Tongues of Flame

On the Church calendar today was Pentecost. For those who do not know, Pentecost is the day set aside to recognize the founding of Christianity as a new religion. The story in Acts 2 is as follows:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. ²And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. ³Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. ⁴All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. ⁵Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. ⁶And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. ⁷Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? ⁹Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, ¹⁰Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, ¹¹Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.”

As history it won't work. In the Jewish Tradition the Law was given on Pentecost. The author of Acts is simply using that date to have the "New Covenant" given on that same day. This is parable, not history (as if the flaming tongues and gift of languages were not enough to reveal that!).

In fact, it seems quite clear that the author is presenting this event as an undoing of the Tower of Babel. The Tower of Babel is that myth in the book of Genesis wherein God divides the human race by forcing them to speak in multiple languages, making them incomprehensible to each other.

What the author of Acts is saying is that the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer by the spirit of the Risen Jesus reverses this division and instead brings all together in unity. The great barriers separating humanity are conquered in the Spirit of the Risen One. As the ministry of Jesus was defined by breaking down the barriers that divide us from each other, this story is an admirable recognition of that same power alive in those who follow him.

The symbolism of reunification is very clear from the beginning of the the text. We are told that "they were all together in one place," and, lest we should still not get it, the Author ends his story of Pentecost with the following account of the life of the Early Jesus movement:

⁴⁴All who believed were together and had all things in common; ⁴⁵they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

It is not too surprising that the early Jesus movement "had all things in common," as Jesus himself seems to have lived this way and taught others to do the same ( see Luke 9:58, & Luke 18:18-25). And this passage should be read very carefully by those who champion big corporations and unregulated markets before they declare that they truly follow Jesus. But that is not my point here.

Historians of early Christianity are certain that Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism cannot be dated to before the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A. D. And the break is not complete until the early second century. Pentecost therefore, cannot really be about the founding of a new faith.

What Pentecost is about is unity. The world is and always has been deeply divided. These divisions all too often cause harms. The story of Pentecost tells us that division is not final, that we need not cave to it. Beneath our divisions there is a unity. That unity can be grasped, can be seen, can be lived.

As far as history is concerned the Apostles never did speak in multiple languages at once. Neither can we. But perhaps, if we but let ourselves be "filled with the Holy Spirit" we can come to understand each other and finally all come "together in one place."

The Gospel of Cornel West

If only Dr. Cornel West were White House Chief of staff (and Paul Krugman chief economic adviser for that matter) ... alas we are stuck with Summers and the gang.

In any case, enjoy the the following video of Cornel West:

Happy Birthday Mr. Padre

Anthony Keith Gwynn

May 9th, 1960

Tony Gwynn, The Hall of Famer, with 3,141 hits, .338 lifetime batting average, 8 Batting Titles, 5 Gold Gloves, 15 time All-Star and 20 seasons with one team! All amazing accomplishments and now he is turning the big 5-0! Mr. Padre, Tony Gwynn, means a lot to the city of San Diego and a lot to Padres fans. He is certainly the best hitter of his time, and one of the best of all time. (In my opinion second only to Ted Williams). Having grown up a San Diego Padres fan, I wanted nothing more than to meet Tony Gwynn since I was 2 years old. I waited 20 years to meet the man. No matter what, I always seemed to miss him. Then finally, in 2008 I met him. I tell you it was worth the wait. Tony Gwynn is the epitome of class and kindness. We were lucky to have such an amazing player, an amazing person as a part of the Padres, and a part of our lives.

HAPPY 50TH BIRTHDAY MR. PADRE!!!

Post Contributed by my sister: Caitlin Wion

Putting Away Childish things: Marcus Borg turns to fiction

Putting Away Childish Things: A Tale of Modern Faith by Marcus J. Borg

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Borg is a very fine New Testament scholar and a good popularizer of liberal theology. I've never been dissappointed by his books.

I am happy to report that Borg's first work of fiction is no exception to this rule. The story is solid and engaging, the plot has an intrinic interest, and - like his non-fiction - the prose is just plain enjoyable. Borg is candid that he is not writing to produce masterpiece fiction here. And indeed, as a work of fiction there are some plot holes, and worse some underdeveloped characters and unresolved conflicts, one quite major! But the fiction, as fiction, is decent and enjoyable despite these flaws.

The heart of the book, however, is not the storyline. Borg uses the form of a story to show how the theological struggles he has long written about play out in the lives of genuine individuals from all manner of perspectives. Basic Liberal theology is well described by Borg's characters, as are the various reactions to it, ranging from fear and confusion to curiosity and excitement.

Most interestingly, Borg presents his liberal christians as passionate about their faith. God is central to their lives. There is a tendancy to think of Christians who embrace liberal theology as lukewarm about their faith. This is false, and Borg brilliantly creates characters who prove that a more progressive theology can, or rather should, go hand in and with passionate faith.

Borg's book is not merely a primer in liberal theology, not simply pop evangelism in fictional wrapping. This is a book about true spirituality, about real faith.

By the end of the novel we have come to learn something very important about faith. We have learned to let go of anxiety and give ourselves over to the divine in an act of trust.

Unless you are an anti-religous atheist or a religous fundamentalist, I highly recommend sitting down and letting Dr. Borg tell you a story this summer.

What's the fuss about National Prayer day?

I have no interest in National Prayer Day.

I do not understand the mentality of the religious right who bellow about the need for the ten commandments, want creationism taught in schools, insist on the crucial importance of the name of God on our cash and in the pledge of allegiance.

I've always thought that the separation of church and state is an absolute necessity for a free society. It is also better for the church. Religions go bad when they have too much power. I've never thought faith should be part of the power structure, this is never a good thing. Faith should be a God-intoxicated voice of social protest; a demand for justice against the domination system.

In short, separation of church and state is necessary for the good of the state and the good of religion.

That said, I have absolutely no sympathy with those atheistic zealots who would ban all religion from public view. When I hear atheists lament about how "oppressed" they are because of national prayer day, I must confess I turn a shade of green.

Years ago I heard an atheist on TV (this was in California) weep and wail about how his daughter was "wounded" by the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. He went on to ask how a Jew or Muslim might feel if they had to say that!!!

These Atheist zealots crusade to take down crosses, and remove all mention of God from any public view. This is a clear example of bigotry and irrational anger.

I have to confess that I have no personal sympathy with atheism. I've never found atheism attractive, appealing, or even plausible. It is foreign to my mindset and temperament, and I don't even really understand it. That is not meant as condemnation of atheists. Many good and wonderful people are atheists. I just want to be candid about how far removed from it I am.

Don't get me wrong. I have no concern with putting God in public. I do not think we need the ten commandments in our courtroom, Genesis in our classroom, or God on our money. What I object to is the fanatic hatred of religion some atheists revel in. let me repeat that I mean ONLY SOME atheists. I'm aware that most atheists are not the kind of zealot I am here railing against.

Take the suit by the Freedom from religion group. These folks want to ban the National Prayer Day, because they are "offended" by the mere idea of God. I don't find that praiseworthy.

Usually such atheists are extremely arrogant. They think themselves much wiser, more intelligent, and greater than "those religious yokels and idiots." It is not an attractive attitude.

By all means go ahead and ban the national prayer day. Perhaps it is unconstitutional. I've never given it any attention and don't see the need for it.

But please, let's not pretend that these fanatical atheists are not smug and bigoted. They claim to be persecuted minorities who are just so wronged.

This is nonsense.

For Profit Colleges

There is a growing trend of for profit colleges . These are largely professional schools, focusing on business, medicine, and criminal justice. I currently teach a couple courses for Bryant and Stratton College which is one such school.

I find it difficult to say whether such schools are a good or bad thing. On the one hand they spread higher education to a wide variety of people and they are every good at teaching people the skills they need to land jobs. On the other hand I am deeply suspicious of the profit motive. We have been shown again and again that the profit motive is destructive and horrid. That may be a moot point, however, as traditional universities are far more "profit-driven" and "corporate minded" then many would care to admit.

NPR explained the whole situation today. I post that discussion here:


On the whole I see some value to them. They offer a needed service. But my hope is that non-profit universities start to truly mean what they claim: that they stop letting the drive for cash dominate their thought and they begin to return to a broad emphasis on the humanities and liberal arts.

A Liberal arts education is designed to create well-rounded individuals who can learn to become good citizens, friends, parents, neighbors, and just plain good people. So let us turn over the money-making to these for profit schools, let them get people jobs. But let us use this to return the focus of non-profit schools to improve character and educating the whole person.

Remember Working People!

In most of the world today May Day will be honored as a celebration of the rights of working people. This is a day to champion their cause, to celebrate their labor, and to think of ways to improve working and living conditions for working people everywhere.

In honor of May Day, I offer the following book review:

The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan

It is no secret that nearly all human societies - including our present societies - favor the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

The dominant institution for implementing this type of exploitation today is the corporation. Corporations get politicians elected, take over our minds with advertising, dump pollution into our environment, and routinely commit crime upon crime.

The basic Premise of this book is fairly simple: Corporations are not run by evil people, but are systematically designed in such a way that harming and exploiting people is a necessary component of their operation. Corporations are created to maximize profit and minimize cost. Corporations are legally bound to put profit above all other concerns. These claims are backed up by an enormous amount of legal data.

The second point is that currently Businesses are insufficiently regulated and not remotely penalized severely enough for their crimes. This means that, given that their structure is to maximize profit, they will lie, cheat, fraud, and harm consumers and employees - as this is in the long run the most profitable course.

What is the solution to this? A rethinking of and legal rewrite of the purpose and function of a corporation. Instead of merely a profit making machine, a corporation, the author argues, should be highly regulated, and subject to severe penalties when it violates the law. Furthermore, social responsibility must be legally written into the charter of a corporation and the common good, not merely profit, must be part of their tasks as a social institution.

Only by so re-creating the corporation and its structures can we remove the horrible harms corporations do and make them a force for good, rather than a force for harm and destruction.

As we celebrate the workers of the world this May Day, let us not only honor their labor and speak out for their rights; let us also come to understand the systemic problem of the corporate structure which keeps them exploited.

If we are to have true rights for working people, then we must restructure the corporate machine into something very different

Note: Originally published last year

The Legacy of Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers has ended The Journal. It is possible to make too much of this. Moyers will still be around and will not be entirely silent. He will, however, no longer host a regular television show. Though this may very well be the right thing to do for the soon to be 76 year old journalist, it is a sad thing for the rest of America.

Much could be written about Moyers' contribution to journalism. From his time in the White House as press secretory and his impact on the founding of the Peace Corps, to his interviews with Joseph Campbell, on death and dying, and on world religions - to name but a few of his many creative and informative projects. But others have done this far better than me. I refer to Eric Alterman's fine piece on what Moyers has meant to journalism and the country and Fresh Air's thoughtful retrospective involving past interviews with him.

There is little I can add to the tributes I mention. I will say only this: In an age dominated by partisan hacks and pompous blowhards, when shock jocks are the norm and vulgarity toward one's opponents encouraged, Bill Moyers remained a Christian Gentleman.

Always courteous, kind, generous, respectful and well-mannered, Moyers nevertheless spoke the truth to power with courage, stood on principle no matter what, and battled against power interested for the good of working people everywhere.

He has been the most honest man in journalism.

Moyers' professionalism, commitment to truth, openness to others, and above all genuine integrity and humanity have seldom been seen together in a single newsman.

It is above all his combination of passion for truth, commitment to principle, compassion for his fellow human beings, together with his generosity toward others, respectful tone, courteous manner, open mind, and refusal to engage in the smear tactics and name calling that have dominated journalism and media for some time now, that make him a personal hero to me - (I concede by the way that I've not measured up to his standard here).

Mr. Moyers will be greatly missed by many of us. As for his replacement? Let us be frank: Moyers is NOT replaceable. He is a unique contributor to American Journalism. But we can carry on his mission.

We must all pick up Bill Moyers' mantle. Let us also strive, like Moyers, to seek the truth with gentility, kindness, openness, but also with perseverance, integrity, and a desire for truth over pleasing those in power.

Let's continue to fight his fight!

Let us make it our own.

Here are some of Moyers' parting thoughts (from the second to last episode, not the last):

Bill Moyers Retires

Bill Moyers Retires

We are part of the Earth: let's start acting like it

We would do well to remember that we are part of this Earth. Sadly We in the west are heirs to a spiritual and ethical tradition that encourages us to think of ourselves as fundamentally separate from the Earth and nature. We think of ourselves as beings injected into the earth from some "beyond." It is not true.

Even more disturbing: Corporate Capitalism encourages us to reduce the Earth to a set of commodities the value of which is entirely reducible to economic worth. This is a travesty of our real relationship to this world that we are part of.

We are earth grown. We are part and parcel of our surroundings. The world is not "out there" its surrounds us and fills us and IS us.

There are a vast number of ways in which we are harming and even destroying our environment. We are quite good at spoiling the earth. The most pressing issue, however, is Global Warming. As there are still some skeptics out there. I will quickly explain why the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (with VERY rare exceptions) has concluded that human-originated global warming is a fact and dangerous one.

The science behind global warming is actually very simple. Carbon Dioxide traps sun rays in the atmosphere which is how the planet warms itself. This is a natural process. It follows that the more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere the hotter the planet will be. As a clarification, when the planet gets hotter as a whole it does NOT mean that every place on the planet will be warmer. Weather and temperature are complex and massive systems. To increase the warmth of the planet as a whole will result in a wide variety of changing conditions in various places; some places getting more rain, some less, some getting hotter, some colder. Let's please get our facts straight on this.

It is empirically obvious that we are dumping vast amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. Given the basic facts of planetary warming, it automatically follows that we are increasing Global Warming. But this would never be enough to satisfy a scientist. Science works by testing theories. You test a theory by making predictions. This means that if a certain theory is true, certain observable phenomena will be present. If those Phenomena are not present, we have good reason to doubt the theory.

In the case of Global warming ALL OF THE PREDICTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE THEORY ARE PRESENT

Here are the basic facts via National Geographic:

Here's the lowdown on why it's happening, what's causing it, and how it might
change the planet.Is It Happening?Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of
worldwide climate change.• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in
recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.• The
rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the
hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according
to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the
dozen warmest since 1850.• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average
temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice
the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.• Arctic ice is rapidly
disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free
summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar
bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.•
Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's
Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the
Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin
a week later.• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water
temperature, suffered the worst
bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some
areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to
increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures
rise.• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat
waves, and strong
tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some
experts.Are Humans Causing It?• "Very likely," the IPCC said in a February
2007 report. The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more
than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current
planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic
climate change.• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly
increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's
surface. (See an interactive feature on how
global warming works.) • Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere much faster than plants
and oceans can absorb it. • These gases persist in the atmosphere for years,
meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not
immediately stop global warming.• Some experts point out that natural cycles
in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain
the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles
roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such
changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have
taken place over the past hundred years or less. • Other recent research has
suggested that the effects of variations
in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more
complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

So there you have it. The basic science is pretty flawless. This is a perfect example of a verified Scientific theory. And it is not even very hard to grasp. And yes the Consequences are nightmarish. The effects of Global Warming include:

What's Going to Happen?A follow-up report
by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead
to
large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on
wildlife.•
Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59
centimeters) by century's
end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects.
Rises of just 4 inches (10
centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands
and swamp large parts of
Southeast Asia.• Some hundred million people live
within 3 feet (1 meter) of
mean sea level, and much of the world's
population is concentrated in vulnerable
coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana
and Florida are especially at risk.• Glaciers around the world could
melt,
causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions
dependent
on runoff for fresh water.• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat
waves, wildfires,
and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many
parts of the world.
The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in
many places.• More
than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat,
changing
ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.• The ocean's circulation system,
known as the
ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a
mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.• At some point
in
the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive
feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse
gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing
carbon
trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water

The time has come to cease arguing about human-generated Global Warming. The skeptics have no case and are either willingly blind, grossly misinformed, are simply being dishonest.

The Earth should mean something to us. We should love and cherish the planet which is our only home and the numerous living beings who inhabit it with us. Enough nonsense. No more debate. Global Warming is real and we are causing it.

This Earth Day, let us commit to fighting it.

Tea-baggers, Tina Fey, and Taxes

Turn on your local news and you will see them, Tea-baggers screeching about high taxes and "evil" government spending. They are, of course, very stupid and very crazy. But we do not do well to merely mock them.

Don't get me wrong, they deserve mockery and we should be glad to give them what they deserve. But they are not merely silly, they are scary. The Tea-baggers are VERY dangerous.

They seethe with the same kind of hate and irrationality that has constantly marked the wild masses who support rising dictators. We should be very worried about these tea-baggers.

They have now expanded their "movement" into the armed forces and militia groups, they are large, influential and growing increasingly violent. To observe how absurd their irrationality has become one need only note that they are belligerently protesting taxes today, when overall current taxes are the lowest they have been in decades!

Just observe them on any television channel or on youtube.



They are a very real danger to this society. As is their leader.

Tina Fey has brilliantly portrayed Sarah Palin as a clueless idiot. Undoubtedly Palin is rather stupid or at least highly uniformed and incompetent. But the former Governor of Alaska is far more dangerous than Fey's ditsy version of her.

Sarah Palin is a highly corrupt, dishonest, and manipulative person. Hungry for power and fame she will stoke the anger of even (perhaps especially) the most extreme and violent members of the tea-bagger party. This should alarm us all.

Sarah Palin and her tea-baggers are dangerous, not just funny.

Beware.

The Full story of Health Care reform

I have frequently blogged about how incomplete and flawed the new health care reform is. It far from anything that will provide truly first class care to a high number of Americans. But It is good to have the whole story documented in one place.

Such documentation is now ready to hand.

Tonight's episode of Frontline offers a pretty clear presentation of just what the new health care reform laws are and how the Obama White House got them passed.

Despite the neutrality of the program, the facts make clear how flawed this "reform" is and how much corruption, betrayal, and backroom deals with special interest poisoned the process.

I post the link to the video here:

Frontline: Obama's Deal (April 13, 2010)

Never again

Today is Holocaust remembrance day. A day we remember, with great sorrow, the horrors of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the end result of centuries of persecution and hatred directed toward the Jewish people and others. As one of the worst atrocities of history it is good to look to it and try to learn from it, learn how to stop it.

Sadly it does happen again. Often. The world is still full of hate, persecution and violence. We have, apparently, not yet learned our lesson. Perhaps we never will.

But there is hope.

On this Holocaust Remembrance day, let us commit ourselves to non-violence, inclusion, equality, forgiveness, healing and peace.

Maybe if we truly make that commitment it will really never happen again.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

For those who are not interested in Easter at all, this post will not matter. Also, for those who do celebrate Easter, but as a family (non-religious) holiday, or fertility festival, this post is not relevant either. I have no quarrel with these views, I merely am not addressing them here. Fertility festivals and family holidays can be very fine things, but I want to write on the importance of Easter as a commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus.

Let me state clearly that I affirm the resurrection of Jesus. There is, however, a twist. I do not believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is, I do not believe that on the third day the body of Jesus was physically transformed and his tomb found empty.

The reasons I doubt this are lengthy and complex and I will here only summarize them: 1) most crucified victims were not buried, and if by rare chance one was they were dumped in a common or shallow criminal's grave. The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea reads like a contrived tale to (a) save Jesus from this fate, and (b) help account for the resurrection in narrative terms. 2) The stories read like symbolic accounts. The resurrection is said to happen at sunrise, there are angels, the stone is magically "rolled away." This reads like legend. 3) The appearance stories in the gospels cannot be harmonized and are the clear inventions of their authors' theology. 4) It seems clear to me that by presenting the stories as they do, the gospel writers did not intend to convey literal fact. 5) Paul, our earliest Christian writer and a self-proclaimed "witness" of the risen Jesus says nothing about an "empty tomb," and strongly indicates that the resurrection of Jesus - whatever it was - was not the transformation of a corpse.

Nevertheless, I don't want to press this issue. If you believe that Jesus really did bodily rise up from the dead on Easter Sunday, and the tomb was really empty, then fine. I have no desire to combat that belief. My question is this: can the resurrection of Jesus be affirmed by one who does not believe the empty tomb story? Who does not affirm bodily resurrection?

I believe that it can.

Here is how I understand what the earliest followers of Jesus were saying: When Jesus was crucified they were afraid and they fled in despair, but they soon found that the power that they knew in Jesus was still present in them! Not only that, they felt that it was still Jesus bringing this power. That is, the earliest followers of Jesus were somehow aware (visions were most likely involved here) that Jesus was still with them, empowering them to do what he did; to heal the sick, condemn injustice, champion the poor, and include the outcasts.

I do not mean by this that they merely continued Jesus' mission or that his teaching or ideas lived on. Rather, I mean to say that the disciples of Jesus felt the "living presence" of Jesus empowering them to do as he did, and this forced them to say "Jesus lives." Jesus, they now believed, was "with God" and "with them." And I believe they were right.

Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what happens after death. I do not think traditional views of heaven and hell are likely to be true. And I have no idea if any of our personality survives death, in fact I lean against that. But I do think that something of the essence of what we are is eternal and not merely mortal. It is this contact with and experience of the eternal aspect of Jesus' being that caused his disciples to say "He is risen!"

But "Jesus Lives" is only half of the Easter proclamation. These disciples affirmed also that "Jesus is Lord." For them, Jesus did not merely continue to be with them, but to call them and challenge them, and bring to them the very being and power of their God. The risen Jesus challenges those who encounter him to radically reorient themselves; not only his presence but his call to mission is the heart of Easter faith.

I do not profess to know what kinds of experiences these disciples had. I was not there, and what we have (other than Paul) are the purely symbolic accounts in the gospels. But I am convinced that they experienced the real presence of the real Jesus as a compelling power within themselves.

The success of the Jesus movement resulted in the fact that these experiences of the "risen Jesus" were not isolated, but could be had by others. Christians who had never known Jesus during his life, could and did experience him as a "living power" calling for their authentic response.

And what was the call of Jesus? The call to "follow him." And this meant, a life committed to forgiveness, inclusion, compassion, healing, non-violence, social justice, and peace. It is this life that the risen and living Jesus still can bring to those who look to him, and to me this is what faith in the resurrection of Jesus means.

So, what happened to the body of Jesus? Presumably one of the few horrid fates that befell most crucifieds. But it is irrelevant. As the gospels rhetorically ask us, "why do we seek the living among the dead?" The spirit of Jesus lives on calling us. If we answer that call he can empower us to walk as he did and follow his way.

He is risen indeed!

Happy Easter.


Note: Originally Published last year.

Good Friday: a Passion for Justice

On Good Friday Christians around the world commemorate the death of Jesus. I confess I've never been able to entertain the strange notion that Jesus' death magically takes away our sins.

There are various versions of how this works: the most common being a very primitive and barbaric suggestion that Jesus died in our place. Such a claim presents a view of God that is hardly lovable.

So I don't prefer to think of today as the day of remembering how Jesus "died in our place" or some other such weird notion.

What I choose to remember is that Jesus was crucified by imperial power. The reason, historically, that Jesus was executed - think about that executed! - was because he disturbed the status quo. In the name of the Kingdom of God - the Jewish God of justice and peace - Jesus condemned the ways of empire, and the system of domination and exploitation.

The death of Jesus was a direct result of his passionate commitment to peace, justice, and compassion in the name of God and God's kingdom. That is what ought to be remembered.

The great Medieval theologian Peter Abelard argued that Jesus' death should not be understood as a substitution or a ransom paid, but as an example of divine love. An example that, if we truly contemplate it, transforms us so that we become better people.

Abelard, it seems to me, was right. The importance of the death of Jesus is that it shows how committed he was to the central goal of his life, and inspires us to be just as committed.

The religious importance of this death, for Christians, is this: Jesus' death was not merely the result of his commitment to justice and compassion. Rather, it was also his firm conviction that God is found chiefly in a life of Justice and compassion; a life he himself embodied.

Note: I originally published this post last year. I thought it worth re-posting

Do this in Remembrance of Me

Today is Holy Thursday, the day when Christians remember the last supper, the foundation of that most sacred of Christian meals, the Holy Communion.

It is historically very uncertain if the accounts of the last supper actually go back to the Historical Jesus or if they are later constructions of the church. My own inclination is that Jesus did celebrate a "last supper" with some of his followers. I doubt he said the "words of the institution," but I suspect he asked them to "remember him while they ate and drank." But perhaps not even that is historical. There is something more important about this meal.

In standard Christian theology Holy Communion is deeply connected with Jesus "dying for the sins of the world." I'm not very interested in that theology. Jesus' death is very important. He was put to death by an Empire and a leadership that despised everything he stood for to make an example to would be rebels. That death is, in many ways, a profound conclusion to his life and mission. But I don't believe in vicarious sacrifice or magic rituals, so the "dying for our sins" part does not move me. I am, however, deeply moved by the ritual of Holy Communion.

Communion reminds as that we are all one, like cells of one body, and that we were meant for "life together" in Boenhoffer's phrase. It is also a reminder that God is intimately near to us, as near as the bread and wine we digest. But there is more to the ritual even than that. Eating together was a (perhaps the) central element in the ministry of the historical Jesus.

Historians and New Testament scholars are unanimous in recognizing an "all-inclusive table fellowship" or "open commensality" as a central practice of the ministry of Jesus. In the ancient world who you ate or did not eat with mattered very greatly. Table Fellowship was a microcosm of the lager society, you did not eat with the the "lower people" or "outcasts."

Jesus directly challenged this ancient table practice with his own. Jesus dined with all manner of people, rich and poor, righteous and sinner, outcast and respectable soul, tax-collect and harlot, P and scribe. For Jesus, all set together to dine as equals. Jesus, from all accounts, appears to have been principally concerned with undoing the divisions of society. His ministry of eating and healing appears to have been designed to radically transform human relationships from exclusive to inclusive, from hierarchical to egalitarian.

The practice of all eating together as equals was the realization of Jesus' vision. In having all dine together as equals, Jesus was not merely proclaiming, but actually destroying the boundaries that divide. No one was to be an "outcast" any longer.

It all probability that is what communion grew out of - Jesus' mission to unite us all; to break apart the divisions which cause strife between us.

So if you take communion tonight or anytime this Holy Week do indeed remember Jesus. But forget theological claims about his divinity or sacrificial death (I suspect that the Historical Jesus would have found such claims a profound waste of time) try to remember his mission to unite, heal, reconcile, and bring together.

In a world still so divided and marred by the violence of those divisions, perhaps it would be good to remember Jesus' call to unity and to try to live it a little.

Palm Sunday: A Passion for Peace through Justice

Today is Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week for Christians. On Palm Sunday Jesus enters Jerusalem riding a donkey, hailed by followers waving palm branches. The action is a deliberate symbolic protest.

Biblical Scholar John Dominic Crossan pinned an article just two days ago which explains exactly what Jesus was up to:

Jesus went up to Jerusalem to make twin demonstrations, first against Roman imperial control over the City of Peace and, second, against Roman imperial control over the Temple of God. In other words, put personally, against the (sub)governor Pilate and his high-priest Caiaphas.

Together with his friend and colleague Marcus Borg, Crossan wrote an excellent book a few years back with elaborates and clarifies Jesus purpose in Jerusalem: The Last Week. Early in this book they explain that:

The Meaning of the demonstration is clear, for it uses symbolism from the prophet Zechariah in the Jewish Bible. According to Zechariah, a king would be coming to Jerusalem (Zion) "humble, and riding on a colt, the foal of a donkey" (9:9).... The rest of the Zechariah passage details what kind of king he will be .... This king, riding on a donkey, will banish war from the land - no more chariots, war-horses, or bows. Commanding peace to the nations, he will be king of peace.

Jesus' procession deliberately countered what was happening on the other side of the city [that Sunday, Pilate entered the city in a pompous pro-empire procession]. Pilate's procession embodied the power, glory, and violence of the empire that ruled the world. Jesus' procession embodied an alternative vision, the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is the heart of Jesus' life and message. Dedicated to non-violence, inclusiveness, justice for the poor and afflicted, and peace through justice for all, Jesus entered Jerusalem intentionally opposing his message and his mission to the power and injustice of empire.

The problem with Rome and the Priesthood for working so closely with Roman power. Was that this power disenfranchised, exploited, and oppressed the peasantry (a good 90% or so of the population) simply to create wealth and power for the elites.

Or to quote from Crossan once more:

After centuries of subjugation to various empires, the Jews of Jesus' time wanted to know: if God is just, and the world belongs to God, why is the world so unjust? One stream of Jewish tradition answered that question with this mantra: God will overcome, someday. At some point in the future, God would not only clean up the mess but also create a perfect world.... 

[To fight against Roman imperial power] Jesus told his companions to heal the sick, to eat with those they healed, and to announce that the Kingdom of God had arrived. Healing is the basic spiritual power. Eating is the basic physical power. That mutual sharing of spiritual and physical power, in a sense, recreated the sharing aspects of peasant life in contrast to the greedy life under Antipas' Romanization process. 

Think about those twin aspects for a moment. Those who bring healing and those who furnish eating are not exactly in the same position. They represent, respectively, itinerants and householders. By itinerants, I mean people pushed off family farms or family boats as the New World Order arrived in Lower Galilee. 

Think, for example, of how readily fishermen followed Jesus. By householders, I mean families who know how easily they could lose their own farms or boats in a changing economy. As itinerants and householders faced one another, the former saw where they had been, and the latter saw where they could be. The program of the Kingdom was to join both groups in support and common life.

In Leviticus 25:23 God says that, "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants." Land is life itself and cannot be bought and sold like other commercial commodities. In the gospels and throughout the New Testament there is little said about land and much said about food. But the continuity is clear--land is there for food, and the basis of life is land because it produces food.

Jesus' Kingdom program was not just about politics or economics as distinct from theology. It combined religion, politics, and economics; it was about divine distributive justice; it was about the ownership of this world; it was about a theology of creation ("Jesus' Kingdom Program" Belief-net).

In other words, Jesus challenged his hearers to disobey Roman power by living in God's kingdom here and now. In effect he claimed that Roman authority was null and void, that the Temple leadership was dissolved, and that God was ruling in our midst. No wonder the authorities killed him!

To follow Jesus, therefore, is to oppose the forces of empire and violence. To fight for the radical inclusion and healing of all people.

Palm Sunday offers us a choice: we can follow Jesus the messiah of peace and justice, or align ourselves with the forces of empire. THAT is the gospel; THAT is the passion of Holy Week.
UPDATED: APRIL 1, 2012

Health Care Reform Moves Forward

Despite all the fierce and angry rhetoric of the Tea-baggers and their allies in congress, the Democrats managed to pass a health care reform bill. The bill is lacking in many respects. There is no public option, nor anything to really guarantee strong price controls. Private insurance companies are left to run the show and even given some loopholes to avoid the worst of the new regulations put upon them.

In these respects, the bill that has passed is a poor one. It is not the ideal of reform that many progressives hope for. It it is not even merely imperfect; there are very serious problems with this health care reform.

Having said that, however, I think that the passage of the health care bill is a cause for celebration. Coverage will be expanded to millions of people who currently lack it, more poor people will be given financial aid to afford health care without spending their last penny, and it will be harder for health insurance companies - at least in most cases - to deny claims and care. This is a foundation we can build upon and a real improvement in our rather cruel and barbaric health care system.

But remember that our celebration must be a qualified one. This is but the first step in health care reform and it is the stumbling of a child who cannot yet really walk on its own. We must continue the fight. In particular we must work to strengthen the regulations on private health insurance companies, find a real mechanism for controlling costs, make it even harder for them to deny claims, and in the end to take the profit motive out of health care all together.

It appears certain that the transition from the cruel for-profit health insurance system that has harmed and taken so many lives to a system of health coverage that really works to heal and help people must, in the United States, be a gradual and incremental one. It is truly a sad thing that the American mindset and political system seems gridlocked into working in this slow and painful manner. Nevertheless such appears to be the case.

Given this American "incrementalism" we can and should be proud of this health care bill as an important first step. But let us not forget that we cannot stop with the first step, we must take the remainder of the steps on the path before us. Let us keep the vision of a truly humane and democratic health care system in our sight and keep on walking toward it.

Capitalism a Love story

Michael Moore's latest film is out on DVD. It's a usual Moore flick. Some good insights, funny, but one-sided, sometimes superficial, and lacking at key points in depth. It is surely among Moore's better films and does reveal a great deal of crucial information about how our economic system is run ... or better, run into the ground.

Some of it, as in most Moore films, is really very well done. The best example of this is when Moore asks various financial experts to explain what a "derivative" is. In each case it is so complicated, they cannot! Very telling, and very disturbing.

The most interesting thing about this film is Moore's use of his own Catholic faith to attack Capitalism. Catholic economic justice runs strongly counter to our culture of greed and cut throat competition. And it is nice to hear this said. It is also nice to hear from the religious left. Too often religious messages in the media and film are right wing.

In a particularly telling and funny scene Moore dubs over an old movie about Jesus. He has Jesus mouth capitalist catch phrases, and the result is quite damning. It's impossible to imagine the Jesus of the gospels saying such things or even approving of anything like our own economic system.

I highly recommend anyone interested in the social justice aspect of Jesus' life and teaching to read Jesus a Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan. Once you have studied the figure in his historical environment, you will see that Moore has the social justice and anti-capitalism of Jesus and much Christian social justice teachings absolutely correct.

Of course the usual superficiality and pompousness of Michael Moore does hurt the film. But I think the film is worth seeing, and much of the message is well presented and substantially correct.

But if you don't have time to see Moore's film here is his October interview with Charlie Rose that pretty much sums it up:

That Catastrophic Spider Immanuel Kant

Nietzsche once remarked that Immanuel Kant was a Catastrophic Spider. By this he meant that Kant's moral Philosophy sucked the life out of human beings. I suppose today we might refer to Kant as a "vampire" hence the image I have placed here of Nosferatu resembling the sage of konigsberg.

It is not hard to see why Nietzsche thought this. For Kant all our personal drives, goals, and inclinations must be sacrificed to an abstract and absolute duty. This is even worse then it sounds. Kant makes it quite clear that if we do good deeds out of natural inclination our actions have no moral worth. We must act, Kant asserts, out of a pure respect for duty; it is not enough to do our duty, we must do it simply because it is our duty. No other reason has moral worth.

Kant uses two examples to illustrate his bloodless claim that we must act for the sake of duty alone. First, Kant explains - one can almost hear the stern Prussian lecturing and imagine him wagging his finger at us - that a person who is naturally kind and charitable toward others (the "friend of humanity" Kant calls him) cannot be morally praised. He is good to others because his character is kind. This will not do, he is acting out of inclination, not a purely rational sense of duty.

Kant then asks us to consider a man of "cold temperament" a genuine misanthrope who has no desire to do good for others, but makes himself do so out of sheer duty. This man's actions have moral worth. He is, for Kant, a moral hero. In much the same vein, Kant would be forced to say that loving parents who raise their children well out of natural affection cannot be morally praised, but hateful parents who despise their children and yet strive to do right by them for the sake of duty alone are morally commendable!

Something has surely gone wrong here. Kant acts as though our character, the kind of person we are, is not something for which we can be morally praised. On the contrary, he argues that a good character seems to prevent us from being authentically moral. An impoverished theory if there ever was one.

Can any one honestly believe that we are only moral to the extent that we act against our character and inclinations? This is perverse! Surely who we are matters at least as much as what we do.

To see just how impoverished Kant's morality is check out the correspondence between Kant and Maria Von Herbert. That entire correspondence with scholarly commentary can be found here. The gist of the conversation is as follows. Von Herbert wrote Kant explaining that she was seriously contemplating suicide but knows from reading Kant that suicide is not morally permissible.

As the correspondence continues, we see that Von Herbert is chronically depressed. She writes:

My vision is clear now. I feel that a vast emptiness extends inside me, and all around me - so that I almost find my self to be superfluous, unnecessary. Nothing attracts me. I'm tormented by a boredom that makes life intolerable. Don't think me arrogant for saying this, but the demands of morality are too easy for me. I would eagerly do twice as much as they command. They only get their prestige from the attractiveness of sin, and it costs me almost no effort to resist that.

The commentator notes that Kant is here confronted with a Kantian moral saint. The woman has no passions and therefore simply acts out of a concern for duty alone. In a very telling passage Von Herbert wonders if Kant himself is as empty and lifeless as she is:

I beg you to give me something that will get this intolerable emptiness out of my soul. Then I might become a useful part of nature, and, if my health permits, would make a trip to Kñnigsberg in a few years. I want to ask permission, in advance, to visit you. You must tell me your story then, because I would like to know what kind of life your philosophy has led you to - whether it never seemed to you to be worth the bother to marry, or to give your whole heart to anyone, or to reproduce your likeness. I have an engraved portrait of you by Bause, from Leipzig. I see a profound calm there, and moral depth - but not the astuteness of which the Critique of Pure Reason is proof. And I'm dissatisfied not to be able to look you right in the face

Kant, unable to see this woman as anything other than a "crazy lady," dismisses her letters and refuses to respond. Ten years later she finally did commit suicide. I concede that Von Herbert is not really the "perfect Kantian" she has no passions to master. For Kant an act appears to be moral to the extent that we have mastered our natural passions which run contrary to this. But her chief motivation is duty, and her lack of passion poses no problems for a Kantian. For Kant must, in the end, regard our natural impulses and desires as something we would be better off without. Maria Von Herbert lacks these impulses and desires and the result is chronic depression. She rightly sees that Kant's philosophy pushes us all in that direction. This is a very serious problem.

Kant's total failure to see, in this woman, a profound criticism of his philosophy as lifeless is damning. I would not, however, consider it worth the bother of a blog post if this were just about Kant.

Throughout his work Kant stressed that he is simply the philosophical spokesmen for common sense morality. I fear he is right. Kant's cold, impersonal, and inhuman ethics are the logical conclusion of a very common conception of what morality is. Many of us think of morality as essentially prohibitive. It is a set of external commands that, more often than not, forces us to oppose our natural impulses and normal inclinations, that demands we obey regardless of our happiness or well-being. Kant builds his theory with the dreadful consistency of a math problem on just this conception.

One need not reflect all that deeply to see that this conception of morality and the moral life is the spider Nietzsche said it was. An ethic that makes enjoyment and character, well-being and fulfillment the enemy of duty is a sick one.

Whatever the proper theory of ethics is, this is not it.

We must think again.