Sunday Notes--11/26/2006

Daniel
The First Reading in our lectionary for the last couple of weeks has been from Daniel. I am not familiar with Daniel, but I plan to become so in the future. The verses chosen are from Chapter 7 and deal with a vision of the end of time and a final judgement. The similarities are so strong to Revelation, that I would consider John to have simply redreamed Daniel. What is has done is motivated a study for the future on comparisons of Daniel and Revelation, and perhaps, more generally a study of the eschatology of the Bible. If the readings I have seen so far of Daniel are any indication, there is really little that is new in the eschatology of the New vs. the Old Testaments, and a comparison paper is in order. That, however, is a retirement project. For those interested, you have been pointed in an intriguing direction.

Christ the King
Of all the themes in the interpretation of the New Testament, this is the one I have spent and will continue to spend the most time on. The text from John which forms the base of this celebration, was my first successful exegesis of Biblical text. My pastor at the time either encouraged a scholar or spawned a monster. I'll let you choose which.

I submit to no king, divine or otherwise, but I fully accept God as my guide and Jesus as His greatest exemplar. Given this attitude, it is no wonder I saw the Johanine gospel in an different light. I have written on this theme before. This was a long exposition of my position. This provided in a very long post, the summation of my study to date, including the comparison of nine different translations of the Bible.

I have acquired a very sceptical view when I read the Gospel of John. Whereas I tend to be far more accepting of the Gospel of Mark. John hypes Jesus in every way he can, focusing on what John considers Jesus' majesty. Mark tends to be more of a reporter, as best he can. If you want examples of my scepticism, read the link to my post two years ago. But regardless of John's hype, Jesus did some very real things on Earth, and left an indelible example. John's Gospel forms the basis of the celebration of Christ the King Sunday, which served a dual purpose, to counteract the beginnings of seeing Hitler as a messiah and to put some counter pressure on Lutherans with their celebration of Reformation Sunday. [Many thanks to my pastor for his history lesson this morning.] To quote the Johanine text, which is, in my opinion, grossly mis-interpreted:

John 18:37 ..."You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth...."

My parsing of this text, which is explained in detail in the link to my earlier post, is that Jesus came to testify to the truth, not to be King. There has been a conflation of the political charges against Jesus with the desire to glorify Jesus, leading to a reading of John and the other Gospels that is not true. In fact there are translations of Jesus' inquisition by Pilate, that have Jesus saying explicitly that he is a king.

The hymnal is laced with songs that use regal images of Jesus, "Crown him lord of all", "the little lord Jesus", etc. Rather than refer to him as Raboni, or teacher, we call him Lord or King, which is in direct contradiction to his ministry in the gospels. Jesus taught, and discussed, he did not rule.

Christianity is not a command structure, where if we follow orders we will be saved and if we don't we are damned. Such a thing would negate both free will and grace. To follow Jesus is not to surrender one's autonomy and thought, but to apply it in often difficult circumstances according to the guidelines he established.

Sunday Notes -- 11/12/2006

Infanticide
Last week Great Britain's medical care system espoused the euthanasia of "severely deformed infants". This is a monstrous recommendation but not surprising considering its source--a broken, welfare-state medical system that needs to conserve resources it doesn't have. It is perfectly in keeping with the proposals from the British system not too long ago. [See below]

What makes it nightmarish is that the Church of England endorsed it.

No longer does the C of E hold life inviolate. They are utilitarians just like Peter Singer. One of the highest standards of the Christian faith was (still is for most branches) the sanctity of human life. It is also Christian doctrine that a fetus is a human, usually from the moment of conception.

In effect, this endorsement says one of two things or both:
1) Regardless of the fact that the infant was conceived of human parents and borne of human parents, if it is severely deformed, it is not human
2) Human life is no longer sacred. Undesired infants, or other humans for that matter may be killed.

And then they have the gall to call it euthanasia. They aren't going to actively kill it with a lethal dose of drugs, they are going to passively kill it by not feeding it or giving it water. Despite the deformities it is still a functioning human and will suffer. And if it is sedated until it dies so it does not suffer? Then where is the distinction from simply injecting it with a lethal dose?

Earlier this year I wrote a piece called "And the beat goes on" which was a follow-up on a piece called "Dance of death". I'm not sure what to call this--Embracing death, I suppose. For this the C of E should be rejected by all churches with which it formed a common communion. It no longer deserves the label, Christian.

Sunday Notes--11/05/2006

Revelation
The Second Lesson today was from Revelation. Revelation is the most controversial book of the Bible. To the literalists of various types it becomes a major guiding light. Many of them have made great fortunes, spiritual and/or material, from this book, witness the "Left Behind" series.

To those of us who try to interpret it in a more rational way, considering it as allegory and parable, it presents quite a lot of difficulty. This is dream material. It is highly symbolic. It is wishful thinking on a grand and glorious scale. At the time it was written, many believed that the end of the world was to be even within their lifetimes. This confirmed that belief and gave substance to their imaginings of how it would be.

But we are 2000 years beyond that point. The world hasn't ended yet, and most likely will not for a long time to come. So what are we to do with Revelation? I say interpret it as John's innermost desire for a world in the image of Jesus' teachings. It is what John would have ultimately happen. That makes it neither right nor wrong. It also means that we should not, most definitely not, ascribe any current or recent past events to those in Revelation. John wasn't speaking to us, he was speaking to his time. But the ideas he presents can be applied in a more general sense. One should always keep in mind that John wanted to present Jesus in majesty, not just as the Great Teacher. Revelation with its expansive visions is in keeping with that desire.

All Souls Day
This Sunday was All Souls Day in the Lutheran church year. We were visiting a church in Scottsdale, AZ, this Sunday, and heard one of the best sermons I have heard in a long time. The message was essentially that Death is real, and that rather than deny death's existence, one should live life to the fullest, while aware that death can come at any time--as well my wife and I know. To be afraid of death is to give it dominion over our lives.

My post script is to say that it isn't being dead that is scarey, so much as getting there. I think that is true for most people, if they really stop to look at the death process, it is the getting there that scares them. But yet, that is exactly where they have some control. Living life to the fullest creates the easiest pathway to dying, simply because there is not the misery of anticipation and fear. Death may come suddenly, but it won't be terrible on the victims. For all you nit-pickers who can cite all sorts of exceptions to the above, go ahead, and I will still claim that those who live life to the fullest will have the easiest deaths, in general.

Sunday Notes--10/30/2006

Prince of Peace
Peace and religion have become far different from what they originally were with respect to each other. The common concept of Jesus is one of pacifism and many use this concept to justify pacifistic, non-judgmental, and non-confrontational behavior. When they hear the phrase "Prince of Peace" they hear peaceful prince not prince that brings peace, or they consider the peace to be spiritual not worldly. The phrase comes from Isaiah 9:6--

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This passage along with a fairly large chunk of the rest of Isaiah is in Handel's "Messiah". It is interpreted to foretell the coming of Jesus.

But it was not foretelling the Jesus we seem to want to have. Isaiah and all Jews were looking for another David, a warrior king. A prince of peace who would bring the peace by destroying or holding at bay those who threaten Israel. Today peace is some woozy-minded concept of no strife and everyone plays nice together, sort of a human version of "The Peaceable Kingdom." That is not what the Gospels say. Jesus says he came to split father from son, husband from wife, etc. He came to cause judgment and decision. And he certainly didn't come to be tolerant, my prime witness is the cleansing of the temple. There is such a thing as righteous anger and he demonstrated it. Jesus had no illusions that it might be possible to talk everybody into being peaceful, good, and just. He offered his views and they were accepted by huge crowds. They were also fought by the establishment. Nowhere do I read that Jesus tried to negotiate with the Scribes and Priests, or compromise, or do anything for peace. He stayed true to his principles. As to why Jesus did not fight to save his own life, I discuss this in two places, one was my sermon on this and the other excerpts from a long paper on the Gospel story.

The Prince of Peace brings peace from strength guided by principle. It is not a peace of conflict avoidance, but a peace of strength of might and right. What would Jesus do? The right thing, whatever it took, uncompromisingly.