Monday, February 7, 2022

On Paul's Gnosticism

 

On Paul’s Gnosticism

February 7, 2022

 

In the first century CE, when Paul was spreading the good news of Jesus Christ around the eastern Mediterranean world, there was a philosophy that sometimes competed with and even affected the development of the Christian faith. It was called Gnosticism. The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge. Gnosticism was an anthropology of sorts, an understanding of the existential nature of us human beings. Perhaps you have heard humans described as inspirited bodies. In this way of thinking the human body isn’t bad, it is a temple of the divine. Gnosticism turned that understanding of the human upside down. The Gnostics taught that in our true essence we are spirit. The human existential dilemma isn’t sin, it is that we don’t know that what we really are is not flesh but spirit. For the Gnostics our good, even divine spirit, is trapped. It is imprisoned in a body of evil flesh. Knowing that we are really spirit is the basic gnosis, the knowledge the Gnostics thought we needed to know but didn’t.

The Christian tradition considers Gnosticism to be a heresy. The theology that Paul expresses in his authentic letters is of course considered to be orthodox not heresy. Paul does however at times skate awfully close to the line between orthodox Christianity and the heresy of Gnosticism. Here’s an example of him doing that from his letter to the Galatians. We’ll see what he has to say here about both human flesh and the Spirit.

 

Live by the Spirit I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh….Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you….Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:16-21 with omissions.

 

Here's what he says about Spirit as he continues, with a jab back at flesh at the end.

 

    By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 5:22-24.

 

Pretty clear, isn’t it? When Paul gives us vices and virtues lists like this one (there are others in his writings) that for him human flesh is bad and the Spirit of God into which Paul calls us to live is good.

If that attitude toward human bodiliness, toward our physicality, sounds like something you’ve been taught in church, there’s a good reason that it does. See, Gnosticism lost the battle with orthodoxy over the nature of the body, but in the long run orthodox Christianity absorbed so much of Gnosticism that it often sounds like Gnosticism won the war. The Christian tradition came to have quite a negative attitude toward human physicality. It has taught in particular that our sexual desires, especially those of women, must be suppressed as something bad or even downright evil. Why else would the Roman Catholic tradition, which was the tradition of us Protestants too before the sixteenth century CE, insist that Jesus’ mother Mary is “ever virgin?” Why else would the Roman Catholic Church teach to this day that sexual relations are permissible only between a woman and a man who are married to each other and even then only if the sex act carries with it the possibility of the woman becoming pregnant? Protestant churches too have preached a narrow sexual morality that sure seems to be grounded in the belief that sex in and of itself is somehow bad, sinful even.

Well, a lot of us Christians, and even a lot of us ordained Christian clergy like me, do not believe that sex in and of itself is bad or necessarily sinful, though of course we humans are quite able to turn it into something bad, and we do it all the time. No, many of us today take a different view of the body from Paul’s, and it’s just as biblical. Consider these familiar lines:

 

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image according to our likeness’….

 

So God created humankind in his image,

   in the image of God he created them,

                  male and female the created them….

 

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Genesis 1:26a, 27, and 31a.

 

What did God make that was indeed very good? All of creation, and Genesis specifically includes God’s creation of humans as female and male, that is, as sexual beings, as very good. I assume that Paul knew the creation story with which the Hebrew Bible opens. It opened with that story in his time too. Unfortunately, he chose to emphasize the Bible’s second creation story, the one about Adam and Eve, over the Bible’s first creation story, and he blamed Adam for bringing sin into the world. See Romans 5:12. Paul preferred the very ancient and quite primitive story of Adam and Eve to the beautiful and less ancient (though still very old) story of God creating all that is, including the sabbath, in seven days simply by speaking all that is into existence. That doesn’t mean, however, that we have to do the same. Genesis 1:27 recognizes that God made us humans as physical, sexual beings. And indeed it was very good.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Human sexuality is God’s good gift to us, but in order to keep it from becoming sinful, that is, to keep us from corrupting that gift, we must exercise our sexuality very carefully. I need not list all the dangers associated with sex. We all know what they are. Still, sex is part of our good creation in the image and likeness of God. We must make sure we practice it only as God’s good gift.

So Paul, I know that you were Christ’s apostle to us Gentiles. I know that you developed the theology of justification by grace through faith that is the basis of our Protestant Christianity. For those things I give thanks to you and to God. But your take on human physicality is just too gnostic for me and for many people today. We are not good spirit trapped in evil flesh. Both our spirits and our bodies are part of God’s good creation. Let’s treat both of them as the good gifts that they are. May it be so.

Thursday, February 3, 2022

A Complex Situation: The Current Russia-Ukraine Crisis

 

A Complex Situation: The Current Russia-Ukraine Crisis

February 3, 2022

© Thomas C. Sorenson, 2022

 

President Vladimir Putin of Russia has threatened that Russia will invade Ukraine. The United States and NATO have threatened to institute crippling economic sanctions against Russia if it does. This crisis is serious, yet it is but the latest event in a long and complex history of relations between Russia and Ukraine. I hope the information I present here will help you better understand that crisis. My purpose here is to explain not to justify. Though it has been so only since 1991, as I will explain below, Ukraine today is an independent, sovereign nation recognized by the international community as such. Russia has no right under international law to invade Ukraine. I’ll say more about what I think about the prospect of Russia doing that at the end of this piece. Time, of course, will tell.

To understand the current situation between Russia and Ukraine we must start with at least a cursory look at Ukrainian and Russian history, ethnicity, and geography. Ukraine is located south of Russia on the north coast of the Black Sea. A peninsula called Crimea extends from the Ukrainian mainland into the Black Sea. The Russian and Ukrainian languages today are both recognized as distinct East Slavic languages. As we will see, Russians historically have not considered Ukrainian to be a separate language but to be only a dialect of Russian.

We start our review of Russian-Ukrainian history with the uncontested fact that Russian history began in Ukraine. More specifically, it began in the city of Kiev (the Russian version of the name and the way we used to spell the name in English) or Kyiv (the Ukrainian version of the name and the way it is often spelled today). Kyiv is located on the west bank of the Dnieper River about 550 miles south southwest of Moscow, Russia. The Dnieper River essentially divides Ukraine into eastern and western sections, a fact that has played a role in Ukrainian history. The first Russian (the Ukrainians would say the first Ukrainian) political entity of any historical significance is called Kievan Rus’. It arose in the ninth century CE. As the name tells us, it was centered on the city of Kyiv. It flourished until roughly the twelfth or thirteenth century. The Dnieper Rover on which Kyiv is located was at that time part of an important trade route between Scandinavia to the north and Constantinople to the south. Kyiv was perfectly situated to control that trade.

The Russian people and most of the Ukrainian people have been Orthodox Christians for centuries. What became the Russian Orthodox Church came into existence in Kyiv. In 988 CE Grand Prince Vladimir I of Kievan Rus’ converted to Orthodox Christianity. He had all of his people baptized as Orthodox Christians. (We don’t do baptism that way any more, by the way.) The Orthodox Church in Kyiv was placed under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In 1240 the Mongols from Asia attacked and conquered Kyiv. Thereafter the center of Russian political power shifted to the northeast, first to cities called Vladimir and Suzdal, then to Moscow. Jurisdiction over the Russian Orthodox Church was eventually transferred from the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Moscow. The Grand Princes of Moscow, later to be called tsar or Imperator, expanded their control of the lands of the East Slavic peoples in all directions from Moscow, but for a very long time they did not rule the land that we call Ukraine today. Ukraine came under the control of the Mongols and other peoples thereafter. About that a bit more below.

Ukraine’s history thereafter is extremely complex. I’ll review it very briefly here. At different times Ukraine was ruled by Turkic people called Tatars, by Lithuania, and by Poland. Russian dominance of Ukraine picked up speed in the seventeenth century when Russia and Poland, a major power in the region at the time, divided Ukraine up between them. Poland took Ukraine west of the Dnieper. Russia took Ukraine east of the Dnieper, but it also got Kyiv although that city is on the west bank of the river. From the mid-seventeenth century Russian dominance over Ukraine expanded. By late in the eighteenth century, when Russia was ruled by Empress Catherine II, known as Catherine the Great (who, by the way, was German not Russian), all of Ukraine except its westernmost part had become incorporated into the Russian Empire.

Once they had full control of most of Ukraine the Russians did not create any kind of Ukrainian political unit within the Russian Empire. Ukraine just became part of that empire and was ruled and administered the same way other parts of the empire were. In the imperial period of Russian history, roughly 1700 to 1917, the Russians did not consider Ukrainians to be a people distinct from the Russians. They called the eastern part of Ukraine “Little Russia.” Because imperial officials did not consider Ukrainian to be its own language, the language of public administration in Ukraine under the empire was Russian. To this day most educated Ukrainians are fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian. There is also a large number of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, especially on the Crimean Peninsula and in eastern Ukraine.

World War I brought about the collapse of the Russian Empire. The Russian Communists, then called Bolsheviks, staged a coup in St. Petersburg on October 25, 1917. (That was the date of the coup on the Julian calendar the Russians used at the time. On the Gregorian calendar that almost everyone else uses the date was November 7, 1917. That’s why the Soviet Union called that coup the October Revolution. They celebrated it in November.) A long and bloody civil war followed. Much of it was fought in Ukraine. Eventually the Russian Communist Party established its control over all of Ukraine.

In 1922 the Russian Communists created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly known as the USSR. It consisted of so-called republics organized by major ethnic groups within the country. Control of the whole country was, however, strongly centralized in Moscow. One of the original republics was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. That subordinate political entity in the USSR constituted the first time in all of Ukrainian history that Ukraine had a set political structure based mostly on Ukrainian language. Its borders were mostly those of Ukraine today except that the Crimean Peninsula was at that time part of the Russian republic not the Ukrainian republic.

Then we come to one of most horrendous tragedies in the history of humanity. By the end of the 1920s the Soviet Union was under the control of Joseph Stalin, nee Dzhugashvili. He instituted a policy of rapid industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture throughout the country. The Communist Party, headed by Stalin, forced peasants across the USSR to surrender their private land holdings, farm animals, and farm equipment to entities usually called collective farms. All agricultural property was owned by the collective farm not by the people who were part of the collective. Peasants across the country resisted collectivization. In Ukraine, where the best farm land in the USSR was located—Ukraine was once called “the breadbasket of Europe”—the resistance was particularly strong.

To force the Ukrainian peasants to accept collectivization, Stalin created a massive, wholly artificial famine in Ukraine. There were sufficient crops to feed the people, but the government confiscated them and exported them to get hard currency that Russia did not have in its own. Soldiers even entered people’s houses and took away any food they found there. Something like 4 million Ukrainians starved to death. The Ukrainians call this famine the Holodomor. That’s a word based on Ukrainian words for kill and hunger. It has the power and horrific connotation for the Ukrainians that the word Holocaust has for us. Though Stalin was Georgian (from the soviet socialist republic, now independent nation of Georgia). he was dictator over a country primarily run by and for the benefit of the Russians. The Ukrainians quite appropriately blame the Russians for the Holodomor. Though it took place ninety years ago, it colors the Ukrainians’ view of the Russians to this day. As I’m sure you could guess, it does not improve that view.

Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. German military forces soon occupied all of Ukraine. Scholars say that a great many Ukrainians would have joined the Germans in fighting the Russians both because they hated the Russians for the Holodomor and because they hated Soviet communism. Hitler, however, thought that all Slavic people were subhuman. How anyone could think that of people with history and culture as rich as those of the Slavic people is beyond comprehension, but that’s what Hitler thought. So rather than favoring the Ukrainians and inducing them to help them fight the Russians, the Germans treated the Ukrainians no better than he treated other Slavic people he had conquered like the Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles, and he didn’t treat them well at all. Eventually of course the Soviets defeated and Germans and ended the Second World War in Europe.

Stalin died on March 5, 1953. He was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as head of the Communist Part and for time head of the Soviet government as well. Earlier in his career he had been a Party functionary in the Donbas, a region in far eastern Ukraine where many of the people were (and are) Russians not Ukrainians. He is important for us because in 1954 he transferred Crimea from the Russian soviet republic to the Ukrainian one. No one quite knows for sure why he did it. It isn’t clear that he had the legal authority to do it, but then the lack of legal authority never stopped any Soviet leaders from doing anything.

I lived in Soviet Russia for the academic year 1975-76 doing PhD dissertation research. The Soviet Union felt to me and many other people like a huge, inert mass that wasn’t doing much but that was going to last for long time. So I and a lot of other people knowledgeable about the Soviet Union were surprised if not shocked when the USSR started falling apart in the late 1980s. The history of the collapse of the Soviet Union is complex and fascinating. The important part of that history for us is only that on December 25, 1991, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved. (Because of that calendar difference I mentioned above, December 25 on our calendar is not Christmas on the Orthodox calendar.) The Russian flag replaced the Soviet flag flying over the Kremlin in Moscow. A few months earlier the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had declared itself to be at first autonomous within the USSR, then completely independent as its own sovereign nation. This was the first time in history that there had been an independent Ukrainian nation.

I can’t overstress a point I have already made that plays an important role in the current Russia-Ukraine crisis. Throughout the long history of Ukrainian-Russian relations most Russians have never considered the Ukrainians to be a separate people distinct from the Russians. At times the Russian Empire prohibited the use of Ukrainian in schools in Ukraine. In the Russians’ view Ukrainian was merely a dialect of Russian. While I was in Russia I did a lot of research on a man who was significant in the government of Russia and in the Russian Orthodox Church from the 1860s until the Russian revolution in 1905, the first Russian revolution of the twentieth century not the one that toppled the tsar. This man had significant dealings with what is now Ukraine, mostly in church affairs. I never saw any reference to Ukraine as anything other than Russia politically, culturally, or religiously. When the Soviet Union collapsed and for a very long time before that most Ukrainians hated the Russians, and the Russians considered Ukrainians really to be Russian.

In 2014 Vladimir Putin’s Russia occupied the Crimean Peninsula militarily and eventually annexed to Russia. Most of the international community doesn’t recognize that annexation and has imposed sanctions on Russia because of it. Recall that in Soviet times Crimea was first part of the Russian republic, then from 1954 on part of the Ukrainian republic. When Ukraine became an independent country in 1991 Crimea was part of the new Ukrainian nation. The Crimean port city of Sevastopol was the home port of the Russian Black Sea fleet. It had been the home port first of the imperial Russian Black Sea fleet, then of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, then the Russian Black Sea fleet again for a very long time. Sevastopol remained the home port of the Russian fleet when it became part of the independent nation of Ukraine. Moreover, the population of Crimea was mostly Russian not Ukrainian. Despite the economic sanctions imposed on Russia in response to what Russia did in Crimea, that annexation of Crimea to Russia is very popular among the Russian people. It did however violate international law. Whatever else it may mean, Russia’s annexation of Crimea gives the Ukrainians one more reason to hate the Russians.

Today Russian president Putin has stationed over 100,000 Russian troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border and has threatened to invade Ukraine. His threat is, perhaps among other things, an attempt to force concessions from NATO and the United States. So to understand what Putin is up to we must know some of the history of relations between Russia and NATO. The United States and several western European countries created NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, on April 1, 1949. They created NATO specifically to stop the spread of Soviet influence in western Europe. It did that by having the United States commit to its European allies that it would defend them against any Soviet attack. Several years later, in 1955, the Soviet Union created the so-called Warsaw Pact. It members included the Soviet Union and all of the Communist ruled, Soviet dominated countries in eastern Europe from Poland in the north to Bulgaria in the south. Thereafter the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was also a standoff between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in July 1, 1991, shortly before the final collapse of the Soviet Union. NATO is of course still very much with us.

When the Soviet Union was disbanded in late 1991 all fifteen of the former soviet socialist republics became independent nations. Particularly striking was the regained independence of the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They had long been part of the Russian Empire. They all became independent nations after World War I. However, after the singing of the Nazi-Soviet treaty known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, those states came once more under Soviet pressure and occupation. The Germans occupied all of them for a time during World War II. As the Soviets pushed the Germans out of the Baltic states they incorporated all three states into the USSR, each of them becoming one of the soviet socialist republics. Each of them became an independent nation again upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded to the east. Beginning around 1999 NATO started accepting applications to join the alliance from former Warsaw Pact members and the three Baltic nations. Poland became a member of NATO in 1999. The three Baltic states join in 2004. Today all former Warsaw Pact members except for three former soviet republics, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, are members of NATO.

From the time it first started to happen, Russia has considered NATO expansion into lands formerly under their control to be an aggressive act against Russia. Adding former Soviet controlled nations to NATO may seem in the west to be designed to protect them from Russian aggression. Russia, at least in the person of its president Vladimir Putin, sees it as aimed directly against Russia. We need to consider why that is so. Recall that NATO was always a strong adversary of the Soviet Union. Recall also how so many times nations to Russia’s west invaded it over the centuries. The invasions of the French under Napoleon in June, 1812 and the Germans under Hitler in June, 1941, are the most famous invasions of Russia, but there had been numerous other invasions from the west in earlier centuries. After World War II the Russians had established their dominance over all of the nations of eastern Europe (except Austria if you consider Austria to be in eastern Europe). The Soviets did that in significant part to create buffer states between the Soviet Union and the west. Now all of that buffer except for Russia’s ally Belarus is gone. NATO, Russia’s opponent  all through the Cold War, has expanded into the nations that had formed Russia’s buffer. To Putin the wolf is at the door. He greatly fears that NATO’s expansion might one day extend to Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would feel nearly surrounded by a potentially aggressive enemy.

Putin clearly intends his threat to invade Ukraine to be an attempt to get NATO and the US to back off. He has demanded that the three Baltic states be expelled from NATO, that NATO remove its forces from the former Warsaw Pact nations that have joined it, and that NATO pledge that it will never accept Ukraine as a member. It seems perfectly obvious that NATO never could accept any of these demands and never will. Doing what Putin wants would be a betrayal of NATO’s newest members. It would leave Ukraine more at Russia’s mercy than it already is. The odd thing about Putin’s demands is that he must have known that NATO and the US would never accept them. It seems so obvious that NATO and the US would never accept them that we have to ask whether Putin had some hidden motive behind his demanding them. Putin is after all an old Cold Warrior and KGB operative full of deceit and subterfuge. There are, I think, a few things that might be Putin’s hidden motive.

First, he may be playing to his domestic audience more than to Ukraine or the west. Like I’ve already said, historically at least Russians don’t see  Ukrainians as a people distinct from themselves. Many Russians may believe that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent, sovereign nation. The Russian people reacted very favorably to Putin’s annexation of Crimea. Many Russians share Putin’s belief that NATO is a threat to Russia’s national security. Putin’s favorability ratings are not always very high. He has probably retained his hold on power by falsifying election returns in various ways (and by having his chief opponents jailed or even murdered, but that’s a matter for another day). I would not be surprised if his strong stance against the west and Ukraine boosted his standing in the polls.

Another possible reason for what Putin is doing has to do with Putin’s long-range foreign policy goals. According to people knowledgeable about such things, those goals are first to create a Russian sphere of influence that reproduces the Russian or Soviet empire (they were geographically nearly the same thing) to the greatest extent possible. Putin has said that he considers the collapse of the Soviet Union to have been the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the twentieth century. It doesn’t matter if he’s right about that or not. (He isn’t.) What matters is that that’s what Putin thinks. He can’t come close to achieving this goal if he can’t get Ukraine into his sphere of influence. He may hope that even though the west will not accept his demands, in the long run NATO will back off their support for Ukraine because of the danger his threats against that country create.

Second, Putin wants to deepen fractures that already exist in the European Union. (Many, though not all, Ukrainians would very much like to join the EU, but so far Ukraine has not been invited in.) Not all members of the EU have the same economic relationship with Russia. Germany, for example, is more dependent on a supply of Russian natural gas than are some other EU members. Political attitudes toward Russia differ too. Neo-fascist leaders like those in Hungary and Turkey are more inclined to like Putin and Putin’s Russia than are the true democrats in countries like Germany and France. Putin forcing Europe to make new decisions about sanctions on Russia could indeed deepen those fractures.

Third, Putin hopes to drive a wedge between the United States and its NATO allies. It is much easier for the US to take a firm stand against Russia than it is for America’s European allies. We’re a lot farther away from Russia than they are. We are in no way dependent on Russian natural gas and other natural resources as some European countries are. That means we can worry less about Russia’s response to severe sanctions against it than the European nations can. Perhaps all this is speculation, but it makes sense to me.

Finally, will Putin really invade Ukraine? There is no way to know for sure. I doubt that even Putin himself knows for sure whether or not he will. Russia is far stronger militarily than Ukraine even when we take Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal out of the picture as most unlikely to be used. The military aid Ukraine is receiving from the US and from NATO helps that country’s military preparedness, but it can’t put Ukraine on an equal footing with Russia in that regard. Russia could probably overwhelm Ukraine and occupy the country with relative ease. What Russia could not do is subdue all Ukrainian resistance or get the Ukrainian people to accept any kind of Russian control over them. They have already rebelled once against a pro-Russia leader. It's a pretty sure bet they would do it again. Russia would probably face at least ongoing guerilla war against it. The notion of Russia conquering and in any way ruling Ukraine is one that Putin’s military and political strategists would, I am sure, much rather avoid than undertake. The US and NATO threat of severe sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine may have some deterrent effect on Putin, or it may not.

The thing that could prompt Putin to do something he otherwise would not do is that he has painted himself into a corner. He has threatened to invade Ukraine. He has positioned a huge, highly trained, and well equipped army on the Russo-Ukrainian border. He has made demands that NATO and the US will never accept. Putin may think that he has no way out of the situation he has created than to invade Ukraine. No leader wants to lose face. Authoritarian leaders like Putin want to lose it less than most.

Yet there is one thing Putin could do that would be a use of military force against Ukraine but would not be a full-scale invasion. There are a lot of Russians everywhere in Ukraine, but the population of the eastern part of the country has a particularly high percentage of Russians living among the Ukrainians. A couple of areas in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine have already declared themselves to be independent of Ukraine. They have set up small state structures of a sort. The Donbas Russians are already receiving military aid from Russia. Russian soldiers have been and may still be on the ground there. Putin could send his troops into far eastern of Ukraine, then annex it to Russia the way he did with Crimea. The Ukrainian armed forces would probably fight back, but they are no match for Russia’s mighty military capabilities. I understand that the troops Putin has sent to the Ukrainian border are not positioned for invading Ukraine in the far eastern end of the country. Still, invading and annexing east Ukraine could give Putin a way out short of an all out invasion.

So there you have it. Actually, if you’ve read this far you probably have more than you want to have. The current crisis arising from Putin’s threat to invade Ukraine is complex at best. Historically, relations between Russia and Ukraine are at least fraught. The two peoples, the Russians and the Ukrainians, are either separate peoples or not depending on who you talk to. I take some comfort from the pledge the US and NATO have made not to enter into a war between Ukraine and Russia. I pray that for the sake of both people but especially for the Ukrainians that Russia does not invade.

Monday, January 31, 2022

In Memoriam: Marian Frances Sorenson, nee Lorance

 

In Memoriam: Marian Frances Sorenson, nee Lorance

January 31, 2022

 

Today would have been my late wife’s 75th birthday. Her name was Marian Frances, nee Lorance, though we all knew her as Francie. We were married on November 25, 1972, in Eugene, Oregon. She died of breast cancer on July 31, 2002, in Lynnwood, Washington. Francie was from Boise, Idaho. We met when we were both students at the University of Oregon. Francie was bright, attractive, and (most of the time at least) fun to be with. When we were married I was a graduate student in Russian history at the University of Washington. Francie came to Seattle to be with me on June 2, 1972. It was the happiest day of my life. Francie and I had two children together, Matthew, born on January 2, 1974, and Mary, born on October 5, 1977. They’ve both turned out to be wonderful adults who are still a joy to me all these years later. I attribute any parenting success we had with them mostly by far to Francie.

When Francie came to Seattle in 1972 she thought she was marrying a future college professor of Russian history. But there were no, or nearly no, such jobs to be had in 1977 when got my degree. I spent the next year not knowing what I would do professionally, but eventually I decided to go to law school. Francie always said I just sprang that decision on her without our having talked about it at all. That’s not quite how I remember it, but she was probably right. Sorry about that, dear. In any event she was married not to a future college professor but to a future lawyer. Much later in life it turned out that she was married to a seminarian who became a church pastor. She took all those changes in my professional life in stride with very good grace. Thank you dear.

In 1975 I was awarded an IREX/Fulbright Fellowship to spend the 1975-76 academic year in Russia doing dissertation research. Francie knew I had applied, but we hadn’t yet gotten an acceptance. Then I got the phone call. I got it. At the time Francie was working as a secretary in the Oceanography Department of the University of Washington. I’ll never forget calling her and saying, “Hi. Want to go to Russia?” Thank God she said yes. It was a very courageous yes. Russia, at that time Soviet Russia, was a very foreign and somewhat frightening place. I had been there for five weeks on a Russian language program from Indiana University in the summer of 1968, so I knew a little of what it would be like to be there. Francie had learned some Russian by this time, though not much. Russia was my thing not hers.

That year in Russia became the greatest adventure of our lives other perhaps than rearing children. We lived in a couple of small rooms in a dormitory wing of the big Moscow State University building south of downtown Moscow. Fortunately there were other Americans living in the same wing. Francie became friends with some of them, especially with one family from Alaska who had a son about the same age as Matthew. It was not an easy year for Francie. Doing anything in in Soviet Russia took easily twice as long as it would at home. The Russian winter was as ferocious as it is reputed to be. Soviet dairy products made Matthew horribly sick. Thank God we could get Finnish milk at the American embassy. Francie had to deal with all of the hardships of raising a toddler under very difficult circumstances mostly by herself. I spend all of every weekday at the Lenin Library or at some archive or other doing my dissertation research. In the spring for four weeks I spent four days a week in what was then Leningrad working in an archive there. I had a room at Leningrad State University, but we’d been told Francie and Matthew shouldn’t go with me because that university didn’t have the housing available that the Moscow university did and because the drinking water in Leningrad was contaminated with giardia. It was there that we started to attend church for the first time in our adult lives. We were active in the Anglo-American Church attached to the British and American embassies. Francie was such a trooper. She handled it all so very well. Thank you dear.

Five years later, as I was graduating from law school, I received two job offers. One was in Eugene, where I was finishing up my time at the University of Oregon School of Law. The other was from one of the major downtown Seattle law firms. In the year between the time I got my PhD and the time we went back to Eugene for law school, Francie had taken a class in American Sign Language offered by a Seattle church. She was hooked. We knew that at that time one of the best ASL interpreter training programs in the country was at Seattle Central Community College. Francie wanted to enroll in it. Her preference for Seattle and the interpreter training program at Seattle Central CC made the decision of which job to accept easier than it otherwise would have been. I accepted the offer from Seattle, and in the early summer of 1981 we moved back to the city where we had previously spent something like nine years of our lives, less one for the time we were in Russia.

Francie did indeed attend and graduate from that interpreter training program. I was an AA program, but it felt more like graduate school. When she completed the course after a couple of years she became a certified, professional sign language interpreter. That would be her profession until near the end of her life when she got too sick to work. She was by all accounts a very good sign language interpreter. She developed something of a specialty in interpreting for Deaf-Blind clients, which involves holding the client’s hands so that they can feel the signs the interpreter is making. It became routine at our house for Francie to spend time nearly every evening filing her fingernails. Fingernails interfere with interpreting for Deaf-Blind clients. After she had been working as an interpreter for a few years she and a few of her interpreter colleagues with whom she had become friends formed a joint interpreting practice they called SignOn. It became quite a success and an important institution for the Deaf in western Washington.

Beginning about in early 1994 Francie and I entered what would be the most difficult time of our relationship except of course for her terminal illness. I had left the downtown law world, where I had become a good if not a great trial lawyer. I was trying to conduct a solo law practice in Edmonds, Washington, where Francie and I had bought a house several years earlier. By 1994 I had begun to burn out on law. I wasn’t making any money. I wasn’t attracting clients. One day Francie and our daughter Mary, who was still in high school at the time, sat me down in our living room. Mary said, “Dad, you’re depressed.” She meant I had clinical depression; and though it had never occurred to me that I did, she was right.  I started on anti-depressive medication shortly thereafter. Still, I know that for the next three plus years I was difficult to live with. I still wasn’t making any money. I suppose I was less clinically depressed than I had been before I went on antidepressants, but I was still sour and frustrated most of the time. I know I was no fun to live with at all. As I look back on those years I can’t figure out why Francie didn’t leave me, but I thank God that she didn’t. Her commitment to me and to our children was so strong that she stuck it out with me. She took over making family decisions that I was in no condition to make. She decided we had to sell the boat we had purchased a few years earlier that I really loved. She decided that we had to sell our house in Edmonds and move into something smaller and cheaper. It was good that both of the kids were off on their own by then. She took over when I couldn’t, and she did it brilliantly. She certainly was right about selling the boat and the house, painful as doing so was.

Early in 1997 I learned the School of Theology and Ministry of Seattle University, a Jesuit, Roman Catholic university, was creating a way for Protestant students to earn an MDiv or other ministry degree. The School had offered a fully accredited Master of Divinity degree form some time by then. (I always find the name of that degree to be odd. I have the degree, but I certainly have not mastered divinity.) They’d had a few Protestant students before; but now, in cooperation with several non-Catholic denominations, including my United Church of Christ, they were gearing up to receive a much greater number of those non-Catholic students. Somehow I just knew I had to go. I don’t know why. I didn’t know what I would do with an MDiv. It hadn’t yet occurred to me that parish ministry was my calling. Thank God the Holy Spirit knew me better than I did. I told Francie I had to do it. I don’t think she understood why I had to, but then neither did I. She raised only one, perfectly appropriate question. How are you going to pay for it? I said I didn’t know but that I would go into debt if I had to (and it turned out I had to). I don’t think she liked that prospect much, but she never tried to stop me.

Now the really hard part. In the early 1990s Francie was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had to undergo a mastectomy. As they were taking her in for the surgery she said to me, “I don’t want to do this.” I said, “It’s OK. We have to get you well.” After the surgery her oncologist said it was up to her whether or not to do follow up chemotherapy. The statistics the doctor gave us made it sound like the chances of the cancer recurring were low because they’d gotten it early. The statistics said that chemo wouldn’t reduce those chances some but not all that much. Francie decided not to do it.

Our lives went on pretty much as before. I don’t think either of us thought about Francie’s history of cancer much. Then, in 2000, just as I was finishing my MDiv studies, Francie started to complain about pain in her hip. She wanted to ignore it, but I finally prevailed on her to go see her doctor. When we got the diagnosis the news was not good. Francie’s hip hurt because the breast cancer from years earlier had metastasized to her bones. She was referred to an oncologist. He put her on some medication the name of which I don’t remember. It had few if any side effects, but it was supposed to keep the cancer in check at least for a while. The doctor said we could probably manage the cancer with that medication for many years. It is of course never good to have cancer, but we felt somewhat relieved.

Francie went in for periodic checkups. After one of them the oncologist’s office called and said Francie needed to come in. We feared that that meant bad news. I went with her of course. I’ll never forget standing with her in the parking garage of the oncologist’s building waiting for an elevator. Francie said, “I’m scared.” I said, “So am I.” The news we got was indeed very, very bad. Francie’s cancer had spread to her liver. It had grown there quite substantially. I won’t go into all the details here, but we knew that now Francie’s cancer was terminal. We went home, and both of us cried.

Shortly thereafter I went to a worship service that included the hymn “Won’t You Let Me Be Your Servant.” I went home from that service and typed out two of the verses from that hymn. They were:

 

I will hold the Christ-light for you

in the shadow of your fear;

I will hold my hand out to you,

speak the peace you long to hear.

 

And:

 

I will weep when you are weeping;

when you laugh I’ll laugh with you.

I will share your joy and sorrow

till we’ve seen this journey through.

 

I gave Francie those verses as my pledge to her for the difficult journey we both knew lay ahead and that we both knew we had to see through. In all the years thereafter when I served as a parish pastor I never used that hymn in any service. I couldn’t. It doesn’t much enhance a worship service to have the pastor up there sobbing. I tear up even now as I write these words.

In early July, 2002, Francie entered hospice care in our condominium home in Lynnwood. I had been a parish pastor for only a few months by then. Before she got too sick to say much of anything Francie said a couple of powerful things to me. She said that I would be the one who would still be here and that I shouldn’t let any thoughts of her interfere with my living my life. That sentiment is the greatest gift a dying person can give a loved one, and Francie gave it to me. About my being a parish pastor she said, “I am so glad you finally are who you really are.” That is the best affirmation of my decision to go into ministry I have ever received or ever could receive. Thank you, dear.

On the evening of Wednesday, July 31, 2002, I sat in our bedroom where Francie was in her hospice bed clearly very close to death. Our daughter Mary was with us. Our son Matthew was at work at the Everett Fire Department, perhaps a twenty or thirty minute drive away. Either Mary or I called him and said you’d better get down here. At 10:45 pm Francie stopped breathing. She was gone. It was over. Matthew hadn’t made it there yet but arrived a short time later. Francie was enrolled in a pre-paid mortuary plan. After a while I called them. They put Francie’s body in a zipper cover. I will never forget watching them wheel her lifeless body in that cover out of our home. I was devastated. To some extent I still am.

Francie wasn’t particularly religious, but in her way she was more spiritual than I am. During her last hospitalization, when she was having a very, very bad time, she had a vision. She saw herself and me held in God’s hands, and she knew that we were safe there. When we buried her ashes at a local cemetery we put on the grave marker, “Safe in God’s Hands.” She was, and she is. One day my ashes will be buried beneath that marker along with hers.

What more can I say about Francie? Her love for me enriched my life in ways and to an extent I cannot even begin to express. I hope that my love for her enriched her life too. She was a wonderful mother to our children. Nothing either of them could have done would have diminished her love for them in any way. They lost her far too soon, and they still miss her horribly. She devoted her professional life to serving Deaf and Deaf-Blind persons, helping them make their way in an uncomprehending and to a large extent uncaring world. She was the first love of my life. I can’t even imagine how poor my life would have been without her. Rest in peace, dear. Of course I will never forget you. I hope and pray that we will meet again in a life beyond this life. May it be so.

Sunday, January 30, 2022

God as She

 

God as She

January 30, 2022

 

Today the Rev. Patty Ebner, a pastor of the First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ, of Bellevue, Washington, gave a wonderful sermon on the importance of our using female language for God. She reminded me that in the summer of 1998 I took a Christology course from the great Roman Catholic feminist theologian (yes, there really are such people) Elizabeth A. Johnson, who was a visiting scholar that summer at Seattle University, where I was in seminary. She goes by Beth not Elizabeth, and ten years later she wrote a very flattering endorsement of my first book, Liberating Christianity. One of Beth’s major themes is that what became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth was the feminine manifestation of God Sophia who appears in Proverbs in in books that are Apocryphal in the Protestant tradition but canonical in the Catholic tradition like Sirach and The Wisdom of Solomon. By New Testament times a sexist culture had changed the feminine noun Sophia into the masculine noun Logos, the Word, although the early Roman Christians did name the great cathedral church in Constantinople Hagia Sophia, Holy Wisdom. In her great book She Who Is (if you haven’t read it, please do), Beth says repeatedly that “the image of God functions.” She means, quite correctly, that the way we think of God influences every aspect of our lives. She also says that the image of God as feminine works as well, and as poorly, as the image of God as masculine. She taught me that changing our words for God from masculine to an impersonal neuter is better than nothing, but it’s not enough. Calling God Creator is better than calling God Father, but if we are ever to get beyond our faith tradition’s androcentrism and even misogyny we must start calling God she and Mother.

It is undeniable that the Judeo-Christian tradition has given us a male God. Oh sure. We all say we know that God isn’t male, but look at the language we use. We call God Father not Mother. We call the second person of the Trinity the Son. We worship a male human being who we say is God Incarnate, not a female one. Our tradition calls him Lord, definitely a male term. We begin the prayer we say he taught us, “Our Father” not “Our Mother.” In my particular tradition we sometimes change that second word to Creator, but we rarely if ever change it to Mother. How did we get here, and what are we going to do about it?

The simple answer to how we got here is that our Christian faith has roots in and grew out of ancient Judaism. Scholars tell us that the stories in the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) go back at least to 1200 BCE and probably much farther back than that. Ancient Judaism differed from the other religions of the ancient world, though not in the way most people think it did. Except for Judaism, all of the religions of the ancient world were polytheistic. They worshipped multiple gods. Many if not all of them also worshipped goddesses. The religion of the people the Bible tells us occupied what would become Israel, the Canaanites, had as their main god the very masculine god Baal, but Baal wasn’t the only deity in that tradition. Baal had a divine female consort named Ashera. Around the time of Jesus a cult developed in the Mediterranean world around the Egyptian goddess Isis. You may well have heard of ancient Greek goddesses like Athena. The ancient world was full of female images of the divine.

Israel wasn’t. Hebrew faith differed from other ancient faiths, but not for a long time because it was monotheistic. Until the mid-6th century BCE it wasn’t monotheistic. It was what we call henotheistic. Israel’s henotheism did not deny the reality of other people’s gods and goddesses the way monotheism does. It said only that the Hebrew people were to worship only one god. That god’s name was YHVH. Hebrew was spelled without vowels, which is why there are none in that name. The name is usually transliterated into English as Yahweh (w not v because we use the German transliteration. Don’t ask me why) though some still transliterate it as Jehovah. The Old Testament of ten refers to Yahweh as “your” or “our” God. Yahweh was at first and for a long time the people’s war god, and he was definitely male. For an ancient Bible verse that sees Yahweh as a war god see Exodus 15:20-21, where the prophetess Miriam leads the women of the tribe that has just escaped from Egypt in singing praises to Yahweh, who, she says, has just defeated the Egyptian army for them. (Your English translation may say Lord here not Yahweh, with Lord typed in what are called small caps. In the Old Testament, when you see the word Lord printed that way you know that the Hebrew word being rendered into English is YHVH. And by the way, Lord typed that way in the Old Testament never means Jesus.) Ancient Israel had no god but Yahweh, and Yahweh was aggressively male. War gods usually are. In the mid-sixth century BCE, during the Babylonian exile, an Israeli prophet developed true monotheism for the first time in human history. For an example of a biblical text that expresses that monotheism see Isaiah 45:1-7. The “Cyrus” the text refers to is Cyrus the Great, King of Persia. Yet that one and only God was still Yahweh, and in the Jewish tradition Yahweh never ceased to be male. The Israelites referred to Yahweh using only masculine language. They always called God he. They certainly never called God she.

The earliest Christians may not have called God Yahweh, but they inherited the Jewish conception of God as male nonetheless. Search the New Testament for a reference to God as female. You won’t find it. It isn’t there. Many of the earliest Christians believed that God, expressed as the masculine noun Word, became incarnate in the male human being Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest New Testament documents are the authentic letters of Paul. Paul called God Father never Mother. All of the New Testament documents were writen in and for a Greek-speaking culture that was patriarchal and androcentric if not downright misogynist. None of the New Testament authors saw any reason not to call God he. That, after all, is what their mother faith of Judaism called God. Also, when the New Testament refers to scripture it means the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that retained the Hebrew Bible’s exclusively masculine language for God. Except for a few lonely voices like Beth Johnson that cry out for us to use female images for God, Christian language for God has been almost exclusively male ever since.

So. Is God male? Of course not. God transcends all human characteristics including gender. Most Christians today will acknowledge the truth of that statement. Yet we relate to God using terms that come from our lived human experience as human beings that are almost exclusively male. But if God transcends us absolutely, and God does, and we relate to God using human terms, why can’t we use feminine terms to refer to God? The answers is, there is no reason whatsoever that we can’t. We can. As Beth Johnson says, female terms for God work as well, and as poorly, as male ones do.

Some Christians today get it. The feminist theologians both Protestant and Catholic do. My favorite modern hymn does too. The second verse of the hymn “Bring Many Names” by Brian Wren goes”

 

Strong mother God, working night and day,

planning all the wonders of creation,

setting each equation, genius at play.

Hail and Hosanna! Strong mother God!

 

Not only does Wren call God mother, he turns our usual gender stereotypes upside down. His next verse is about “warm father God, hugging every child,” for which we should all give him our most sincere thanks.

So what are we doing to do about it? Let me suggest something as a way to begin. Try thinking of God as Mother not Father. Start the Lord’s Prayer “Our Mother,” not “Our Father.” Try thinking of God as Mother of all creation. Call God she not he. I’ll tell you that when I do that I feel very differently about God. Yes, it’s hard to get beyond our gender stereotypes the way Brian Wren does, but what images does thinking of God as feminine bring to mind? Certainly not vengeful anger, judgment, and eternal damnation, things our tradition has so frequently (and so wrongly) attributed to God. When I call God Mother or she I think first of all of maternal love. I know that not all people are lucky enough to have human mothers like this, but when I think of God as Mother I think first of all of maternal love. Unconditional love that never gives up on anyone and is always more than happy to welcome her children home. I think of a hospitable God always happy to have us drop in for a visit. I think of birth, of all creation being born from God. I do get a very different sense of God indeed than I get when I think of God as male. I know that thinking of God as feminine isn’t easy for most of us. We’ve all been thoroughly conditioned by our tradition to think of God as male even when we say we know that God isn’t male. But give it a try. You may find that doing so opens up a whole new and wonderful way of relating to God for you. May it be so.

Saturday, January 29, 2022

On Two Problems from the Bible

 

On Two Problems from the Bible

January 29, 2022

 

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

Both when I was an active pastor and now in retirement I’ve spent a lot of time with the Bible. I’ve written nearly seven hundred pages on it, now available in three volumes. I have some rather unorthodox, but I’m convinced totally correct, ideas about the Bible. I don’t believe that it comes from God. It is a human document not a divine one. It is however the foundational book of our Christian faith. It is, among other things, the source of our information and beliefs about Jesus Christ. Christianity is inconceivable without it. The Bible contains a lot of error, but it also contains some of the deepest wisdom we have available to us. I love the Bible in many ways. Yet these days the more time I spend with it the more I find things in it that seem to me just to be wrong. I use a Presbyterian daily lectionary. Today it gave me two readings I want to discuss here. They are Galatians 3:23-29 and Mark 7:1-23. I find significant problems in both.

I’ll start with Paul’s letter to the Galatians. It is the earliest of Paul’s letters in which he develops his theology of justification by faith through grace. It is therefore one of the most foundational documents of the Christian religion. Yet Paul, for all his deep theological insight, is nothing if not inconsistent. His letter to the Romans is considered to be his most thoroughly considered and developed statement of his theology. It is that indeed, but it will also drive you nuts with its many inconsistencies. Contradictions even.

Here’s the contradiction in Galatians 3:23-29. In this passage, as he does so often, Paul is trying to explain his understanding of the relationship between Torah law and faith. In our passage here he tries to explain that relationship this way.

 

Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. Galatians 3:23-26.

 

The problem I have with this statement is that Paul seems to be saying that people had no faith until Jesus came. But of course the Jewish people had had faith in God for well over one thousand years at least before Jesus came. They didn’t have faith in Jesus Christ, who after all hadn’t come yet. They still don’t have faith in Jesus Christ, but they had and have faith in God, and isn’t that what really matters? We Christians live out our belief in God through Jesus Christ. Jews don’t, but so what? Two thousand years of destructive Christian claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Christianity is not and cannot be the only valid way of faith in God. The claim that it is never made any sense, but it is particularly absurd to proclaim that it is today in a world we know to be full of good, loving people who practice their faith in God through some other faith tradition. So, sorry Paul. Jesus coming was not the beginning of faith. Of faith in Jesus yes, but not faith in God.

Consider this. If justification (Paul’s notion here) or salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, it means that before a specific time, in a specific place, and before some event took place, no one was saved. Then all of a sudden God decides, ‘Well, I guess it’s time to save people, so I’ll incarnate myself in a guy named Jesus of Nazareth. Then people, unlike anyone who lived before him or anyone who lives after him but doesn’t believe in him, can believe in me through him.” It makes absolutely no sense that God would do such a thing. I am sure that God in fact never did such a thing. So no, Paul. There was indeed faith before Jesus.

Then we have Mark 7:1-23. In this passage some Pharisees see Jesus’ disciples eating without having washed their hands. We’re told that Jews wash their hands, food, and utensils before they eat. Jesus’ disciples weren’t doing that. So these Pharisees ask Jesus, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” Mark 7:5. It seems a legitimate question in its original context, but Jesus’ reply isn’t exactly civil. He starts his response by saying, “Isaiah prophesized rightly about you hypocrites….” Mark 7:6a. He quotes Isaiah at them this way:

 

‘This people honors me with their lips,

     But their hearts are far from me;

In vain do they worship me,

     Teaching human precepts as doctrine.’ Mark 7:6-7.

 

The quote is of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 29:13. Jesus adds, “You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human precepts.” Mark 7:8. Jesus goes on to say to the people present, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” Mark 7:14b-15. He repeats this point to the disciples alone later on.

Jesus is simply inconsistent here. First he accuses the Pharisees of abandoning “the commandment of God.” Then he throws out the Jewish dietary laws. But Judaism considered in Jesus’ time and considers in ours that the laws of kosher diet in the Torah are commandments of God. So first he criticizes others for abandoning what he calls the commandment of God and calls them hypocrites. Then he abandons what his faith tradition considered and considers to be important commandments of God. I want to say to him, “Jesus, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t call others hypocrites for doing what you do yourself.” Yet that is precisely what he does in this passage. I’ve read commentary that says this passage is attacking legalism. I suppose it is, but it seems Jesus here attacks legalism he wants to attack and  attacks the Pharisees for not being sufficiently legalistic because they abandon the commandment of God. Sure sounds like a contradiction to me.

Elsewhere of course Jesus tells us what the most important of God’s commandments is. We call it the Great Commandment:

 

“The first is this, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:29-31.

 

The Great Commandment is I suppose Jesus’ ultimate rejection of Torah legalism. Jesus wants us to love, not to be legalists. So let’s not worry too much about Jesus’ inconsistency in our passage from Mark. The Gospel of Mark is a human document not a divine one. We can, I hope, live with that truth.

Sunday, January 23, 2022

The Whole Armor of God

 

The Whole Armor of God

January 23, 2022

 

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

There is simply no denying it. There are passages in the Bible that are just offensive and contradict the Bible’s broader messages. John Dominic Crossan characterizes the way the Bible both speaks divine wisdom and worldly sin by saying that first the authors get what God’s truth is but then fall back into advocating the worldly ways of the cultures in which they lived. At best the Bible takes two steps forward toward God’s truth, then takes one step back toward the world. At times it’s more like the Bible takes one step forward and two steps back. Sometimes the Bible speaks God’s truth of justice and peace achieved through nonviolent resistance to evil, but it also has God telling King Saul to kill every living thing among the Amalekites and getting angry with him when he doesn’t quite do it. It has God freeing the people from bondage in Egypt, then it has that same God kill thousands of God’s people in retribution for some offense. It has God as the One seated on the throne and Jesus as the Lamb that has been slaughtered kill off a good third of the people on earth, then it gives a beautiful, beatific vision of a world reconciled with God where God wipes away the tears from the people’s eyes. It’s enough to give you whiplash you get tossed back and forth so much.

Then there is at least one rather odd passage that proclaims divine values in very worldly terms. It’s at Ephesians 6:10-24. Verse 6:11 tells the people to “Put on the whole armor of God.” Armor is of course a piece of military equipment in the ancient world in and for which Ephesians was written. Today the author may have said put on the Kevlar vest of God to convey the same idea. The author of Ephesians (who claims to be Paul but almost certainly isn’t) isn’t done with the military imagery with that statement. He’s jut getting started. He tells his audience to put on a belt, shoes, and a breastplate (a piece of armor). Then they are to take a shield and a helmet. Finally the text tells the people to take a sword, a weapon for killing and maiming. The text here is giving us an image of an ancient soldier preparing for battle.

The military, both in the ancient world and ours, is of course a very worldly thing. While they may at times do other things, militaries ultimately exist for only one purpose, to inflict death and destruction on people identified as the enemy. The world often makes heroes of people who have been particularly good at inflicting death and destruction on other people. Militaries directly contradict Jesus’ teaching of nonviolent resistance to evil. Ephesians’ imagery of military gear is purely worldly and not at all divine.

Yet there is more in this passage from Ephesians than worldly military imagery. The text connects each piece of military battle gear with much more divine concepts. They are:

 

·        The belt we are to put on is “truth.”

·        The breastplate is “righteousness.”

·        The shoes are to make us “ready to proclaim the gospel of peace.

·        The shield is “faith.”

·        The helmet is “salvation.”

·        The sword is of “the Spirit.”

 

We see that our author has done something a bit odd or at least interesting. He has used military imagery to introduce spiritual values.  It is particularly striking that he included in the midst of his imagery of war “the gospel of peace.”

So what are to make of this odd combination of military metaphors and spiritual virtues? To answer that question let’s go back to John Dominic Crossan. Recall that Crossan tells us that one of the principal dynamics in the Bible is that it will express some divine truth, then fall back to embracing the ways of the world that are anything but divine. Clearly in the passage from Ephesians we are considering here we have contrasting images. We have physical equipment of war and spiritual values of peace. How do we know which image is worldly and which is divine?

It is easiest, I think, to start to discern which images are which by asking which of the images most come from the ways the world works. When we do, it seems obvious that the military images are worldly and the spiritual values are not. The nations and empires of the world conduct warfare. They did in the world of Ephesians, and they still do in our world. They always have. I hope they will stop warring one day, but I fear that they never will. Ephesians was written in the first century CE somewhere in the Roman Empire. The author surely knew the way Rome operated. The first century CE is part of what the Romans called the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace, an extended period of at least relative peace throughout the empire. Rome did not create that peace through kindness and justice. It created it by militarily crushing anything and anyone who they thought threatened the peace. The Roman Empire grew to the extent that it did through liberal application of military might. Our author surely intended his military metaphors to represent the military ways of the world in which he lived.

Which leaves us with the other things he mentions as divine. Whatever the author’s intention was, those other virtues he mentions are certainly more divine than any military imagery could ever be, the old hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers” to the contrary notwithstanding. The virtues in these verses are indeed quite the opposite of the ways of the world. The first one mentioned is “truth.” Today we live in a nation in which one of our major political parties subsists almost entirely on lies. Rare has been a worldly power that always told the truth. The next virtue we come to is “righteousness.” The term righteousness  can mean various things in the Bible. I always think of it meaning “being in right relationship with God.” Is the world in right relationship with God? Well, in a sense it is, but that’s only because God forgives the myriad ways the world would not otherwise be right with God. The next virtue is being prepared “to proclaim the gospel of peace.” I’m going skip that one for now and return to it shortly. Then we come to “faith.” Surely the text means faith in God. In our world a great many people say they believe in God, but true faith in the sense of trusting God with our lives and our souls is actually quite rare. Then there’s “salvation.” The world always gets salvation wrong. It mostly relies on itself not on God to save it. Yet true, existential salvation comes and can come only from God. The last virtue  the text mentions is “the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Our call is always to listen for the Holy Spirit present in our world and in our lives, which is something the world mostly doesn’t do. All of the virtues Ephesians mentions here are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Then there the bit about the “gospel of peace” that I skipped above. Our author put the gospel of peace in the middle of his list of divine virtues. I would have put it either at the beginning of those verses or at the end, for everything else the author mentions here constitutes an element that makes for that peace. The gospel of peace means peace in God’s world and peace in our souls. It doesn’t mean the Pax Romana. It means real peace, true peace, existential peace. It means peace achieved through nonviolent justice for the world and the peace of true faith for our souls. If Ephesians’ image of “the whole armor of God” has any positive meaning it surely  means all that leads to true peace. Real peace is the greatest blessing we humans can have. It is the greatest blessing that God wants for every one of us. It isn’t God who keeps us from such peace, it is the world with its ways of materialism, deceit, oppression, injustice, and violence. So let’s take Ephesians’ military imagery here not as a call to war but as a call to the opposite of war. Let’s take it as a call to peace, to real, deep, lasting peace, the peace that we can only find in God. May it be so.

Monday, January 17, 2022

The Known Unknown

 

The Known Unknown

January 17, 2022

 

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

In my time as a seminarian and as an ordained minister I have noticed something about many of the people of the church. Many Christians are quite sure that they know all there is to know about God, but here’s the truth. They don’t. They can’t. None of us can. One of the things that follows from people’s conviction that they know all there is to know about God is that they try to limit God to human ways of thinking and doing things. That, after all, is the only way they can believe that they know everything there is t know about God. They are uncomfortable with the idea there is more to God than we can we can ever know. They find it hard to accept that God is not merely humanity writ large and that God’s ways and thoughts are not our ways and thoughts. I once heard someone say that the main thing she had learned in seminary was that she had made her God too small. She has lots of company in that regard. Most Christians make God too small, and they do it by making God too human and too human, too knowable.

At least in a few places the Bible knows that God in finally unknowable, we just know that God doesn’t think and act in merely human ways. At Ephesians 3:19 the author prays that the recipients of his letter may “know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge.” At Isaiah 55:8-9 we Read:

 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

     nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

     so are my higher than your ways

     and my thoughts than your thought.

 

So Christ’s love, which of course is God’s love, is beyond our knowing, and God’s thoughts and ways are not our ways. Why? Why do we have to live with a God we cannot fully know? Why can’t God think and act our way so that we can fully comprehend what God is up to? Here’s my answer to those questions.

Who is God? Christianity answers that question at the deepest level, as it answers all question of faith at the deepest level, with a paradox. God is a reality that is two things at the same time that cannot both be true but are true. God is both utterly transcendent and immediately present with us on earth at the same time. God is Spirit that is infinite in every aspect of God’s being, which means that in God’s transcendence God is other than us in very way. Theologians say that God is totaliter aliter, Latin for totally other. Isaiah gets it exactly right here. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and God’s ways are not our ways.

There is however also the other side of the paradox of God. God is utterly transcendent, but God is also immediately immanent with us here on earth. Is it possible for God to be both utterly transcendent and yet immanent? No, as I have said many times, things like that about God aren’t possible, they’re just true. One paradox of God (there are others, like the Trinity) says that God is both known in God’s aspect as presence and unknown in God’s aspect as totally other. That’s not possible, it’s just true.

I can hear some people saying, “OK, but you just said that God was totally other than us. How can we know anything that is totally other than us the way you say God is? Well, it certainly isn’t possible for us humans to be here and there at the same time. (Many of us have wished that our seminary had had a class on how to be two places at once, but of course it didn’t.) It’s not possible for us humans to subsist in two totally different natures at the same time. But what is impossible for us is not impossible for God. What we’ve done when we say that something  isn’t possible for God is make God too small. We have made God too human.

One of the primary ways many Christians make God too small, too human, is by making God’s love, that is, God’s grace, conditional. I have taught, preached, and written for years that God’s grace is entirely universal and entirely unconditional. It always has been universal and unconditional, and it always will be. Our problem is not that we aren’t saved, out problem is that we don’t know that we are saved. St. Paul can be maddeningly inconsistent, but at times he recognizes the universal and unconditional nature of God’s love. At Romans 8:38-39, for example, Paul says:

 

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor rulers, not things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, not anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

To say as Paul does here that nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God is to say that God’s love is truly universal and unconditional. It is always there for everyone no matter what.

Yet Christians almost always insist that there is something we must do before God will extend God’s grace to us. They don’t all say that it’s the same thing we have to do. Some say we must lead a sinless life (as though that were possible, which it isn’t). Some say we must do good works in the world. Most Protestants say that we must have faith in Jesus Christ. Some say he have to have had a once for all conversion experience in which we take Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. We make God’s love conditional and specific to us in so many ways.

And every time we do, we make God too small and too human. See, our human ways of doing things is to say, at least most of the time, that to receive some benefit we have to earn it. Sometimes we may donate time or money to a charity that helps people who haven’t earned anything (or at least that  think haven’t earned anything). For most of us though our primary point of reference for the relationship between benefit and reward is that we work, or at least someone in our immediate family works, to earn a paycheck. In our human world, for the most part, we work in one way or another, and then someone gives us money in return for our work. Our receiving money from our employer, or customers, or clients is conditioned on our doing work of a certain kind and amount. This dynamic so conditions to see reward as conditional that we apply that standard to God all the time.

But look again at what the scripture passages I’ve quoted here say. The love of Jesus Christ is so vast that it is beyond our knowing. There is no way for us to know all of it or fully to understand it. God’s thoughts and ways are so much not our thoughts and ways that we cannot fully know them either. We can never truly get our heads around how vast God’s love is because God’s love exceeds our love infinitely. God’s ways are so unlike our ways that when we actually discern them we think we’ve got to be wrong. Here’s an example.

At Matthew 20:1-16 Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven (which is the same thing as the kingdom of God) is like this. Early in the morning a landowner who has a vineyard hires workers to work on his land that day. He promises to pay them the usual day’s wage. A bit later in the morning he hires more workers to work his land that day. He tells these workers that he will pay them whatever is right. He does the same thing at noon, at mid-afternoon, and late in the afternoon. Some of his workers have therefore worked many more hours than others of his workers have. At the end of the day the landowner has his manager pay the workers their wages for the day. Those who worked the entire day receive what they were promised, the usual daily wage. Then all of the workers who worked fewer hours, including those hired only at the end of the workday and who therefore did relatively little work, also receive a usual day’s wage, the same amount as those who worked all day received. Those who had worked all day are upset because those who had worked fewer hours had received the same amount as they did. It seems they thought they should have received more because they had worked all day and the others hadn’t. The landowner says to them you received the wage I promised you when I hired you. Take it and go. He says, “I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” I have never had a parishioner who read or heard this parable think that what the landowner does is right. No, they say. Those who worked more hours should receive more compensation than those who worked fewer hours.

Why do these good folk think that? They think it because we’re all so conditioned by the worldly way of earning and reward. We live with that way every day of our lives. That’s how it is with us, so we think that’s how it should or even must be with God. But remember what Isaiah’s God says through him: My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts. Because God’s ways so transcend our ways, much of the time we just can’t understand them. With God in God’s nature as transcendent there is much about God that we simply cannot know.

Then we run smack into the paradox of God. Christians and people of other faiths have long confessed that God is a real, known presence here on earth with us in our earthly lives. We Christians even say that in Jesus of Nazareth God came to us as one of us precisely to make God’s nature and ways known to us. People in the Judeo-Christian tradition have long believed that God sometimes reveals Godself to us humans. The prophets of Hebrew scripture all believed that they had received a commission from God to reveal to the people what God had said to them. Paul believed the same thing about himself.

We Christians confess that God’s most complete revelation of Godself is found in the life, teachings, suffering, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In him we see who God is when God becomes human. Belief in Jesus Christ as a true revelation of God is a wonderful thing; but, as there is in all good theology, there is a trap here. Far too many Christians believe that Jesus Christ reveals to us the fullness of God, that in and through him we know God in God’s very essence. Believing that is a trap because it dispenses with the transcendence side of the paradox of God. In Jesus we know God, yet God remains ultimately unknown. Even in the Incarnation God remains the Known Unknown.

In Jesus Christ God has revealed Godself in a way and to the fullest extent that we humans can comprehend. Yet our comprehension is finite, and God is infinite. The man Jesus of Nazareth, the Incarnation of God that he was at the same time notwithstanding, was finite. Matthew and Luke (though no one else in the Bible) say that Jesus’ conception was virginal and through the Holy Spirit rather than through the usual biological processes. But even for those two evangelists Jesus was a human being who was born, lived, worked, suffered, and died just as we all do. That’s the paradox of Jesus as the Christ. He was fully God, but he was not fully all there is to God, for he was also fully human. As with God being both transcendent and immanent at the same time, so Jesus being God and human at the same time isn’t possible, it’s just true. In Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland Alice says to the White Queen that you can’t believe impossible things. The White Queen answers, “That’s just what we Christians do every day of our lives—believe six impossible things before breakfast.” I don’t know if Lewis Carroll meant that as a sendup of Christianity or not, but to me the statement rings true. Well, maybe we don’t believe six impossible things before breakfast, but we believe at least three impossible things all the time—the paradox of God I have described here, the Incarnation in Jesus Christ, and God as Trinity, as three and as one at the same time. None of those is possible, they’re just all true.

So I urge you. Do not believe that you will ever know all there is to know about God. You won’t. None of us will. That’s because there is an existential chasm between God and us. God is infinite, we are finite. Many of us yearn to cross that chasm and have direct experience of the fullness of God. We never will. But God both subsists on one side of the chasm and reaches across it to reveal Godself to us—reveal Godself that is in ways our finite human minds can comprehend. There is of course a danger in all faith. What we believe about God may be wrong. We can’t avoid that danger. We can however live in trust that what we believe God has revealed of Godself will not fail us. God is the Known Unknown. God is immediately present and revealing Godself to us, and God remains ultimately unknowable mystery at the same time. That is all we know or ever can know of God, and it is enough.