When would now be a good time?

 I want to thank you for indulging me. Whether you have realized it or not, my posts are more than just the musing of a bored and convoluted mind. It is working out of my understanding of my relationship with God. This is different than working out my faith or my salvation. I see my faith, or rather trust, as being in my actions. Similarly, I see my salvation, my being freed from the bondage of sin, as also being in how I act. In my studies I am exposed to different theologies, some of the times they stand in opposition of each other. Thus, my way sorting through this dilemma has been to write. I have had a number of people thank me for doing this, as it has not only given them pause to think, but has affirmed that there is more than one way to understand our belief.
          My focus today is on when is Christ coming back? Paul and the other early church pillars seem to have thought that Jesus’ return was imminent. They were obviously wrong. But for the past two thousand years, we have lived with the tension that he might be back tomorrow. There has been a whack of embarrassing predictions that he will arrive on this date and at this time. There are websites dedicated to the misunderstanding of the Book of Revelation that try to calculate current events as indicators of how close he might be.
          I am beginning to suspect that, like a teacher wanting the classroom to behave, we have been told the teacher will return “any moment now.” Thus, we keep listening for footsteps in the hallway. When I was a drunken charismatic Lutheran, I used to pray that Jesus would not return on those evenings when I was drunk and/or stoned. It would be totally embarrassing to be absolutely wasted when Jesus got back. Now that I am older and sober, I am beginning to wonder what is taking so long?
          In all seriousness, it is a good question. When will he be back? It seems that the longer he takes to get here, the more evil, vileness, and brutality can be done. Had Jesus shown up earlier, Nazi Germany would never have happened. (Or so we think.) In the book of Romans, Paul notes that all of creation groans in anticipation.
           The source of my impatience and my wondering is self-centred. I am clean and sober; the misdeeds of my life are generally based on reminiscing of early days or yelling at the cat to get off my keyboard. I am ready for his return. I have seen enough of evil and suffering. I want this all to end. Yet, when I think of my younger days. I was not ready. And now, even though I am ready, how many aren’t? As you know, I am not a great supporter of the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, also known as Hell. Yet, I do believe there is an accounting of our lives. Thus, it might be nice to allow another drunken charismatic Lutheran, or Baptist, or Buddhist, or what have you, the opportunity to come to their own grace.
          On a more serious note. There is a fatalism that exists in the theology of the return of Christ. After all, if he is going to arrive and set the world right, then why muster the energy to do so now and do so ourselves? Our approach to the now but not yet “Kingdom of God” can produce this lazy, fatalistic approach to life. We need to understand and embrace that we are the Kingdom of God. As I have written before, the Kingdom of God lives in the spaces between us. This is why working out our trust and salvation is a matter of how we treat the person beside us. We are called to live out, “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
          All of the parables relating to the return of Christ emphasize being engaged in  the world around us. We are called to be active stewards of God’s Kingdom. To feed the homeless, care for the widow, orphan, and foreigner. In other words, “Jesus is coming! Look busy!”
 Anyway, that is my opinion.

Start with Love

The Goat Herder’s Guide can be intimidating, bewildering, and frustrating to read. Most Christians avoid reading it, except for a few chosen passages. I was a part of a small group that numbered about 18, give or take. One evening, we discussed who actually read their bible. There were, at most, half a dozen of us. This is understandable, for there can be vast sections that contrast against our lived experience. There are awful things that are done by God and in his name within the Guide’s pages. We are told, at least within common doctrine, that these descriptions are factual and accurate. It is the sanest choice to simply close the cover and await further instruction.

         For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
but when completeness comes,
what is in part disappears.

 If I may make a suggestion. This is in keeping with the previous postings I have made regarding the Goat Herder’s Guide. When reading scripture, one is best served by having a perspective. As stated in an earlier post the Bible is intended to draw us into contemplation and conversation with God. Thus, when I have the perspective that this is all nonsense, what I read is all nonsense. When, I read desiring to understand what is on the pages, then it becomes less nonsense and more enlightening. My suggestion is that we take one section within its pages to use as means to understanding the rest.

          For myself, there are a few of these passages. The first, is the Sermon on the Mount. For me this encapsulates all of what the Goat Herder’s Guide says. When I read a passage, I reference the Sermon. At times, more often that I like, this requires that I stop reading and contemplate its meaning; what it is saying to me.

          I would suggest that you start with Love. Paul’s discourse on Love in 1^st Corinthians 13, for me, is a definitive perspective in reading scripture. I agree with a friend of mine, if God is Love, then this passage defines God. Using this as means of viewing scripture is brutal not only on the Bible, but on our doctrines we derive from it. 

So faith, hope, love abide, these three;
but the greatest of these is love.

           The next suggestion I would offer is do not expect a perspective that makes all of scripture line up into one cohesive concept. Life is messy, life is convoluted, life is never straight forward. While we might look for straight lines, and clarity, neither life, nor the Goat Herder’s Guide provides them. Remember the Goat Herder’s Guide is a narrative of a relationship between God and his creation. As well, it is the history of a small nation that kept getting ransacked by larger countries. It is written by us, and reflects that we are part of the story. That narrative is messy, confusing, and at times distressing, but within it is the story of people working out their faith with God. As such, it carries wisdom.

          The other suggestion is that we keep aware that although it is God inspired, it also written from the perspective of the author. Think of what is written as an invitation to view the world as the author sees it. More than anything else, the Goat Herder’s Guide shows us how those who came before us worked out spiritual principles. In doing this, understand that there is more grey than we are comfortable with, such is life!

 But remember: START WITH LOVE!

 Anyways, that is my opinion.

The Problem with Certainty

Religion has as its foundation a quest for certainty. I see this expressed in the three functions of religious thought: 1) a mitigation of randomness, 2) a mitigation of insignificance, and 3) the ego's survival of death. In short, we want to be kept healthy and free of distress, and when it is all over, we want to be the same as we were on Earth. This is the idea behind the lyric, “And if your eye gets poked out in this life, would it be waiting up in heaven with your wife?”[1] I would venture that much of the institutional aspect of Christianity holds the same three objectives. Jesus taught into these ideals and he did not have good news. I obviously owe another post.

           This desire for certainty is a significant human longing. It is also incredibly dangerous. The idea that if I believe strongly enough in this dogma, it is true, and I am certain, is the underpinning of fundamentalism. Dogma, a principle established by an authority as incontrovertibly true, is not exclusive to Christianity or any other religion. The scientific community is not unsusceptible to this desire. The strongest scientific dogma is that the nature of reality is ultimately knowable, and through the process of discovery, we are getting closer to a complete understanding. It is this dogma that has labelled scientists such as Stephen Meyer and others who challenge the authority of science as heretics. (I have provided a link to an interesting YouTube video below.) I provide this not as a means of critiquing materialism, naturalism, or the scientific community; I wanted to show how prevalent this tendency is for all of us. The trouble with fundamentalism and certainty is that it limits one’s ability to consider and understand the truth.

 

The pushback that Christianity is experiencing these days, and perhaps for the last few decades, is NOT persecution. We have brought it on ourselves. We have created extensive dogmas that we hold out as irrefutable truths. Our venture into the recent culture wars has only exacerbated this situation. In our quest for certainty, we have turned a way of being into a path of strict adherence to beliefs.

I am intrigued that Paul states that for us to be brought into a right relationship with God, two things are required. First, is a belief in the resurrection. It is foundational to Christianity. Secondly, we need to declare that Jesus is the Lord of our Life. That we follow his precepts. In stating this, I see close to a multitude of people lining up to tell me what Jesus wants, not for me to do, but for me to believe. The problem is that what Jesus calls me to do is often in conflict with what people want me to believe.

           Jesus summed up what it meant to be a Christian in the Sermon on the Mount. “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt 7.12). Later, Paul the Apostle repeated this concept, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom 13.10). Loving someone, my Hindi neighbour, my atheist neighbour, my gay neighbour, my obnoxious neighbour (often I am cast into that role), creates a lack of certainty. This extends to my neighbour who, through the addictive use of drugs, is now homeless, hungry and unwashed. Who is my neighbour is also very open to debate and is uncertain. In the parables that Jesus taught relating to our judgment, it was in how we were with other people that mattered.

The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty.

Certainty is missing the point entirely.

Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort,

 and letting it be there until some light returns.

Anne Lamott

     

Do not get me wrong on this; I am a Christian. I have confidence that God loves me. I have confidence that I have been restored to a right relationship with him. I have confidence that was accomplished on the Cross. Despite having my own ideas,  my attempts to understand the Gospel, I do not claim certainty.

         There is a difference between confidence and certainty. Certainly, like dogma, holds that a principle is irrefutably true. Confidence is the assurance of belief, of trust; it leaves room for uncertainty. This is more than simple semantics. Far too often, certainty is accompanied by arrogance.

Certainty closes my eyes, my heart, and my mind as I read scripture by thinking I “know” what it says. This often leads to an over-simplistic and unimaginative reading of the Goat Herer’s Guide. My limited foray into the original language of scripture has taught me that translation is a nuanced art.

Certainty ends the discussion with you by my listening to see if you agree with me. And if not, how I can tell you that you are wrong. This, in fact, diminishes the Spirit of God within you. Inevitably certainty moves me into a posture of defending my dogma.

Certainty limits my relationship with God. Because having it all figured out, the need for my reliance on his guidance goes mostly unmet. Jesus always pushed us to look into the “heart” of the matter, such as the Law. He still does. This can only be accomplished by being open to his leading.

Certainty is not as robust as confidence. Certainty is threatened by new ideas, perspectives, and information. Certainty makes it so that we both can’t be right. Confidence invites critique.

Certainty weakens my witness, for I am more interested in telling you the “truth" than in seeking to understand you. This approach fails to recognize that my most powerful witness is how I am in the world. If how I behave is indistinguishable from the world, I really don’t have much I can say. Certainty keeps me from enagaing with you.

 

Anyways, that is my opinion.

 

The YouTube link:

          

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

---

[1] Crash Test Dummies, God Shuffled his Feet, 1993

Why Does God Talk Like Elmer Fudd?

This question arose as a result of a dream I had. In the dream, I had been talking to a friend of mine, a guy who has been a mentor for decades, and I asked him, “Why does God talk like Elmer Fudd?”
     Unfortunately, I woke before the question was answered. However, there were now many questions. Not only why does God sound like an unsuccessful rabbit hunter? It was now also why I thought he sounded like Elmer? Was God really speaking to me like a Loony Toons character?
    The occasion led to my emailing my friend, and after a series of humourous responses, I moved on. Today the question came back. Why does God talk like Elmer Fudd? 

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

1 Cor 13.11

    I am back in Thailand, the "Land of Smiles." The mix of mayhem, hilarity, and adventure is perfect for this can-not-colour-inside-the-lines character. This is the place where the Fierty One first threatened to punch me in the snot locker. (She was kidding.) It is like a second home to me. 

    I heard a phrase the other day and have decided to abscond with it. I speak Tarzan Thai. "Me Drew, me hungry, want bacon." I miss Poh Tah on these occasions. Poh Tah was as patient as he was funny. He and I would occasionally walk around the farm as he taught me a word. This was how I learned the word for Jack Fruit, "Kah-Noon" There was one lesson that vaguely resembled a scene from Lost In Translation. The scene where Bill Murray is sitting next to an elderly Japanese man in a hospital waiting room. 
    When Poh Tah talked to me, he spoke very simple Thai—much simpler than he would talk to any of his grandsons. He knew what I could understand and pretty much kept to that. Occasionally, he would throw in a newer word just to keep me on my toes. When he was talking to his grandsons, he knew that there was much more that he was passing on than just language. There was culture, values, and the like. With me, he was 'teach this guy the language the culture will follow.'
    God talks to me. Not in the out-loud kind of way.  He speaks to me through thoughts that come out of left field. Sudden inspirations and random thoughts that have nothing to do with what I am doing at the moment. The messages have changed in nature and tone since before I stopped drinking and drugging. God's weird that way, he often speaks to us at a level that we understand. Before I got clean it was kind of Tarzanish "drugs bad, bad things happen." These days it is more eloquent than back in those days. It is not because God's language skills have improved. 
    I believe God can speak to you. God is a god that approaches us. He makes the first move. Perhaps the reason why God talked like Elmer Fudd in my dream is because that is how I could hear him.
    Anyways, that is my opinion.

Can we stop?

I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully 

has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

         One of the narratives we have about a scriptural character, but it is not based on scripture, is of Mary Magdalene. This narrative annoys me to no end, for with it, we try to use scripture to subjugate women. Women are already marginalized within the Gospel narratives and scripture, even though they were prominent figures in Jesus’ ministry and the formation of the early church. But it is the nonsense with Mary Magdalene that annoys me the most.

           First off, she should be referred to as Mary of Magdala. Magdala was a city on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Thus, she was a Magdalene. She is mentioned a total of twelve times in the Gospels, more often than any one of the apostles.  Her first encounter with Jesus was her being exorcized of seven unclean spirits. She was one of Jesus’ patrons financing his ministry. Not only was she present during the crucifixion, unlike ten of the twelve apostles, all four Gospels have Mary as one of the women who discovered the resurrection. In the Gospel of John, Mary is the first person to whom the risen Jesus talks.

           She was not, I repeat NOT, a prostitute. It is often assumed that Mary of Magdala was the woman who was a “sinner” who anointed Jesus’ feet in Luke 7. The identity of the woman is never revealed, and the word “sinner” could have simply meant that she was lax in her observance of the Torah. It was Pope Gregory I, around AD 591, who identified her as the woman at Jesus' feet and also identified her sins as sexual in nature. It does not matter that his proclamation could not have been biblically supported; the damage was done!

           For me, there is no debate as to whether the organized church is patriarchal. What other reason could there be for the head of an organized church to do such a thing? This was a person who was dear to our Lord! The sinister aspect of our collective view of women is beyond repulsive. The entire “Madonna versus Whore” dichotomy reduces women to the activity of their wombs. Mary’s virtue lies within her virginity, not the sacrifice of her life for Jesus. For what other sin could a woman need to repent from but prostitution or promiscuity?

           It was not until Pope Francis that the Catholic Church came clean about Mary of Magdala. In 1969, they simply stopped referring to her as a prostitute. Pope Francis set the record straight with the statement that Mary was “the apostle of the new and greatest hope.”

        Yet, her reputation as being a prostitute hangs like an ugly shadow. This woman that Jesus loved deeply. It is not enough to correct this error; we have to stop. We have to stop viewing women’s sexuality from the perspective of its usefulness to men. The two Marys, of Nazareth and of Magdala have their value defined by the usefulness of their wombs. Mary of Nazareth’s purity is seen as coming from her virginity, not from her love of God and her willingness to serve. Mary of Magdala’s spiritual condition is not understood in the condition of her soul injured by the world, just like the rest of us. Rather her sinfulness comes from imagined promiscuity. Either view strips away their humanity.

Can we not simply look at our sister in Christ as being a fellow disciple? Do we really have to judge her according to her value to men's sexually? For that is exactly what we are doing. I think it is time to stop.

Anyways, that is my opinion.

      

 

 Pope Francis's on Mary of Magdala

https://www.archivioradiovaticana.va/storico/2017/05/17/pope_francis_reflects_on_mary_magdalene_at_general_audience/en-1312802