My Tea is Cold March 19, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, environment, nature, religion, scripture.Tags: religion, christianity, process theology, jesus, bible, God, scripture, comparative religious studies, religious studies, nature, hebrew scriptures, liberal
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
Metaphor and Literalism March 14, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, liberal, religion, scripture
2 comments
How might reading the Bible metaphorically and understanding the Bible as a human product work together in interpreting Jesus for today?
To understand the Bible metaphorically frees it to be placed within the context of today. The Bible was written for a very different audience than exists today. Understanding it as a human product also frees it from dogma. To recognize the Bible as a work that has potential for flaw helps us understand the flaw in treating it as something exempt from logical criticism.
salvation March 12, 2009
Posted by relsdork in christian, church, religion.Tags: christian, christianity, jesus, liberal, religion
add a comment
What’s your understanding of our need for “salvation” and its relationship to the doctrine of original sin?
I think of these in terms of my shadow self. I believe that original sin is a flawed description, but I believe that we each have the potential to do a tremendous amount of evil. Jesus is the exemplary form, and in following him, I “save” myself from my harmful tendencies.
Jesus March 5, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, church, congregationalist, jesus, liberal, religion, ucc, united church of christ
1 comment so far
I’m going to post some questions from “A Course on Chistianity,” which was offered by a former minister at my church, and my answers to them. Here’s the first one, which is probably fitting:
What do the inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life suggest about the way we should interpret not only the text, but the meaning of Jesus’ life?
The inconsistencies, for me, show that there were different understandings of what Jesus’ life and ministry meant. People found different aspects of his legacy important and formed different interpretations of his person because of it. This parallels our view of the scriptures… people find different stories meaningful. People translate the text differently. Because of this, none of us should be so arrogant as to claim that our understandings can be more or less meaningful or authoritative than someone else’s.
understanding the bible October 31, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: bible, christian, liberal, scripture
1 comment so far
It is easy to think that we can understand the Bible. We can all read, right? I believe that there is a layering of meaning, a multitude of meanings, existing simultaneously. While it’s easy to take the word at face value, I don’t believe it to be the best approach to the Bible… especially since (and I presume you are reading an English translation) our translations are profoundly lacking.
Comparative Religious Studies has opened my eyes in a different way to the complexity of religion and its history. It is my experience that has brought me to my own interpretation of faith, just as it is your experience that has brought you to where you are.
I respect endeavors to love God and walk with Jesus. It is my goal to do the same, though I may see this path differently than most Christians.
united church of christ October 25, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, christian, church, gay rights, religion, struggle.Tags: christian, church, congregationalist, liberal, ucc, united church of christ
add a comment
Beginning as the conservative Christians known as Puritans, Congregationalists are today among the most liberal Christians in the country. This change throughout the denomination’s history is due largely to the progress this country has made in liberalizing, but is also specific to the denomination. Because of Congregationalists’ stresses on both education and missionary work (and therefore cultural integration), Congregationalists have become a very diverse, educated group that is on the forefront of social movements that belong to the social and political left. The United Church of Christ is a politically active, socially aware denomination that is a far step from its original position of quiet purity and moderation. Although the views of Congregationalists have changed, the group still largely sees itself as a leader and example for the rest of Christendom.
my intolerance September 6, 2008
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: bible, christianity, conservative, liberal, religion, tolerance
2 comments
So recently, I’ve become rather intolerant of pretty much everyone that’s talking about religion. I guess I’ve gone back and forth between sympathizing with both sides (conservative and liberal) and now I’m rather angry at them both.
I’m sick of religious conservatives that believe it’s their God-given (quite literally) right to go around enforcing what are quite clearly religious views on the general public. Whatever they might say, this is effectively converting people against their will. Whatever one think about the abortion debate, the difference involves taking a certain cosmology for granted. “Because the Bible(/God) says so” is a poorly reasoned excuse for anything, especially when it’s entering the public domain. If we’re going to say in America that people should not be aborting babies, maybe we shouldn’t be telling someone that quite possibly doesn’t believe in God (or believes in a different one/s) that the reason they should keep the child has anything to do with God. It’s not an effective argument. YES, that argument makes sense and means a lot to certain people, but if you’re not a Christian or not one that is pro-life, that argument doesn’t mean a thing. And if this group is so concerned about life, I would fully expect they that are marching around with pictures of fetuses to be devoting energies to helping the mothers care for those children, as well as to fighting poverty and hunger. And while we’re at it, maybe they should be using less PETA-like methods of trying to get people to keep children. Yes, dismembered fetuses are hard to look at. So are my intestines. Big deal.
I’m also sick of religious conservatives that know nothing about the content of the Bible. If you believe it’s divinely inspired, read the whole thing. If freaking GOD wrote a book for humanity to read, shouldn’t we READ it???? Don’t just let your pastor paraphrase it for you!!! Read it. Learn it. Learn to support your views about how to live out your tradition. Don’t call yourself a Bible-based Christian if you’re Biblically illiterate! I don’t say I can speak Spanish just because I can ask where a bathroom is and say hello. If you believe (for instance) that violence can be justified, find those passages where it says otherwise and learn to deal with them. Get your story down. Quit reiterating what other people tell you and do some work yourself. God deserves a little more effort and your argument will extend much farther if it’s actually substantiated and you can come up with a rebuttal.
I’m sick of religious liberals being just as selective in their religious interpretation as the conservatives. Claim the Bible or don’t. Know it, know what passages need explaining or flat-out need to be thrown out as antiquated and wrong (just as we’ve changed certain laws in this country). Either learn the history, the apologetics, and the scholarship, or shut up because the “Jesus loved everybody” argument is winning with no one who’s read the entirety of the Bible. If we are claiming “Christian” we need to understand the tradition and learn to be honest with the history… we’ve been jerks, guys!!!
…It’s like slavery or something. Maybe it’s a bad analogy, but hear me out. Just because I didn’t enslave anyone doesn’t mean that I, as a member of the body of American people (and especially white American people) don’t owe something to the African American community. Just saying, “We won’t do it anymore” doesn’t help African Americans climb out of the hole that we threw them into and doesn’t help them deal with the very real discrimination that they still face. Same with American Indians. If no one takes responsibility for the crappy things our ancestors have done, then nothing will be done to undo the effects. This is why we have some things like awareness programs and it’s why we learn about the Civil Rights movement every 15 minutes in public school. It needs to be done. We owe them that because of HISTORY.
On that note, it doesn’t matter that I didn’t go on a crusade and rape, pillage, and colonize… but I do have to own up to that history. Everyone knows that I didn’t trek to the Holy Land and kick people out of their homes, but part of recognizing that I completely disapprove of a huge chunk of my tradition’s history is trying to weed the remnants of it out of the tradition by being vocal and owning up to it. We need to understand why things like that have happened, find the sources, and own up to their negative influences on history… and take steps to disown that history by teaching how wrong it was/is. If you’re going to be selective about your Bible reading, then go at it and weed the crap out that we really believe is ungodly or make specific efforts to explain the contexts and changes. If you believe Biblical authors were people writing about God, treat it like a text that can bear critical inquiry… add explanations about that shameful portion of our history, like we have to do in textbooks about this country.
So, when the conservative Christians start making noise about how we need reform, maybe the liberal ones should start yelling loudly, too. And not with a bunch of fluff about how we love the world and are tolerant. Tolerance is not unique to liberal Christianity… we need to start advertising the aspects of the tradition that are. No one cares if Jesus loves you if you don’t know who Jesus was or what else he had to say.
Gosh, I wish people would start getting their hands dirty. The liberals should be able to use the Bible as well as the conservatives. The conservatives should know where the contradiction-arguments lie as well as the liberals. Both sides should know where the Love and wrath are. Both sides should be making their arguments in all spheres. We shouldn’t just leave the philanthropy to the liberals and the politics to the conservatives.
And the people that think religion is the root of the world’s evil? OMFG, what a selective and poorly-constructed argument!!! Patriarchy has done a lot of damage, but we’re not trying to get rid every “masculine” impulse in men, so as to avoid war and sexism in the future. We’re not saying men don’t belong in public office and should no longer be allowed to influence children. Anglo people have done a lot of damage, but we’re not trying to interbreed the whites to try and diffuse the white-ness. We’re not telling them that they can no longer visit India or Africa, lest they start colonizing. Science has created a mass of damaging weapons, but we’re not trying to ban all scientific research and production of weapons. We’re not sterilizing the scientists.
People that think “religion” (as some ominous body) is so largely to blame are isolating it as if it is can be somehow separated from its partners-in-crime (ie– money, political bodies, men, and weaponry). Religion has not done any more or less damage than any other ideology or harmful cosmology, whether or not it has a spiritual dimension to it. As if one can separate religion from racism or patriarchy or nationalism or power structures! It’s as absurd as saying that video games are solely responsible for youth violence, when we all know that it is in combination with music, movies, advertising, male aggressive tendencies, bad parenting, overlooked psychological disorders, bad gun control, socialization, defects in public education, ETC. It’s all about reconstructing the taxonomy to fit your argument. The reality is that ANY INSTITUTION OF POWER will do crappy things. It’s inevitable; get over it. Again: taxonomies.
I want to say so much more, but I’m entirely too pissed.
LEARN YOUR RELIGION FOR YOURSELF!!! AND IF YOU HAVEN’T LEARNED IT, STFU
