Meek and Gentle March 29, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, comparative religious studies, jesus, marcus borg, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
“Fortunate are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.”
–Q11
“The most famous passage in this Sermon on the Mount has always been translated as “the meek shall inherit the earth.” Actually, the Greek word proates means “gentle but strong” and connotes strength that is under control and tinged with a spirit of caring.”
–Marcus Borg
Short Notes March 24, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, church, comparative religious studies, God, jesus, religion, religious studies, scripture
1 comment so far
Luke is an apology to a Roman magistrate.
Matthew is doctrine.
Mark is a story.
John is an apology against Docetism.
Rapture theology comes from a Biblical passage that is about imprisonment.
Too many people think, when studying scripture, “God will reveal all.” It’s a very Protestant idea that’s all fine and dandy when it’s about Biblical layering, but we need to note those layers. The history and linguistic nuances are part of those layers. God might show you unique ways of experiencing scripture, but God’s not going to teach you history and Greek.
My Tea is Cold March 19, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, environment, nature, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christianity, comparative religious studies, God, hebrew scriptures, jesus, liberal, nature, process theology, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
So when I sat down to begin my Bible study, I had a giant mug of piping hot, fresh green tea. It’s now cold and I haven’t drank any of it, because I got incredibly excited and somehow just lost 2 hours of my life in scripture without noticing it. I still have more scripture to read through and some other reading to complete, as per my Lenten commitment.
ANYWAY…
Tonight I got to the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew. If you’ve ever wondered why it is on a mountain in Matthew and on a plain in Luke, here you go: Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience and therefore, his placement of Jesus on a mountain has Mosaic parallels which resonate with his audience. Similarly, Luke is writing for a Hellenistic audience, who appreciates more a Jesus who stands level with them, as an equal.
On a similar note, within this lovely speech, Jesus says (in Matthew), “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The funny thing about that, though, is that the word which is translated as “perfect” from the Greek, means something very different in the original. It means something more to the effect of: “live to your maximum potential.” In short, “give God’s work your all.” Again, however, there is a difference in Luke’s version, which doesn’t say perfect at all, but rather says “compassionate.” This is, again, because Luke is writing to a Greek audience. Because Greek ethics are more situational, the epitome of goodness in Greek society is compassion, and therefore it makes most sense to think of “perfection” as “compassion.”
Might I add that both of these “revised” translations make marvelous sense when viewed from a lens of process theology.
Next, I came upon the section of the sermon in Matthew which talks about the Law (beginning at 5.17). This section is unique to Matthew. Interesting, considering that Matthew was the writer orienting his words toward a Jewish audience. Could this view have been unique to Jewish Christianity, or was this something that simply wouldn’t have been emphasized or made much sense to a gentile audience?
Also, way back in my first year of college, I recall my RelS 99 professor saying that it was likely that the Pharisees were not so much an enemy of the Jesus movement (the Sadducees seem the more likely suspects). In scripture, however, they certainly take the most criticisms oriented toward Judaism’s legal system. I don’t know that his view represents scholarly consensus, but going over my notes from RelS 151, I now know why that theory makes sense– the Pharisees are anti-Hellenization. For a splinter group of Jews proselytizing to gentiles, Hellenization was their friend. In Jesus’ death, the gospel was for everyone and the Pharisees became the angry old ladies at church who didn’t want to see change.
And on a mostly unrelated note….
The Tree of Knowledge of Life and Death… my notes say, “God puts the tree there so that Adam knows he can exist without it.” This cyclical world, where it is easy to fall subject to ennui and lose touch with our spiritual sides, where it seems quite simple to live subject only to the laws of physics, is infused with spirit, hidden within metaphorical hedges… We are better than lives of routine and common courtesy. We needn’t be sucked into such mundane existences if we continue to eat from the Tree of Life, to grow ourselves in God and Spirit in ways that cannot be broken by the laws of this world. True knowledge and spirituality transcend time and space so that they daily land us in our inner Edens.
“There are two trees in the garden… and too much of religion is stuck at the wrong tree. Does it bring Life? Eat from that tree.”
–Rev. Yvette Flunder
Our goal is to be in the world, but not of it– to fully engage in this world and delve into the majesty of Nature, but understand that pure physicality is not enough to nourish our souls. Whatever magical experience a tromp through the forest might provide us, it can only ever be elevated by praying while we dig our fingers into the soil…
I guess it’s true that if we seek, we find. Even more true, however, is that the more I seek, the more I find. The more I read and pray and commit myself to experience God daily, the more I am stunned by God’s beautiful presence within me and around me.
“You can become a blessing.”
–Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen
Eucharist and Agape Meals March 14, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, church, comparative religious studies, God, jesus, prayer, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
Eucharist and Agape Meals
Eucharist, translated, means “thanksgiving.”
Originally, the Eucharist was practiced as a communal meal, as the depictions of the Last Supper in the gospels suggest. Early Christians shared a meal, confessed their sins, and had the Eucharist– the meal that unified them in the body of Christ. There was a mysticism attached to this ritual; the Eucharist is a mystical union of believers, somewhere in the middle of Catholic and Protestant intentionality regarding communion today.
Consider this Eucharistic blessing, found in the pages of the Didache, the oldest surviving Christian catechism:
“We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the holy vine of David your child, whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages”
“We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the life and knowledge, of whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages. As this which is fragments, while being scattered upon the hills and brought together became one, so the church shall be gathered together from the limits of the earth into your kingdom, because yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ into the ages”
–Didache, 9.2-5
It captures the mysticism of this Christian community, joined together through time and space through the ritual of the Eucharist.
Early Christians also held agape meals, which were basically giant potlucks to feed their religious community and whoever else might need nourishment. It was true embodiment of the movement’s redefinition of “neighbor.”
Crowds came from Jerusalem and Judea and the regions around the Jordan River to be baptized by John. He said to them, “Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the impending doom? Produce good fruit. Prove that your hearts are really changed. Do not think of saying to yourselves, ‘We are Abraham’s children’ because, I tell you, God can produce children for Abraham right out of these rocks. Even now the axe is aimed at the roots of the trees, so that any tree that fails to produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown on the fire.”
The crowds asked him, “So what shall we do?”
He answered them, “Whoever has two shirts must share with someone who has none. Whoever has food should do the same.”
–Q2
So often we think, I’m a nice person.. Jesus spoke words of truth when he reminded us that everyone is nice to their own friends and family. Rapists and thieves, after all, have friends. The test of Christian faith, I believe, is whether we put it into action– whether we are being nice to more than just our friends and family and giving to more than just our friends and family. Christianity’s intent is to extend our circles of compassion beyond those we might naturally be drawn to love. After all, there is nothing extraordinary about loving and being good to one’s friends and family… pretty much everyone does. Christianity calls us to, as Bishop Spong worded it, “love wastefully.”
And be a simplllllllllllllllle kind of man.
The Prayer of Jesus
Loving God, in whom is heaven.
May your name be honored everywhere.
May your kin-dom come,
May the desire of Your heart for the world be done,
In us, by us and through us.
Give us the bread we need for each day.
Forgive us. Enable us to forgive others.
Keep us from all anxiety and fear.
For You reign in the power that comes from love which is Your glory, forever and ever. Amen.
(re-worded prayer from the Sophia community)
I believe the translation intends to portray the panentheistic Nature of God by playing on the words of our traditional translations by saying “in whom is Heaven” and shows how the pursuit of God is heavenly and gives heavenly light to the souls of those who pursue God.
This was used in a Sophia Community (Catholic) service. By kin-dom, I believe the translator intends to convey an idea that “Kingdom” is truly achieved when it becomes “kin-dom,” which is to say when we treat all members of the human family as true family.
And that does it for today, I think.
You are the body of Christ. You are the blood of Christ. Go into the world and be the hands and feet of God. See with God’s eyes and open yourself to the Holy Spirit as it lures you toward justice, compassion, and peace.
notes on notes February 28, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, comparative religious studies, jesus, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
“A text without a context is a pretext.” –Brent Walters
What I find astounding is how people can read through the Bible and take it at face value and think they’ve learned something. This is what disgusts me about a lot of American Christianity– it’s ignorant. Yes, there is something you can gain just by reading those words (although you are reading a pretty crap English translation, but that’s neither here nor there), but the layers of Biblical meaning are so intricate and sometimes hard to find that you’re cutting yourself short if you’re not coming at it from every angle possible.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Our English translations are not only biased, but oftentimes simply literal translations. Religious scripture is not like translating “see Jane run.” Scripture has metaphorical value, poetic value, and allegorical value (among others) which are lost with literal translations. That’s why scholarly research and cultural understanding is important.
For example During Jesus’ trial, Jesus tells John that he will betray him [x times, depending on version] before the cock crows. If we read that at face value, we’re imagining some rooster chillin’ in Jerusalem. However, if you understand the context, you know that 1) the “cock crow” was a term for a horn which signaled the switching of guards in the city and 2) there’s no way there would be a rooster running around in Jerusalem because it’s a holy city and such unclean animals were not allowed within its gates. In the context of this story, “before the cock crows” meant: “before midnight.” This is a small misunderstanding that is the result of ignorance on the part of translators, but imagine how many other times this happens (hello, the Bible’s kinda big) and how many other situations where that translation error could hold a lot more weight. The creation story is a shining example of this type of problem.
ANYWAY. Reading the Bible is hard work, if you do it right. Because a text without a context is a pretext, and scrounging up the context for a 2000-year-old work (much more if we’re using Hebrew Scriptures) requires consulting a lot of different fields of study and the works of many scholars.
I am ranting about all of this because I re-read the first chapter of John, which we all know and love, right. “In the beginning, there was the Word…”
Some time ago, in a class on Koine Greek, we went over this passage in the original language. It comes out a little differently: “In beginning was the logos and the logos was towards God, and God was the logos. This one was in beginning toward the God.”
Logos is a loaded term. It’s generally translated “word,” but that translation is a diservice to its meaning. Logos, as it was understood by those writing these texts, was more than just a word, it was a promise, and accounting, the logical implication of a divine order. Now, isn’t that more fun?
Arrogance of absolute truth claims October 22, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: christian, comparative religious studies, evangelism, God, religion
1 comment so far
Mankind has endlessly been struggling to understand God, so I think it quite offensive and arrogant to shove one’s personal religion in the face of someone who is quite happy with their own. Really, if a Muslim came up to you and read you some stuff from the Quran and told you that you were stupid for being a Christian and that your morals were bankrupt and would land you in hell unless you were willing to claim Mohammad as the paramount prophet, how responsive would you be?
Also, I think it’s ridiculously naive to think that any of us, especially those of us who are not fluent in the original languages of the Bible, can truly understand its message, especially now that we are some 3500 years after much of it was written and completely absent of the Bible’s original context. Of course we have endeavored to find the historical context of these writings, but so little is available to us. Even for those scholars who can read Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it’s incredibly difficult to discern what kinds of intricacies and poetic structure was used in scripture, what kinds of allegory, puns, metaphors, etc. that simply don’t translate into English or the year 2008.
One of my goals as a Christian is to faithfully embrace the mystery that is God. While I seek to understand scripture as fully as I can (I am majoring in Comparative Religious Studies, learning Ancient Greek, and intend to enter seminary), I will never be able to define God or God’s will in any kind of certainty… I can only have faith. Therefore, I should be respectful of whatever faith claims other people have, so long as they are not damaging anyone, imposing themselves on others, or interfering with my faith practice.
relsdork September 10, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: apocrypha, bible, christian, comparative religious studies, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
I’m a Religious Studies major. People always ask me what drew me to it and why I’m doing it… often in the same tone as one would ask someone how they got a rash.
Do I want to be a minister? What do I do with that degree?
My degree isn’t going to get me a certain type of job. I’m not doing it because I lurve Jesus or because I decided to take the whole cemetery thing an extra step…
It’s my passion.
My view and thoughts have changed. Although I don’t look at the Bible or Christians the way I used to, I’m just as passionate about it.
I can’t foresee reaching a point where I don’t want to go any deeper. I’ll never want to stop learning what archaeologists are finding about first century Jerusalem. I’ll never stop caring what scholars are saying about Jesus now. I’ll never stop being angry at what Christians are doing. I’ll never want to stop considering new angles of interpretation. I’ll never want to stop reading the theological musings of philosophers. I’ll never want to stop reading more apocrypha. I’ll never want to stop considering different translation options.
There is SO MUCH to know about Christianity. Its history stretches back thousands of years. And SO MUCH is written down. And SO MUCH is NOT written down.
And how crazy is apocrypha? What a crazy idea it would be to be writing before canon. And how different is Christian writing after canonization? And what a HUGE thought shift in the history of a religion… pre and post canon. And so what ABOUT apocrypha? How legitimate is any of it? Who wrote the texts? Why? When? Where? What makes them inauthentic? Or perhaps: what makes them authentic?
How can we discern when texts are written? How can we discover the contexts? How much is our knowledge of the history of these cultural groups dependent on the text and how much of the text is dependent on our knowledge of these cultural groups?
What happens in translation? What metaphors and allusions are lost? What mystical meanings are lost? What art is lost?
How does a text evolve throughout the history of its transcription?
How has the body of followers changed? How has the basic belief set changed? How has practice and custom changed? How has clergy evolved? How is the religion different in different regions? What are the variations of the religion that exist? What predictions can we make about the future of these groups? How are these groups interacting with each other? How do they deal with etic perspectives? How are these questions correlated? How do they interact? How many more questions are there? And how many valid answers are there to each question?
What can I say? It’s really just because I’m a RelS dork.
let’s be fair July 29, 2008
Posted by relsdork in christian, church, religion, struggle.Tags: buddhism, comparative religious studies, equality, feminism, islam, religion, religious studies
1 comment so far
Because Christianity is the predominant religion in this country, and also because it has done some crappy things, it’s considered okay to bash and criticize it. However, I don’t think that it’s treated fairly.
Islam is facing some real hatred right now in the world. It sucks to be a Muslim. Because of that, no one wants to say anything bad about it. Every time you critically analyze it, you have to acknowledge that, “that isn’t the teaching of the Quran and it’s not what all Muslims believe.” And that’s a good thing to do.
However, when we start bashing the institution of Christianity, no one seems to pipe up and say, “Hey, Jesus didn’t say anything like that,” because Christianity is the big white majority and we’re supposed to be able to take it, since we were (admittedly) such bastards in the past.
And when we talk about Christianity subjugating women, people are quick to show how the Bible supports it (oh, that poo Paul), not willing to hear the arguments of how those passages can be taken contextually and seen differently. Not acknowledging the progressive attitude (in a major sense), that Christianity has had in advancing women’s rights as well. Because those passages exist, too.
And, no, there’s nothing about wearing a head covering in the Quran. But there is a clear attitude toward women as a lesser sex that can be found as often as not, and certainly as often as it can be found in any other major world religion.
I’m just using Islam as an example, because it’s so hot.
The same can be found, for instance, in Buddhism. In Philosophy of Religion, we read an article about how Buddhism can be adopted by feminists because of its preaching equality (as opposed to darn Christianity, again). YES, Buddhism preaches equality. But SO DOES CHRISTIANITY. And yes, passages in the Bible can be used to subjugate women. But YES, passages in Buddhist scripture can be as well. Woman is clearly the lesser sex, even if she’s still equal in the long run. How many Buddhist nations can you go to and find woman at an equal standing with man? And how reluctant was Buddhism to admit nuns to the monastic movement? And no matter how long a nun has been practicing, she still has to bow before ANY monk.
Religion is all in how you interpret it. Any religion can be seen as liberating or as oppressive. But I don’t think it’s fair to more or less critical of a religion simply because it’s a minority or majority. Because we are scholars and it’s our job to analyze things with even minds and hearts, regardless of our own personal convictions. A fair, critical, and understanding analysis is not only fair, critical, and understanding, but deserved by every religious tradition that wants to be treated as valid and worthy of discourse.
shadow self July 23, 2008
Posted by relsdork in religion, struggle.Tags: carl jung, comparative religious studies, mary midgley, psychology, religion, religious studies
add a comment
Mary Midgley (a Religious Studies Scholar) says that when most people commit an “evil,” it is against their better self. The evil exists in this “shadow self” that we like to deny exists and pretend doesn’t. It might not tell us (hopefully) to go murdering people, but it might tell us to speed on the freeway when we don’t think there are CHP around, or something of that nature. We like to deny that this shadow is a portion of our personality.
Jung: “Painful though it is, this [unwelcome self-knowledge] is in itself a gain– for what is inferior or even worthless belongs to me as my shadow and gives me substance and mass. How can I be substantial if I fail to cast a shadow? I must have a dark side if I am to be whole; and inasmuch as I become conscious of my shadow I also remember that I am a human being like any other.”
