset of some religion is problematic on the face of it. EVEN for the religious ones who might at some level delight in the notion of a Religious Realm. That would be a great threat to a society, wouldn't you think? The fights and oppression and chaos that would potentially bring?

6. No, on a local, state of national level, I want policies that are rational and can be appealed to on the basis of harm and human rights, because in a multicultural, poly-religious world, that makes the most sense.

I would argue for support human rights and self-determination for LGBTQ folks NOT because I believe it's what God would approve (which I do) but because it's also rational. Of course, free humans should be able to make their own decisions about marriage, who they love, their children, etc... So long as they're not causing harm to others.

I would argue for support of parents raising their children as they deem best not because I think God approves (although I do think that), but because of human rights and self-determination... so long as they're not causing harm to that child.

I would argue for rights of people to move from one place to another - especially if they're escaping danger or starvation/deprivation - NOT because I think the Bible tells us so (although, of course, it does) but because of human rights and harm prevention... So long as they immigrants in question do no harm.

Can you acknowledge the benefit of "harm" and human rights as a policy measure in a multicultural setting, especially as opposed to one group's personal religious opinions?

Jesus Was a Madman

 A Money Changer's Lament

Jesus was a madman
wild-eyed and dangerous
hanging just at the margins
associating with the largely undesirable
and untouchable
and unwantable
'til one day
he just plain
snapped

And the clearing of the temple?
That was a horror story,
animals screaming
hotheads steaming
people running and gunning
money rolling 'round the floor.
and out the windows
and out their pockets
and out the doors
dark and terrifying hideous and horrible.
oh, my god! Oh, my gold!

Here, there was a mild-mannered preacher man,
teaching, preaching love and peace
siding with the least of these
til one day, geez Louise!
he just goes jack-rabbit. outtacontrol

And in the temple of God, yet!
yelling, whipping, stomping, falling
calling curses down upon the people
which is to say, upon the businessmen
which is to say, upon the cheaters and the oppressors

They say he was possessed by demons,
grabbed by ghouls
A secret servant of Satan
Beelzebub's bud
Foaming-at-the-mouth mad
Right there in the Big City.
Right under their noses.
Right in their faces.

They gonna kill that man, for sure.
They gonna kill that man.

Forgiveness. Justice. Grace.

This is in response to a question from Marshal in the next post. I thought it worth promoting to its own post.

We were talking about the problems of Penal Substitionary Atonement (that God can forgive us because Jesus "paid the price" of our sin by "shedding his perfect blood" in order to "pay" for our sin.) Without this "blood atonement," the PSA folk reason, no humans could be saved because God has chosen that method through which to "forgive us..." And further, we imperfect humans who "miss the mark" (the literal definition of the term "sin" often used in the Bible) and are, well, imperfect, the "just" punishment (the PSA folk reason) is to be tortured for an eternity in hell (whether it's an actual flaming hell burning us alive forever or the figurative equivalent depends on the specific PSA proponent).

I suggested that when we are done wrong, we poor, flawed and imperfect humans often find it within ourselves to simply forgive. WITHOUT a blood sacrifice to "pay" for that forgiveness (a paid for forgiveness sounds much more like a business transaction than any actual loving forgiveness, doesn't it?). And we certainly are able to forgive without killing our own children to "pay" for that "forgiveness."

Marshal responded:

 "It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed."

I'd say the reality that we humans - imperfect though we are, created in the image of God, as we believe - CAN and DO regularly forgive wrongs done to us - even great wrongs AND that we do so without any "blood sacrifice" of another to "pay for" that forgiveness is evidence (if not objective proof) that simple forgiveness is possible. Because of course it is. I've seen it.

Further, I'd say it's evidence of a perfect all-loving God. For an actual example: HOW does the mother of a murdered child find a way to forgive the killer? That's a lot. But I've seen it. I've been in the homes of Nicaraguan families whose loved ones were killed by Contra soldiers - and they were sitting next to, holding hands with one of those Contra soldiers. That mother had forgiven that soldier. Glory, what forgiveness!

HOW had she forgiven that killer? HOW had she welcomed him to her table... as a friend??! Well, this man was from a neighboring village. She knew the struggles that all Nicaraguans were having at that time. She also was aware of the anti-Sandinista propoganda being pushed on to these subsistence farmers and she knew how flawed, imperfect humans can be misled and misguided. She knew him well enough - took time to know him and his reasoning - to find it within her to forgive him.

Why does that sound like a familiar description of great love?

If I speak in the tongues of humans or of angels, but do not have love,
I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails...
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully,
even as I am fully known.

~1 Corinthians 13, often called the Love Chapter

The almighty God of the universe, as some of us believe, knows us personally. Loves us personally. In spite of our "missing the mark" and shortcomings. IN spite of our deliberate misdeeds. God loves us and loves us perfectly.

Why? Because God KNOWS us perfectly.

Like that Nicaraguan mother who knew the killer of her family well enough (if not perfectly) to understand his motivations and his mistakes and what led to that.

And so, once that Contra soldier had cut off his hand and offered her a blood sacrifice from his bloody stump, THEN Dona Maria could forgive him.

Wait. That's not right.

No, once that soldier brought his child to Dona Maria and KILLED that child to "pay" for his own crimes, THEN Dona Maria could forgive him.

Wait! WHAT? No! That's not right. Ew! No! HOW would killing his own son in any way "pay" for HIS wrongdoing??!

No! NO "blood sacrifice" was required. Little Dona Maria forgave that soldier. She simply forgave him. And God and God's love won out. Love - true love - never fails.

(And I'll tell you a bit more of that story - Dona Maria had not only forgiven the poor neighboring farmer/contra soldier... she had forgiven we US citizens who sat in her house that day, as well. We, who helped pay for the weapons used by that Contra soldier and who helped pay for the propaganda that had misled that soldier. Dona Maria, imperfect human that she is, knew of forgiveness, even over great wrongs. I'm not sure that she ever forgave the Reagan administration - who had never repented - but she forgave a lot.)

Love never fails, indeed.

Still Haven't Found the Answers I'm Asking For...

In a recent series of posts, Stan at the Winging It blog, toys around with answering some of the questions I've put to him but never gets right down to it. Again, this is not to say anything about Stan. I'm talking about the ideas and ideals promoted by traditionalists who believe in conservative human traditions like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement and being opposed to LGBTQ people, not about Stan specifically. He's not unique in never quite actually answering reasonable questions that his human traditions and theories beg to be answered.

Stan asks in a variety of ways...

"Is what I'm seeing in Scripture the same thing that God's people has seen in the past, or am I coming up with a novel or variant version?"

and...

" Simple "tradition" or "historic teaching" could be wrong, but if I have "this" interpretation of a text and no one has ever suggested it that way, I'm pretty sure I didn't get that from the Holy Spirit."

My responses...

First of all, the "followers of God," as well as the "rich and powerful" have a long and clear history of silencing those they perceive to be "heretics." Oftentimes, its been at its worst when the followers of God became rich and powerful. Indeed, Jesus and others warn that there ARE "wolves" out there (not meaning literal wolves - these were people rich in imagery) who sought power and wealth and used that power and wealth and position in leadership to silence those they deemed "unclean" or "heretics."

From the pharisees, to actual false teachers (the ones who did it as a wealth and power grab - because false teachers are not just those who are honestly mistaken, in a rational or biblical sense), to the rich and powerful that the prophets, Jesus, Mary and James (and Paul, etc, etc) warned about, saying, "Is it not the rich who oppress you? ...they will face judgement, for they are the ones who have killed Jesus..." (paraphrasing there), to the Roman Catholic church who oppressed and marginalized the Reformers, to the Protestants who oppressed and marginalized those they deemed to be "heretics..." throughout church history, there is a consistent theme of the powerful trying to silence the reformers and radicals (the ones seeking to stay true to the root of God's love).

The point being, that we may not see a line of thought throughout church history does not necessarily mean there have not been people who held those thoughts, for instance, disagreeing with the PS theory of atonement or being opposed to slavery or supportive of human rights for all.

Secondly, you still have the problem of presuming that ancient peoples, collectively - some SET or SUBSET of ancient peoples - must have gotten it "right" throughout the ages, setting aside the reality that cultures change. Slavery was just accepted back then and "the Holy Spirit" did not convince anyone to stand opposed to it. Treating women as non-citizens was just accepted back then... selling or giving your daughter away in marriage was just accepted back then... polygamy was just accepted back then... and in each of these cases, the Spirit of God did not apparently speak to the ancients in a way that sufficiently convinced them of these abuses of human rights and great atrocities.

The reality is that we ARE doing greater things that even Jesus did, as Jesus promised/taught. We have grown as a race of people to recognize more fully the notion of human rights that is clearly consistent with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God as described in the Bible.

So, "Did ANY ONE of the ancients teach this Thing?" is simply not a perfect barometer of what is and isn't right. How could it be, given their silence on the deliberate killing of babies, enslaving people, abuse of women's rights, etc? That is, your presumption that IF at least some church people (the ones with whom you agree) didn't promote a theory, then that theory can't be of God... it's not rational, nor is it biblical.

How can it be? And as always, WHY is it not the case that YOUR heart may be the one that is deceitful, getting you to buy into the traditions of other humans with deceitful hearts?

Thirdly, it seems to me that you're mistaken the appearance of a word or phrase with the idea that a theory is being taught. Yes, Jesus used the word translated "ransom" ONE TIME in a private discussion with some of his disciples. But what Jesus didn't do was mention a theory of atonement and certainly not the human theory of atonement that you prefer.

Yes, the author of Hebrews - who, as with many biblical authors - used rich imagery, imagery with which the Hebrews themselves would recognize... that author refers to blood and other imagery, saying, "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." But that is not the author of Hebrews saying that this is in support of the Penal Substitutionary human theory of atonement, which was developed in the 1300s give and take.

Also, the text says there that this is what THE LAW requires, but Jesus and Paul and others make it clear that we're not under some set of human laws reflecting what those humans thought God thinks. We are under grace, if we are people who believe in Grace. Indeed, the New Testament teaches and reason supports that the law is death-dealing, whereas grace is life-giving. We are under grace, not the law, EVEN IF the law almost always requires a blood sacrifice.

And indeed, speaking of blood sacrifices, there are repeated clarifications from God's own Self in the Bible that it is NOT blood sacrifices that God wants, but pouring out our lives in sacrifice... to take care of the widow and the orphan and immigrants... THAT is what God wants. Blood sacrifices are just LITERAL symbology, NOT literally what God demands or is powerless to act or forgive if they are not there. Do you not see how trying to make that literal makes that blood god subservient to these rituals, how it makes that god powerless and impotent? As the prophet Isaiah, for one, notes...

"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats...

learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause...."

Do you see the points? That the point of the blood sacrifices to "atone" for sin were always a symbol, one that people then and now misunderstood. God clarifies in multiple places in the Bible, "I don't WANT your blood sacrifices... rather, embrace grace, side with the poor and marginalized, feed the hungry... THAT is the 'sacrifice' I desire..."

And also, that the appearance of a word or phrase does NOT make a theory or rule? ESPECIALLY in these books with so much clear imagery.

Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew?

 

Because of many conversations where I've asked traditional evangelical conservative types, "WHERE is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) in the teachings of Jesus?" ... and I've asked because Jesus said clearly he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and we have many of the teachings and sermons of Jesus contained in the four Gospel books. IF Jesus was preaching PSA, where is it? And when I've asked that, I've either gotten no answer or a reference to maybe two verses where Jesus uses a phrase that COULD be taken as a reference to PSA (if you squint and hope). So, I'm just doing a pretty quick review of the entirety of the Gospel of Matthew IN SEARCH OF PSA! Here we go!

Matt 1: we have the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew's genealogy)

Matt 2: we find the story of the powerful Jewish king, Herod, who plots to kill baby Jesus and acts monstrously in his position of wealth and power. We also find that Jesus and his family become political refugees, seeking asylum and safety from a mad king. Herod behaves as powerful despots often do: he orders the mass slaughter of babies to defend his seat of power.

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
    weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
    and refusing to be comforted,
    because they are no more.”

Matt 3: We are introduced to John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. John is already getting in trouble for calling the Pharisees/Sadducees (the religious leaders) "You brood of vipers!" and worse. Later on we find that John has a heart for preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. In trying to determine if Jesus was "The One," he asked if he was preaching to the poor (Jesus was, of course). John is a wild, simple-living country preacher who preached repentance, but the main target for his rebukes was the Pharisees, the Sadducees and King Herod Antipas (the son of Jesus' King Herod, the Baby Killer)

Matt 4: Jesus tempted in the desert. Jesus begins preaching, citing Isaiah "for the people living in darkness have seen a great light..." Isaiah, to the Jews of the time and today, would be known for calling the people to not be consumed by wealth, but to follow God by defending the poor and marginalized. The very "worship" that Israel did was condemned as worthless, if not being an outgrowth of defending justice for the poor and marginalized.

Jesus begins his preaching with a call to repentance and welcome to the "kingdom of God," the realm of God, the beloved community.

"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
proclaiming the good news of the kingdom,
and healing every disease and sickness among the people."

This "good news of the kingdom" is a consistent message/theme from Jesus and Jesus expounds upon it repeatedly. In Luke we see that Jesus came to preach this good news to the poor and marginalized. The realm of God is Jesus' most mentioned theme.

Jesus calls his disciples from the normal working class people of the day. People who struggled to get by.

Matt 5-7: Sermon on the Mount. THE single most complete passage that we'd recognize as a sermon.

Not once in this most complete sermon do we have a theme of substitutionary atonement (a theory that some Christians developed over the 1200-1400s).

We do see simple, gracious living promoted, the Light of God in a dark world.
In the context of John the Baptist's and eventually Jesus' ongoing rebukes of the religious legalists, Jesus makes clear he's not come to take away the laws, but to fulfill them, to help them be understood rightly.
We see gracious, humble ally-ship with the poor being taught (the people Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to)

We see simple living promoted and warnings of wealth.
We see Jesus telling us clearly that we can recognize the followers of God by the way they act (their "good fruit") which is made clear in many places that this includes how we ally with and for "the least of these."

Matt 8-9: Jesus heals an "unclean" leper

Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion (the "enemy")

Jesus heals many others (and a reminder that the physical and mentally ill in that time would be considered unclean and marginalized and would typically be poor and marginalized)

Jesus is rebuked by the religious for "daring" to forgive someone (again setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)

The religious legalists continue to snipe at Jesus for hanging out with the marginalized and unclean "sinners." (again, setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)

Again and again, more healing and grace and welcome from Jesus for the "sinners" and marginalized. More sniping/attacks from the legalists. Making for a clear context between the protagonist, God, and the way of Grace in opposition to the antagonists, the Legalists, and the way of deadly and exclusionary rule-following, rules that ultimately serve to further marginalize the poor and marginalized (including the women, always).
The legalists begin literally demonizing Jesus, saying he was of the Devil. Sounds familiar, yes?

Matt 10: Jesus sends out his disciples to preach and share with the Jews (specifically), telling them:

As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

and giving some simple living instructions and instructions on grace. "Freely you have received, freely give..."

Jesus warns them that the Legalists will attack and oppress them, but to go, anyway. His instructions (other than the warnings about the legalists) are always about welcome and grace and forgiveness.

Giving a cup of cold water to one of these...

A third of the way through Matthew and no mention of PSA. Many mentions of "the realm of God," service to/ally-ship with the poor and marginalized, and simple, grace-full living, of welcoming.

Matt 11: Jesus and John the Baptist stories. John confirms that Jesus is preaching to the poor and healing, his "evidence" that Jesus was of God. More preaching about the realm of God and the attacks against it (clearly a reference to the Legalists):

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence and violent people have been raiding it....

Jesus confronts the Legalists:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’  The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

The "THEY" who are saying these things aren't the regular "sinners," the poor and marginalized, the sexually active or others typically demonized. It's the Legalists.

Jesus condemns some cities for their refusal to repent, but doesn't give details. But he does compare them to Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Bible says were condemned because they were arrogant and didn't care for the poor and marginalized.

In contrast to the Legalists and the burdens that weighed people down with, Jesus emphasizes the gentle, welcoming grace and love of God's way:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Matt 12-13: Jesus continues to be rebuked by and to rebuke the Legalists. They condemn Jesus for "breaking the law" of the Sabbath rest, but Jesus reminds them ("fulfills the law") that the Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. God is not a legalist cop seeking to punish an endless number of people for endless transgressions. God is a welcoming Lover, seeking to give rest and support.

More confrontations of the Legalists against Jesus and vice versa. Jesus again cites the Prophet Isaiah and his welcoming beloved community where the poor are not oppressed. MULTIPLE rebukes against the legalists.

Still no Substitutionary Atonement mentions.

Jesus' teaches in parables (explaining that the Legalists will not understand them, so long as they are legalists and not grace-followers/accepters.)

Matt 14-15: Jesus feeds the large crowd of his followers, the poor and working class who followed Jesus and listened to his teachings. Or rather, the disciples feed them, as instructed by Jesus.

Jesus walks on water. Jesus heals the sick.

Jesus confrontations with the Legalists increase and get more serious. Jesus heals more people, including the gentile Canaanite woman (triply unclean, being a woman and a gentile and an enemy of Israel!). Jesus allows her to teach him about inclusion and grace.

Jesus again cites the radical Isaiah, who condemned the legalists. Jesus feeds another large crowd of the poor and marginalized and working class who followed him.

Matt 16-20: More conflicts and rebukes of the legalists, who have begun actively testing him, looking for justification to have him killed. Jesus tells on them/tells his disciples it won't be long. More healing. Transfiguration.

Jesus teaches more about grace and humility and welcoming/becoming like a little child.

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Jesus speaks about the limitless nature of forgiveness and grace.

Jesus speaks about divorce (don't do it). Jesus tells the rich young man that for him to be saved, he'd need to give up his wealth. Jesus clarifies/emphasizes: "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."

More parables. Parables about money/wealth and workers, which concludes: "So the last will be first, and the first will be last"

THEN, FINALLY, about 2/3 through the Gospel of Matthew, we find ONE line where Jesus utters a phrase that COULD be taken to be referring to some kind of atonement. But it was not part of one of the sermons Jesus taught (again, Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized!), but in a private conversation where the POINT being discussed was humility within the realm of God.

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers [James/John]. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Now, IF Jesus had repeatedly, in his sermons and teachings to the poor and least of these had talked about the need for a blood payment to atone (as the ONLY way God would be able/willing to forgive people), THEN this one passage might be taken to speaking of that. But that doesn't happen. Period. But absent that, this seems, on the face of it, to be talking about why we should strive to be humble, not seek to be great. For even God in Jesus came to serve and to pour out his life in service to others. Absent any other mention of (let alone emphasis upon) atonement, I don't see this being perforce understood that way.

Matt 21-22: Jesus enters Jerusalem in the final escalation between the grace of the protagonist, Jesus and the legalism of the antagonists, the Legalists. Jesus arrives humbly upon a mule, not as a triumphant warrior king. The working class and poor who followed Jesus celebrated his arrival.

Jesus enters the temple and sees the moneychangers cheating (especially/specifically the poor) inside the temple and drives/chases them out with a handmade whip. More confrontation with the Legalists. Jesus sides with the humble children (the least of these) over and against the wishes of the powerful legalists.

More parables. Legalists plot to arrest Jesus but fear the regular people, who were his ardent followers. Some of the parables are speaking of the powerful who will abuse the humble King. When the rich and powerful won't come to the dinner, the King welcomes the poor and marginalized, in rebuke of the rich and powerful.

More confrontations and plots from the legalists. Jesus teaches the simple, "greatest commandments" - Love God, Love people.

Matt 23-25: Jesus gives the Legalists a great deal of hell. Rebukes and condemnation for them and their legalism ways.

More parables, including the Sheep and the Goats, in which Jesus makes clear that HE is the least of these. "In as much as you do it to them, you do it to me."

Matt 26-28: The Last Supper. Here, in this private conversation with the disciples, we have the SECOND of only two potential mentions of Atonement. In sharing the supper (in his typical, humble, grace-full way), Jesus says:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Once again, IF in the sermons of "good news for the poor and marginalized" Jesus had clearly mentioned something like atonement, THEN we might could envision that this second sentence in a private conversation COULD be referencing atonement as the modern religionists mean it. But we just don't have that. Period.

From this point on, we have the final kangaroo court of the Legalists who are enraged at Jesus' way of grace and inclusion and failure to follow the rules that they thought were important. Then Jesus Roman trial and capitol punishment torture/execution by more people in power (although, in his defense, the cowardly Roman governor, Pilate, at least had the sense to say "I don't see he's done anything wrong..." and yet, he still had him executed) .

In summation, we don't have ONE single sermon where ANYTHING like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory (theorized by humans hundreds of years after Jesus' death and resurrection) in the canon of Jesus' teachings to the poor and marginalized as found in Matthew.

IF we assume that Jesus (who, once again, literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized) would have, at some point in at least ONE set of his teachings, seen fit to at least give a passing mention to something like atonement as theorized by some, it would be there in his words in his sermons/teachings. It's literally not.

What we do see is a gospel (good news to the poor and marginalized, remember) full of words of welcome, grace, forgiveness, acceptance and love to all, beginning with the poor and marginalized AND we see a gospel full of warnings and rebukes to the legalists, the rich and powerful. The legalists, the rich and powerful are literally the antagonists in the Gospels of Jesus - the warning to NOT be like THAT.

And while the "regular people," the poor, marginalized and working class are called to repentance and to join the Realm of God, the Beloved Community of Grace, they are never rebuked exceedingly harshly. The warnings of hell and condemnation are nearly exclusively (exclusively?) for the rich, powerful legalists.

fyi.

The Beloved Community vs Utter Depravity

In a recent conversation about the problems of the traditional religious human view of "fallen humanity" and humans being totally or utterly depraved, I was asked...

"Think of the least “imperfect” person you know. Do they get anywhere close to doing these things!? We don’t even get past the first one; for what would it look like to dedicate every part of oneself to God?"

I replied...

I'll have to warn you: the least perfect people I know are pretty amazing people.

Do they love God and fellow humans with "all their hearts? I don't know how one would objectively measure that. Is there some fool-proof method? I don't think so.

But they do clearly love God. As evidenced by their love of God's creation and of our fellow humans.

What would it look like to dedicate every part of one's self to God? I'd say living a life poured out in love to our fellow humans. As Jesus noted, when you've aided/allied with the least of these, you've done it to me.

So the good teachers, social workers, justice workers, those who work with, for, alongside the oppressed, the disabled and marginalized are literally pouring out their lives in service to God, are they not (by Jesus' measure)? As with Jesus, John noted in 1 John 4 (and as simple reason supports...)

Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus...

Wow. Continuing, John said...

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

WHOEVER loves, lives in God. EVERYONE who loves has been born of God. What you do for the least of these, you do for me. In this world, we are like Jesus.

Wow!

These words are not nothing. For those of us who value the teachings found in the Bible, THIS is the Word of God. Jesus continued by saying that the essence of what God wants is to love God and love humanity. When asked what was the greatest rule, Jesus responded...

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I was raised believing in this human tradition of the "utter depravity of humanity," which has been defined as,

"The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule."

But Jesus and John and basic reasoning say that WHOEVER loves people, acts with kindness, compassion, forgiveness and justice... WHOEVER loves, lives in God. There is no mention of humanity as a whole being "not inclined or even ABLE to love..." Not because of liberal teaching, but from taking the Bible seriously and just using plain common sense, I see so many people out there pouring out their lives in love.

Do they do so perfectly? No, of course, not. But then, we are not a perfect people. To expect imperfect people to be somehow perfect is ridiculous. HOW would that happen? It can't, by definition.

But the more I see people, in general, the more I find the good and God in humanity.

Now, does that mean that confused humans don't lash out in evil violence? That Hamas doesn't decide that attacking innocent people and innocent children is an answer and so, engage in HORRIBLE violence and evil? That white conservatives who feel threatened about losing their power in a nation where they are no longer the dominant movement might sometimes lash out in violence, attacking churches, synagogues, temples, schools and other places? No, clearly, humanity as a whole fairly regularly engages in awful, atrocious behavior.

But think about it: Isn't it the case that these cases where such evil and unprovoked violence happens all the more awful because of the scarcity of such overt corruption and misdeeds? Yes, Israel might bomb and bomb and bomb Gaza, killing innocent people, children, aid workers, and destroying hospitals and churches and mosques in the process... but is that the norm? Yes, a crazed liberal might strike out in violence against an innocent person... but aren't these the exceptions?

I see my friends and colleagues out there every day, teaching children, healing the sick, standing for justice, working with the disabled, working with immigrants, working with the homeless, working to protect the environment, enjoying God's good creation, going for hikes in the woods, birdwatching, taking their grandkids birdwatching, taking the neighbor's kids out to play a game... there are so many people out there being decent, kind people. "Created in the image of God," "just a little lower than God, "Created to do good works," and I see it every day.

I have a neighbor (used to be my neighbor) who is now borderline homeless. He introduced himself to me 20 years ago as "I'm Fred, I am bi-polar and I'm your neighbor..." and that dear man struggles every day. And he's so kind and helpful and if I'm unloading a car and carrying stuff, he'll offer to help. He's a good man who struggles each and every day, but still he is a kind and helpful man. Even in his struggles, I see him regularly helping out with those even more marginalized than himself. My neighbor, Fred.

So, when someone asks me to think of the "least imperfect person I know..." as if that's going to be some kind of Aha! moment of realization of the evil of humanity... that just doesn't work. The traditional conservatives have taught me to take the Bible and reality seriously enough that I can no longer buy into this "utter depravity" human theory. I see too many decent, imperfect, wonderful fellow humans.

Magnificat

 My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For God hath regarded the lowliness of this handmaiden
For behold, from henceforth all generations
shall call me blessed.

God hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

God hath put down the mighty from their seat
and hath exalted the humble and meek.

God hath filled the hungry with good things
and the rich he hath sent empty away.

God, remembering mercy hath helped God's oppressed servant, Israel...
Glory be to God.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be
world without end. Amen.

~Mary, the mother of Jesus

 

God has put down the rich and mighty, and lifted up the humble and poor. Happy Holidays, remember the reason for the season ("For I have come to preach GOOD NEWS to the POOR..." ~Jesus, who learned well from his mother)

Life In Three Acts

There was a play staged

by a forest primeval

I had a bit part

I served as the stage manager

in a play within a play

put on for my own benefit

I was also the audience

I wrote the plot

which included a twist ending

which I did not see coming

turns out, I was not

the author of the play

after all, just a patsy

Life, in three acts

beginning with the denouement

they'll never see it coming

Rosalynn Carter

The world has lost two great women in the last few weeks: My mother and Rosalynn Carter. She and Jimmy Carter have shown by their lives, by their actions, by their words and by their policies what it means to be a good person and a wise leader. Their basic human decency and integrity were far and away unmatched in modern politics (for at least the past 100 years and maybe ever). They have been exemplary followers of Jesus and we can know this because we are known by our fruit, as Jesus taught.

Rest in peace, Mrs Carter.

Mrs Carter:

"The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation."

"I believe that one of the most important things to learn in life is that you can make a difference in your community no matter who you are or where you live."

"People with mental problems are our neighbors. They are members of our congregations, members of our families; they are everywhere in this country. If we ignore their cries for help, we will be continuing to participate in the anguish from which those cries for help come. A problem of this magnitude will not go away. Because it will not go away, and because of our spiritual commitments, we are compelled to take action."

"There are only four kinds of people in the world - those who have been caregivers, those who are caregivers, those who will be caregivers and those who will need caregivers."

"True success is not determined by material possessions, but by the impact we have on others."

"It's not enough to simply talk about the issues. We must take action and work towards tangible solutions."