FANTASYLAND

Kurt Andersen, the author of Fantasyland - How American Went Haywire appears to believe he's put his finger on why we in America think and behave the strange way we do.  When I first started reading the book, however, I had mixed feelings.  While I felt that this book brought out some accurate analyses of American culture, I also felt like I was sitting around with an old curmudgeon who was mainly complaining about America's slippery slide.  I felt that the book would be best subtitled, "A Cynic's Guide to American History."  However, as I continued I found it a fascinating read and felt compelled to carry on through its 400 plus pages.

Kurt Andersen has impressive credentials:  a novelist, a contributor to The New York Times and Vanity Fair, a host on Public Radio and many others.  He is well-known as a cultural critic.  Andersen claims somewhere to be an agnostic and has a low view of Christianity, which he feels is based on fantasy.  This, I feel, is actually rather encouraging, because if a book such as this were written by a Christian, it would probably be ignored by most, except for the Pat Robertson types.

The thesis of the book is pretty clear and is brought out in the title:  we in America live in a fantasy world and have been moving in that direction since the beginning.  Interestingly, though our modern situation with a president who treats his office as that of a reality show host and who appears to have little understanding of truth is the epitome of "fantasyland," this is not where the author begins.  In fact, he lets us know that he began his studies and writing long before the Trump era.

He credits (or blames) the beginnings of this slide with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation (hence the subtitle "a 500 year history").  By making "belief in the Bible's supernatural stories, especially those concerning Jesus ... the only prerequisite for being a good Christian," Luther started people on a course of believing whatever they chose to.  "The footings for Fantasyland had been cast." (page 17)

The settlers of America come next; they are of two kinds:  the gold-seekers and the heaven-on-earth-seekers, i.e. the Puritans.  Both believed a fantasy; one group believed the fantasy that wealth for the pickings was to be found in America; the other that some sort of Millennial Kingdom could be built here.  And both were wrong.

And so we continue through the history of our nation.  Credit is given to those of our Founding Fathers who were "reality based," such as Franklin, Washington and Jefferson. The Enlightenment is not seen as a step in the right direction; rather it "gave license to the freedom of all thought ... the absurd and untrue, as well as, the sensible and true:"  The Great Awakening religious revival is a step backward into fantasy and led to even greater fantasies, such as Mormonism and the other weird religious movements of the early 19th century.

And on it goes from P. T. Barnum and the snake-oil salesmen to the California gold rush and on into the 20th century, the Fundamentalist movement and so on.  The hippy movement.  Always underlying much of his history are his digs at the "fantasies" of Christianity.  It's a discouraging history.  The red scare.  The plethora of conspiracy theories.  The economic bubbles.  Even liberal intellectuals with their post-modernism making truth optional and personal, subjective rather than objective.

Then there are the Hollywood versions of Fantasyland:  Disneyland and all its imitators.  The X-files.  Though these make no claims to reality, we are less and less able to tell where reality leaves off and fantasy begins.

And we finally end up in Trump's America, dominated by "alternative facts" and "fake news" and Fox News.  An America where "truthiness" is more pleasing than truth.

So how do we Christians take this book?  I suppose many, even most of my fellow believers will either ignore this book, write it off as the rantings of an agnostic curmudgeon or resent it as one more attack on the faith.  For sure, like many unbelievers, Andersen at times shows little knowledge of the Christianity he attacks.  And yes, he himself appears to have his own fantasy bubble.  As one reviewer said, he suffers, in short, from "the fantasy of the intellectual that of all the rival systems competing for our attention, his alone is reality-based."  (James Bowman in The Weekly Standard quoted in The Week, 9/22/17).

And yet I believe that this is an important book for any Christian communicator, for a number of reasons, the first being, as Robert Burns said long ago, "to see oursels as others see us."  And this should lead to confession of our complicity in the decline in thinking in America.  Andersen sees any belief in the supernatural as fantasy thinking and while we may not be able to prove him wrong to his satisfaction, we can at least attempt to rid ourselves of the fantasies that cling to us: imaginary miracles, supposed signs of the second coming, reading all disasters as signs of God's judgment, the prosperity gospel, seeking solutions to our moral problems in immoral political leaders.  At times (most times?) we who consider ourselves orthodox appear just as loony as the rest.

Also - though unwittingly - Andersen's book illustrates some truths that are essential to our understanding of the  faith:  the doctrine of original sin ("the only doctrine of Christianity that is empirically verifiable."), as well as humankind's propensity toward religious and superstitious error.  Or as the Apostle Paul said, "they (humankind) became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened."  (Romans 1:21)

And this book teaches us the danger of uncritical thinking.  Of all people, we who are committed to the One who claimed to be the Truth, should also be committed to discerning the truth in every claim and to not be eager to follow the path to Fantasyland.

CHRIST AMONG THE PHOBES

A current fad among those who are enamored of new words, is the attaching of "-phobia," "-phobic" or "-phobe" as suffixes to certain words or word fragments. Thus our current usage includes "homophobia" (fear of homosexuality or of homosexuals), "Islamophobia" (fear of Islam or Muslims) and a few others of which I have not yet heard. These words are usually used negatively to describe those who differ politically or religiously, regarding their supposedly bigoted attitudes toward homosexuals, Muslims or whatever.

I personally strongly dislike the use of the words and hesitate to use them myself. I feel that these words are often themselves expressions of bigotry by the user. Not everyone who has misgivings or negative convictions regarding homosexuality or Islam is a bigot.

Thus when the words "Christianophobia" or "religiophobia" occasionally pop into my head while reading or listening to criticisms of Christianity, I stifle myself from using them. So when I saw an article in Christianity Today online, entitled "What Christianophobia Looks Like In America" by George Yancey, 3/27/15, I was intrigued.

George Yancey is a professor of sociology at the University of North Texas and author of ­So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? I have not read his book, but I suppose the article pretty well sums up his thesis.

The article appears reasonably unbiased. Yancey speaks of the fact that Christianity's cultural dominance in America is fading, even though most Americans still identify as Christians. He attempts to look at the problem from both sides: the "growing animosity" toward especially conservative Protestants, and the growing fears among these, of their supposed increasing loss of religious freedom. He mentions surveys in which conservative Christians are rated lower than other groups, excepting Atheists.

Yancey points out that these negative rankings come from "a disproportionate number of white, highly educated, politically progressive and wealthy respondents." He says, "The fear part of this definition came from respondents who saw conservative Christians as a dark force seeking to take over society and impose Christian rule.  "Some," he tells us, see Christians as "similar to the Taliban or Nazis," seeking "to impose a theocracy on a secular nation."

These Americans hostile to Christianity see Christians in "two categories:  foolish, ignorant followers and manipulative leaders." Christianophobes do not want to do away with Christians, they simply want them to - as one said - "Keep all religion in your church, in your home, out of the public square, and most of all, out of my face."

Yancey's solutions to the problem seem to me rather disappointing and simplistic.  I'd hope that his book expands on and elaborates the options.  In the last paragraph of the article he merely challenges Christians "to convince such individuals that they have the same rights to influence the public square as anyone else" and to learn "how to communicate, and hopefully find ways to co-exist."

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I feel that the greatest need here is not for arguments to convince Christianophobes of the error of their views, but for convincing my fellow-Christians, myself included, of the necessity for self examination, for asking ourselves what we are doing to bring about these negative views.

We must recognize first of all that since the beginning, Christianity has been viewed negatively by those on the outside. Jesus said, "Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace on the earth? No, I tell you - but division" (Luke 12:15).  "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me first" (John 15:18). Paul spoke of "the scandal of the cross" (Galatians 5:11). We who follow Christ should recognize that many oppose Christianity for its claims of exclusivity, sometimes for its morality, sometimes for various theological reasons or misunderstandings.

However, these are not the complaints mentioned in Yancey's article. As I said earlier, not everyone who has misgivings or negative convictions regarding homosexuality or Islam is a bigot.  And neither is everyone who has those same thoughts about Christianity - at least as Christianity is perceived. And that's the problem. We Christians have managed to paint a picture of Christianity that looks very little like the Christianity of the New Testament - very little like Jesus.

First of all, there's the label.  While the label "conservative" is often used of our way of interpreting the Bible - i.e., "conservative" = "literal" as opposed to some radical "liberal" critical interpretations, it is understood by most outsiders as a political word.

And there are many "conservative Christians" who understood the phrase as such. To them Christian = Republican. When Christian leaders and Christian colleges endorse Republican candidates for president, when they endorse the Republican - and even worse, the Tea-Party platform, they present a Christianity that is a false Christianity, a Christianity that promotes Christianophobia.

When Christianity is presented as moralism, as an opposition to particular types of sin - often only the two "biggies" - abortion and gay lifestyle/marriage, it is a false Christianity. Yes sin should be recognized as sin, but there is a danger when only particular sins are pointed out and when the solution to these is sought through imposing moral standards on others through the political process.

We have allowed the Gospel of Christ, the love of Christ, the ethics of Christ, to be pre-empted by a vapid semi-political religion.  When I see this, when I hear this type of Christianity coming from Christian leaders, I confess that I too am tempted into becoming a Christianophobe.

I recognize that many - probably most, who claim the label of Christian, are living lives that exemplify the reality of Christianity.  I only ask and pray that all of us would - or if not, to stop calling themselves by the Name.

"Keep your conduct beautiful among the Gentiles, so that though they verbally put you down as evildoers, they may, by seeing your beautiful works, glorify God on the day that He returns" (1 Peter 2:12).

Father, help us as those who name the Name of Your Son, to live lives like His, lives of love, lives that would bring honor to Him and not shame.

IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME!

When I teach or preach from the New Testament, I usually read and translate directly from my Greek text.  I don't do this to show off or to impress people; most who hear me don't even realize I'm doing so, other than those who ask the occasional question as to what translation I use.  (I usually tell them I use the BLT.  If that doesn't satisfy I explain that BLT stands for Bill's Literal Translation).  Of course some actually notice and make the comment mentioned above.

I have been reading and studying my Greek Testament regularly for nearly 40 years.  One requirement for my Master's Degree in New Testament, besides grammatical and exegetical studies was to read through the entire Greek New Testament at least once (though most of it was read more than that).  I was hooked and since then I have read it through at least once a year.  I actually feel more at home in it than in my English New Testament.  I have also read and continue to read in my Hebrew Old Testament (with difficulty) as well as in the Septuagint.  I have never formally taught Greek other than a one hour credit class at the College of Biblical Studies - Houston, entitled:  "The Greek New Testament for English Readers."  I have occasionally tutored or mentored a few persons in the study as well.

So when a friend posted an article on facebook entitled "3 Ways Not To Use Greek in Bible Study" it got my attention.

Though the author of the article concedes that "there is nothing wrong with wanting to know some things about the language that God gave us for the New Testament," he warns us that "there are also dangers involved."  While after my first reading I found myself in essential agreement with the article and even hit "like" on the post, I felt a bit uncomfortable and felt that even though the author asserts that he is "not trying to discourage anyone from studying Greek," he was doing just that.  I also felt that it could become an excuse for those who are teachers and preachers, for neglecting the original languages.

I agree with most of what the article states.  I feel along with this writer that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and I agree with his three points - to a point.  I'd like to add my thoughts to the points made there which I see as actually two.

Point 1:  "Usage Trumps Etymology:  Avoiding the Root Fallacy" and Point 3:  "Context is King:  Avoiding the Overload Fallacy" seem to be saying much the same thing. "... a word's meaning is not determined by its etymology, but by its usage."  "Most words don't have a 'literal meaning' at all - rather, they have a range of possible meanings (the technical term is 'semantic range.'"  "Context usually narrows the possible meanings to one (an exception would be ... puns)."

Point 2:  "Scholars are Necessary:  Avoiding the Cult of the Amateur" seems clear except that it is used simply to reinforce Points 1 and 3.

The article appears to assume that word study is a major aspect in doing Greek exegesis.  Actually the sort of studies described requires little knowledge of the original languages, just some skill in the use of a concordance, which is available to the English reader.

One does not have to be skilled in the original languages to be a gifted Bible teacher.  I myself studied and taught the Bible with a reasonable amount of proficiency for many years before my formal education.  Many of those from whom I learned had no proficiency in the languages; some didn't even have that good a command of our native English!

But I contend that a familiarity with the language in which our Bible was originally written is an asset which the use of helps can only partially provide.  I write this at the desk in my study with volumes of helps - concordances, lexicons and commentaries on the shelves behind me.

As far as the use of words, I agree that usage trumps etymology and that context is king.  But knowledge of the "original" or "root" meanings of words brings a color to the book that simple context definitions cannot.  As in any language, words have many meanings, even in the same context.  Much of language is metaphorical and the careful reader or listener understands that words do have more than one meaning and that though a word may have a single specific meaning in a particular context, it often carries with it its other meanings.  Puns, double entendres, sarcasm and subtle nuances are much more common than a literalistic reader might suppose.

Some examples:

·       Jesus is in the garden of Gethsemane with His disciples on the night before His betrayal.  He is burdened down and leaves them to go off alone to pray.  He tells them:  meinate hode kai gregoreite (Mark 14:34).  Most translations, even modern ones translate this something like "stay here and watch," which is probably what was meant.  But gregoreo has the "original" meaning of "stay awake."  To translate it simply as "watch" would be accurate, but the reader would miss the irony of the fact that they fell asleep.

·       Paul exhorts his readers many times, peripateite (Ephesians 4:1, 17; 5:1, 15, etc.).  Some modern versions (though not all) translate this word simply as "live," referring to Christian behavior or conduct.  But the "root" meaning of pateo is "walk" and the prefix peri has the meaning of "around."  The Christian is not exhorted to passively "live" but to have an active life - a life in motion.

And while word meanings do change over time, some retain their meanings over centuries, even millennia.  When Paul tells his readers that the Holy Spirit is our arrabon (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13, 14), he is using a word that already in his day was 2,000 years old; it was actually an ancient Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) word.  Its first biblical usage is in the Hebrew Old Testament, Genesis 38:17, 18, 20 in the spicy story of Tamar and Judah.  Judah contracts for sex with his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar who has disguised herself as a prostitute.  He promises her "a kid from the flock" for her favors (the going rate?) and gives her his seal, cord and staff as an arrabon.  The word in Paul is translated variously as "earnest," "pledge," "down payment," but I suspect that his astute readers may have recalled the earlier context.  (The word is still found today in modern Greek and is used of an engagement ring.)

And then there are synonyms.  No two words have precisely the same meaning.  While synonyms have an overlap in meaning and in many contexts seem to be used simply for variety, there are many instances where their differences in meaning are quite clear.

·       The words allos and heteros can simply be translated interchangeably in many contexts as "other" or "another."  In 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, Paul uses allos six times and heteros twice with no clear difference.  Most English translations translate both words consistently as "another."  But in his letter to the Galatians, while he uses both words in one context, their subtle differences in meaning are clear.  "I am amazed that so quickly you have moved away from the One who called you in the grace of Christ to another (heteros) gospel - which is not another (allos) ..."  Most modern translations translate heteros here as "a different ..." (Galatians 1:6, 7) bringing out the difference in meaning.

·       The author of the article states, "Turns out that agape and philos (I believe that he meant to say philia) aren't really different kinds of love after all ..."  Apparently this is something that he learned from "scholars" in his "first couple of weeks of class."  However, while the words are synonyms and in many instances may simply be translated as "love," a careful study of all the New Testament usages will demonstrate that there are clear differences.  See:  I LOVE YOU LORD and WHAT IS LOVE?

And of course, language studies are much more than studies of word meanings.  Grammar is an important part.  Greek verb tenses differ from our English tenses.  For instance, while in English we have a simple past tense, Greek has two,  the aorist and the imperfect, which give much more color to the action.  To oversimplify (always dangerous) the aorist presents a snapshot:  "he ran," while the imperfect presents a motion picture:  "he was running."  English often has to use "helper words" to get the same color.

One example:  in John 11:35 we read edakrusen ho lesous.  Normally this is translated "Jesus wept."  But the verb dakruo here is not the normal word for weeping but is related to the word dakruon, "tear."  It is also in the aorist tense.  This, the shortest verse in the Bible, is thus packed with meaning.  It could be translated "Jesus burst into tears!"  The Greek reader could catch this.  Also see:  GRAMMAR AND THE GREAT COMMISSION.

I agree with Point 2  on the value of scholarship.  However, scholars quite often disagree with one another.  If we simply compare Bible translations we will frequently find conflicts.  We all - scholars or lay persons or those in between - fail to distinguish degrees of certainty and can be dogmatic where we have little or no right to be.  This is where some knowledge of the original languages can be of great help - not to arrive at new interpretations but to check on existing ones.  In regard to the experts, we should "trust but verify!"

So, while I would encourage the English reader that we have some excellent translations and excellent commentaries that can be trusted, I would also encourage the student - especially if you teach - to dig a little deeper using a good concordance and lexicon.  Get the feel for the Bible. Remember it's a lifetime process.

And do watch out.  A little learning can be a dangerous thing!

DO ATHEISTS EXIST?

I enjoy reading of the latest scientific discoveries, though I am amused at how often great, thorough studies are made, only to arrive at conclusions that many people already know or at least suspect:  sunshine is addictive; broccoli is good for you; domestic cats kill small animals, etc.  I am especially amused when scientific discoveries arrive at biblical conclusions or at least come close.

So I was intrigued when I came across an article in The Week magazine (7/18/14, page 10) entitled, "Are humans hardwired for faith?"  This article referred me to a longer article published in Science 2.0 by Nuri Vittachi with the even more intriguing title, "Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that's not a joke".

I have long suspected that what this title asserted was actually so, even though there have been many who would disagree.

This article begins by stating, "While militant atheists like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn't exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist." And it goes on to tell us, "Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged."

While Vittachi concedes that "this idea may seem outlandish," he explains that what we believe is not something we decide on our own, but lies somewhere in our "much deeper levels of consciousness."  He asserts that scientists claim "we are born believers ... pattern seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting."

Vittachi continues by presenting evidence involving "invisible friends" - some person or persons with whom we all hold internal conversations -  whether these are divine beings, spouses, near relatives or whatever.

He relates how in social science studies, even those who claim to be atheist or agnostic, claim belief in some higher power.  Though he comes up with some attempts at evolutionary explanations we are still left with huge percentages of humankind who have some sense of purpose in the universe - even those who claim no religious affiliation.  He speaks of "the notion" of "an invisible moralistic presence" which motivates "religious folk."

One interesting argument he gives is that from literature.  There seems to be a "manifestation of cosmic justice in fictional narratives - books, movies and games."  We're told that "in almost all fictional worlds, God exists" - no matter what the "beliefs" of the authors.  "In children's stories ... the good guys win, the bad guys lose."  The same goes for most adult stories.

It would appear then that rather than to seek an explanation for belief in God as many professing atheists demand, we need to answer the question "where does atheism fit in?"

The article continues with much the same argument with similar data and concludes "...it might be wise for religious folks to refrain from teasing atheist friends who accidentally say something about their souls.  And it might be equally smart for the more militant of today's atheists to stop teasing religious people at all.

          We might all be a little more spiritual than we think."

As I implied earlier, these conclusions come close to, and even verify the biblical assertion that everyone is religious in some way or another, or at least has religious predispositions.

Qoheleth, the author of the biblical book whose title is usually given as Ecclesiastes, is probably the one biblical writer whom we'd be tempted to label as cynical (he's not).  He writes from the perspective of one who lives "under the sun" and seems to be searching for meaning in life.  He feels that God has laid this "task" on him.  Qoheleth is not setting about this task on the basis of some written or spoken command, but apparently because of an inner subjective urge.

"It is an evil task which God has given to the sons of men to be tasked with" (1:13).

"He has made everything beautiful in its time.  Also He has placed eternity in their heart, without which man will not find out the work which God has worked from beginning until end" (3:11).

Qoheleth doesn't claim that he attained a knowledge of God and His ways from divine revelation.  He rather tells his readers of what he has "seen," as well as this inner urge and desire "placed in (his) heart."  And he is not alone.  He claims that God has laid this "task" on "the sons of men."  This appears to be a claim that the whole human race has this inner Godward urge placed upon them.

If we fast forward about a thousand years we find the Apostle Paul making similar assertions.  He tells the readers of his letter to the Romans.

"... that which can be known of God is evident among them (i.e. humankind), for God made it evident to them" (Romans 1:19).

Though Paul was primarily speaking of the evidence for God in nature ("the things He has made" - verse 20), the word translated "among" (Greek - en) could also be translated "within" and may imply the conscience.  He is certainly speaking of what Vittachi would refer to as an inner sense of "cosmic justice," (or even "karma"?) in his following argument:

"For whenever gentiles (pagans, non-Jews), those who don't have the Law, by nature do the things of the Law, these who don't have the Law are a law to themselves, such ones as give evidence of the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reasonings alternately accusing or excusing them" (2:14, 15).

As Paul presents it here, the conscience is not merely a moral sense, a sense of right and wrong, but a sense of moral responsibility in the sight of a divine being.  And Paul seems to assume this sense to be true of all human beings.

The Bible, which asserts the existence of God from the first verse (the third word in Hebrew), nowhere assumes the existence of atheists as we would define them, although it mentions those who deny God's existence by their behavior.

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1; also see 10:4).

This is not, however, an intellectual denial of God's existence, but a moral denial.  It is an indictment of those who behave as though they think God has no moral authority over them.  They are "fools" not because of their intellectual denial, but because of their behavior.

So what should we conclude?  Perhaps we should go back to what Blaise Pascal, the 17th century philosopher said in his Pensees:  " ... there was once in man a true happiness ... there now remain(s) to him only the mark and empty trace, ... the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself."

All have some knowledge of God.  But as Paul says, it is our responsibility to recognize Him - to "glorify Him and give thanks" (Romans 1:21).  Sad to say we don't do this.

Also see:  WHAT HAPPENED?
                 MAYBE WE'RE ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS

                 
 

THE HOLY FORESKIN

On Ash Wednesday, just before leaving for our church's evening service, I came across a short post:  "Only Religion Could Get People To Worship a Foreskin" on my friend Canadian Atheist's website.  This article had a link to:  "The Cut That Divided Jews and Christians - and the Mystery of the Missing Circumcision in Artworks" in the HUFFINGTON POST  Intrigued, I gave both articles a brief scan and then Uni and I went off to worship.  While I forgot it during the worship, it did come back to mind, so after a brief comment on Canadian Atheist's post the next morning, I decided I needed to read the longer article more carefully and interact with it.  I found it well worth reading and even recommend it.

The article was written by Bernard Starr, whom we're told is a "psychologist; Journalist; College Professor."  He is also "author of 'Jesus Uncensored:  Restoring the Authentic Jew'" and is organizing an art exhibit entitled "Putting Judaism Back in the Picture:  Toward Healing the Christian/Jewish Divide."

Mr. Starr introduces his article with a description of the Christian Feast of the Circumcision, which celebrates Jesus' circumcision "with a parade featuring Jesus' foreskin carried in a reliquary which villagers stormed to kiss," in what I suppose could be described as an act of holy fellatio.
 

The article goes on to tell us that the 2,000 year old holy foreskin disappeared over 30 years ago and many suspect that the Vatican was somehow involved in the theft, as even the mention of Jesus' foreskin was declared grounds for excommunication in 1900.  Though apparently the Feast is still celebrated, the focus has shifted to Mary the Mother of Jesus.  The author questions as to why Christians would celebrate such a thing.  "Weren't" he asks, "differences about circumcision a major factor in the split between Judaism and Christianity?"

 

Well, I'd answer that question with a yes and a no.  While circumcision was a factor, the major factor was recognition of Jesus as Messiah.  There were in the early days, as well as today, still Jewish Christians who were/are circumcised.  The big split over this issue was in the first century church itself.

The author does a pretty good job of relating the story of the introduction of Gentiles (non-Jews and uncircumcised) into the early church, except for his assertion that "Paul introduced the notion of 'circumcision of the heart'" as a "symbolic substitute for physical circumcision."  He quotes Paul's words in Romans 2:28, 29:  "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter."  This was however, no new idea of Paul's.  His predecessor Stephen had earlier accused those of the Jewish Sanhedrin of being "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears" (Acts 7:51).  Of course, the idea preceded Stephen by about 1,500 years and is found in both the Torah and the prophets.  In fact, circumcision of the heart was predicted as a future act of the LORD in His restoration of His people:

"And they will confess their iniquity ... then at last their uncircumcised heart will humble itself ..." (Leviticus 26:40, 41).

"And the LORD will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6).

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskin of your heart" (Jeremiah 4:4).

"Behold days are coming declares the LORD when I will punish all who are circumcised and yet have a foreskin ... for all the nations are uncircumcised but all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart" (Jeremiah 9:25).

Paul saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic promises and those who were "in Christ" whether Jew or Gentile as the recipients of those promises.  He recognized the Jewishness of Jesus as well as his own Jewishness and states that his desire is for Israel to turn to their Messiah.  It is sad, even tragic that those who came later rejected this Jewishness.

There is a quote that is misleading:  "The Savior's circumcision was the occasion of the first shedding of His precious blood. The Cross overshadowed the Lord Jesus even while He lay in a crib by swaddling bands bound. The knife which cut the Lord's flesh on that day foreshadowed the centurion's spear which would pierce His side, releasing the saving torrent, the blood and water (John 19:34)."  While it appears to be attributed to John's Gospel, that is not its source; John said no such thing!

The article is illustrated with Medieval and Renaissance art depicting the baby Jesus as uncircumcised, even when He is obviously "looking more than eight days old."  And of course, Michelangelo's well-known sculpture of David depicts him as uncircumcised.

Mr. Starr does not buy any of the arguments for this "falsifying" and very ably refutes them.  He sees the ignoring of historical context as an explanation for the pervasiveness of not only the falsifications but as part and parcel of the anti-Semitism of the times. when "Jews were demonized, marginalized and persecuted - as well as charged with killing Jesus."

The author's contribution to the effort at reconciliation is an art exhibit "with new renditions of existing works" which he is organizing ("Putting Judaism back in the Picture").  Let's hope he has some success with it.  (I wonder if Michelangelo's David could be reworked with a Dremel tool?)

Back to his original question:  "Why would Christians ... celebrate - no less worship - Jesus' circumcision?"  Answering from my perspective as an evangelical Christian and attempting to be biblical, I'd have to say that the worship of a foreskin is idolatry; there is no biblical warrant for this or any other adoration of relics.  But to celebrate Jesus' circumcision is another matter (though I have no desire for a feast or a parade).

His circumcision was a Jewish rite in which He partook as a member of the covenant community of Israel.  It was done in accordance with the Mosaic Law and it was a beginning of a lifetime of Law-keeping.  Jesus kept the entire Mosaic Law; there is no recorded instance of His violating it, though He did cross the line many times when it came to man-made interpretations.  It is because He fulfilled the Law actively by keeping its precepts and passively by taking its penalty, that I as non-Jew can partake of the promises given to Abraham and through the whole Hebrew Scripture.

So I believe we should celebrate Jesus' Jewishness.  There is no room in Christian faith for anti-Semitism, or even of attempting to ignore our Jewish roots.

MARRIAGE, AN EVER CHANGING UNION?

A recent article in The Week magazine (6/8/2012) entitled “An Ever-Changing Union” – (on-line entitled “How Marriage has Changed over Centuries”) got my attention, especially since I have been leading an adult Sunday school class on man/woman relationships in the book of Genesis.  Beneath the title was a line, “Critics of gay marriage see it as an affront to sacred, time-tested traditions.  How has marriage been defined in the past?”

The article went on to discuss the fact that marriage has been evolving since the beginning, which the writer tells us was in the Stone Age.  The article goes on to describe different marriage customs down through history, including the fact that “the ancient Hebrews … engaged in polygamy,” citing of course, the Bible’s statement that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  (They didn’t note, however, that Solomon was not a typical “ancient Hebrew.”)  We are told that polygamy has been, and still is practiced “in cultures throughout the world,”

The real kicker and apparent thesis of the article is “The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development.”  Wow!  We “traditionalists” are really non-traditionalists!  We’re the odd ones.

The article describes briefly the history of marriage and marriage contracts, secular and sacred.  It even informs us that “male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean” up till the 13^th century.

We are also informed that “for most of human history” love and romance had little, if any role in marriage, that love in marriage was even frowned on in many ancient cultures, and that the idea of marrying for love and/or romance was a product of Enlightenment thinking (the “pursuit of happiness”).

The article concludes by telling us “for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed … and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage.”

The article, I believe, pretty much got its facts straight, though some of its generalizations and conclusions were painted with a pretty broad brush.

I took the article with me on Sunday and read excerpts from it to my class.  Besides a considerable amount of eye-rolling, it also generated a stimulating discussion.  Most of the discussion took us back to matters we had already been studying in Genesis.  We soon left the article behind, however, so I felt that I needed to say a few more things about it.

As a Christian who takes the biblical claims literally and seriously, I have to say that I basically agree with the article’s conclusion; traditional marriage is, if not destroyed, in deep trouble, and this has little to do with whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized.  And this is not some recent phenomenon; it has been going on since the beginning.  And an honest study of the Scripture would verify that claim.

I believe that there are different ways of looking at, even of defining marriage.  I also believe that we need to distinguish the differences, and that we Christians often confuse them; for instance “traditional marriage,” “legal marriage,” “biblical marriage,” are not all the same.

If the article is correct, then “traditional marriage” is as stated, “an ever-changing union.”  Multiple partners, arranged marriages, even same-sex unions have all been, at one time or another throughout history, considered “traditional.”  We would do well to cease our advocacy of traditional marriage.

What about “legal marriage”?  Throughout history, and in many nations today, marriage was and is simply a civil union whatever it is called.  It affords legal protection to the partners and can be entered into and exited through legal means.  And of course, this is the issue today regarding gay marriage.  We may disagree about its morality and we may emphasize that it is not biblical.  But if it is legitimized, it would afford homosexual partners the same rights (and problems) that heterosexual partners have.

As a Christian, as a follower of the Scripture, I am not bound by “tradition” or by someone else’s legal status; I am bound by the Word of God.  And it is my obligation to do my best to ascertain what the Word teaches about marriage.  That is not my aim here; it would take (and has taken) volumes and volumes.  There are a few matters in this area, however, that I believe need clarification.

First, as I have often pointed out to my students, we must distinguish between “description” and “prescription.”  The Bible, as any other good history, describes all sorts of human behavior, often without making any moral pronouncements at all.  This does not necessarily imply that the behavior is approved by God, and it certainly does not imply that it is prescribed by God.  Case in point:  polygamy.  Though it was practiced very early on in biblical history, it is nowhere, to my knowledge commanded or even approved of.  The reference in the article to King Solomon and his multiple wives, does not mention that these marriages are said to have been a leading cause of his moral downfall (1 Kings 11:1-9) or that in this case he was acting in direct violation of specific commands in the Law (Deuteronomy 17:14-17).

Another matter is the Mosaic Law itself.  The Law was not given, as some claim, as a perfect expression of God’s will.  It was given, among other reasons, as a system of regulating the behavior of a redeemed but very sinful, hard hearted people.  So its regulations on multiple marriages, regulations on divorce were not meant to show approval of these acts any more than regulations on sheep stealing.

“If a man takes a wife and marries her, and if it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes … and he writes her a certificate of divorce …” (Deuteronomy 24:1, 2).

“If a man has two wives …” (Deuteronomy 21:15).

“If a man steals a sheep …” (Exodus 22:1).

Jesus when questioned by the Pharisees regarding His position on divorce, took them to the one man/one woman union established by God at creation (Matthew 19:3-6; Genesis 1:27; 2:24).  When they referred to the Mosaic Law of Deuteronomy 24:1ff, Jesus answered them, “Because of your hardheartedness, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not thus” (Matthew 19:8).

By the way, as far as romantic love being some sort of a Johnny-come-lately on the marital scene, perhaps we should look at the story of Jacob and Rachel, which occurred around the 19^th century BC and was recorded around the 15^th.  [Even those critics who desire to date these writings much later are still stuck with a recorded date of nearly 3,000 years ago.]

“… Rachel was beautiful of form and beautiful of face.  And Jacob loved Rachel …  And Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they were in his eyes as a few days because of his love for her” (Genesis 29:17-20).

See also:  THE CASE AGAINST MARRIAGE

                  WHAT IS LOVE?

IS GOD ON AMERICA’S SIDE?

In the October 16^th edition of the Los Angeles Times, is an op-ed article entitled, “America:  With God on our side,” written by Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

To those of us who were around in the 60’s it is, of course, reminiscent of that Bob Dylan tune with a similar title.

Bacevich reminds us that “despite a Constitution that mandates the separation of church and state, religion and politics have become inseparable.”  He goes on to describe how presidential candidates, no matter their party affiliation “regularly press God into service.”  America, they claim, has been uniquely chosen by God.

As the first illustration of his thesis, he quotes from a speech by Mitt Romney.  Romney asserts that America must, with its military might be the leader of the world, both economically and militarily and claims “God did not create this country to be a nation of followers.”

Bacevich goes on to assure us that Romney’s claims are not unique, that “No leading contender for the Republican nomination will challenge” Romney’s positions.  Whoever receives the Republican nomination will claim that President Obama does not hold this view.  And President Obama will of course, argue that he does.

The article asserts (correctly) that both the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) and the New Testament writings “provide no evidence to support this proposition.”  No, he claims that instead “the American Bible contains a de facto Third Testament.”

Bacevich appears to be asserting that this is a 21st century phenomenon, although, I’m sure he would agree that the origins of this idea go much farther back to before the beginnings of our nation.  The present lineup of Republican candidates did not invent the idea of America as somehow uniquely chosen of God.

I’ve heard this “doctrine” all of my life and like most of my contemporaries raised during WWII, I accepted it as fact.  I was taught of America’s exceptionalism in school; as Dylan says “…the history books tell it, they tell it so well…”   When I became a Christian and a member of a fundamentalist church, I found that this “doctrine” was held as strongly as the doctrine of inerrancy, even the doctrine of the atonement.  I would probably have agreed with Romney’s statement, “I will never, ever apologize for America.”

I suppose that America’s “civil religion” will always be with us, even though it leads to uncivil politics.  It’s nothing new.  All the great empires of ancient history had theirs.  Many nations today have theirs, even so-called “secular states.”

But it seems to me ironic that the people of the nation that invented the concept of religious freedom should hold so tenaciously to a religion that demands total allegiance from its national leaders.

And it seems more than ironic that those who claim the uniqueness of their religion, who claim that Jesus Christ is the only Way and that all other religious claims are false, should cling to another religion.  And one that demands our loyalty, apparently an even greater loyalty, than our loyalty to Jesus Christ.

I want to be clear.  I love my country.  I consider myself a loyal citizen of the USA.  But must that love of country translate to a syncretism of my faith in Christ with a religious faith in America?

I guess that I’ll never be elected President.  :^(

Perhaps the question should be rephrased, “Is America on God’s side?”

CONFESSIONS OF A LEFT-LEANING LITERALIST

I was pleasantly surprised (or should I say, blown away?) by an article that appeared in the October 2011 issue of Christianity Today.  The title was, “A Left-Leaning Text” and the note below the title said, “Survey surprise:  Frequent Bible reading can turn you liberal (in some ways)".  The author is Aaron B. Franzen, a graduate student in sociology at Baylor University.  The data used is from the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey and we are assured that the research is undergoing peer review.

In my 74+ years on this earth, I have managed to accumulate a large number of beliefs and opinions, many of which have been modified, or in some cases, thrown out.  And I am always happy when I read or hear someone who agrees with me.  Especially when they have survey or poll data to back them up!  And this was one such case.

I actually remember coming to the conclusion, at least 40 years ago, that a “conservative” (i.e., literal) interpretation of the Bible should lead to a “liberal” application of its truths.  I quickly learned, however, that I dare not share this opinion with any but Uni and a few other close friends and family members.  (Although, readers of this blog may have had their suspicions.)

But now this article/survey has freed me to come out of my liberal closet.  There are others like me.  I am not alone!

The article refers to previous polls, such as Gallup, which asked Americans how literally they took the Bible.  The conclusions usually found that the more literally one holds the Bible, the more they were apt to be moral and political conservatives.

As one who holds the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I have for a long time been troubled by this finding.  While I agree with many moral positions taken by my literalist/conservative friends, I have found myself at odds with most of their political conservatism.

But now this new survey seems to imply that the pollsters may have been asking the wrong question.  The new question has to do with whether those polled actually READ the Bible.  And when this is the question, the results are surprisingly different.  As the author tells us, “…, reading the Bible more often has some liberalizing effects – or at least makes the reader more prone to agree with liberals on certain issues.”

And it apparently makes little difference who those readers are:  their denominational, theological or political views or even their views on biblical literalism (although they do see the Bible as authoritative).

This article goes on to describe “liberal” views held by those who read the Bible.  The readers were rated on a 5-point scale as to how frequently they read the Bible.  The more frequently they read the Bible, the more liberally they hold these views.

Some of the views mentioned:

·        Decreased support for the Patriot Act.

·        Criminal justice – less support for harsher punishment and the death penalty.

·        “More likely … to believe that religion and science are compatible.”

·        “Social and economic justice.”

·        “Reduced consumption as a part of ethical living.”

The article attempts some explanation for this phenomenon.  Why does the Bible push the reader “leftward”?

One explanation the author offers “is that readers tend to have expectations of the text prior to reading it.”  I’ll agree with that.  He goes on to say that “many people think they know what’s in it before they open it up.  But once they start reading it on their own they are bound to be surprised by something.”

I’d say a problem may be that many do not bother to open it up.  They feel they already know what’s in it, so why bother?  Their preacher or teacher, or some author, has already explained it.  Those other people have done all the hard work; I don’t need to.  There’s a big difference between believing in the literalness of the Bible and applying it literally in my life.

Look at all the nice clean new looking Bibles carried into church.  How do they stay so clean?

And then there is how people read the Bible.  For many (including literalists) it’s simply a how-to book; but even here it’s easier to read other books that tell me what the Bible says or means, than to read the Bible itself.

Another explanation given is that frequent Bible readers “… tend to read it devotionally, looking for ways in which Scripture is speaking directly to them.”  I’ll go along with that!  In fact, I’ll add that I believe much of what the Bible convicts us of occurs by osmosis.  By simply reading the text over and over, its concepts penetrate our thinking.  (I’m sure the Holy Spirit has something to do with the process.)

I can think of a lovely woman whose old worn King James Bible lies open on her kitchen table next to her ash tray, and also a few others I know who are like her.

So my challenge to my conservative friends is simply:  Read your Bible.  Then read it again.  Don’t cherry pick it.  Look for its repeated themes:  moral, ethical, political (?).  What obligations does it place on you?  You may not agree with all I’ve said, but hopefully you’ll understand where I’m coming from.