The meaning of Jesus (What did Jesus do and teach?)

Wright: The mission and message of Jesus (Chapter 3)

Borg: Jesus before Easter (Chapter 4)

Wright roots Jesus in first century Israel where Jews believe Yahweh was the only God and Jews were that God’s chosen people. Their current situation as vassals of Rome was seen as the result of past sins, which a Messiah would redeem, and by redeeming them restore the kingship of David. Jesus was a prophet who preached that that longed-for restoration of the (literal) kingdom was at hand. Rome would be overthrown and Yahweh would rule the world along with the people that he had chosen. This was a political vision but it was more than just politics in that it was tied up with religion (p. 33) and with a belief that the restoration of the old kingdom would bring the world to an end much as fundamentalists today believe that the second coming will usher in the end of time. This belief that the end of time was at hand is what Wright calls eschatology and he thinks that Jesus believed that the world was coming to an end.

Jesus, says Wright, was preaching that the end of the world was nigh but the way to bring this in was not by yet another revolt like the Maccabean, which had failed miserably. Instead, Jesus called people to become kingdom people. The call to repent was not a call to confession, as we tend to interpret it, but a call to turn away from idea of military revolution and to accept Jesus was of love and forgiveness. Jesus welcome all to his cause, rejected the temple as the center of religion, and challenged his contemporaries to live in such a way that the Kingdom of God would be realized. Jesus warned that if they did not follow his agenda that Israel would suffer terribly.

Wright emphasizes over and again that Jesus was no anti-Jewish. He was not offering a new religion, but calling, like Jeremiah and Isaiah before him, for a renewal of the existing faith. (Does this suggest that Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity?)  Jesus, says Wright, was focused on keeping kosher, keeping the Sabbath, and honoring the temple, but in each case he challenged people to observe the meaning and not the letter of the law. In particular (p. 43), Jesus’ clash with the money changers in the temple was a direct challenge to Jewish practice at the time. Likewise, the open table that he kept was an offense to those who believed that their holiness laws precluded eating with unclean sinners.

Jesus was not the only person who believed that he was the Messiah around that time. There had been several before him and would be several after him. He was also not unusual in believing that the real battle was not against Rome, but against the evil cosmic powers that led to Rome. As Messiah, and with a full understanding of the implication of the Suffering Servant, Jesus went to the Cross to take upon himself the accumulated sins of Israel that were the cause of its travails, sure that in so doing, history would end and the kingdom would be ushered in.

So was Jesus a failure? If one measures Jesus in purely political terms then the answer is probably yes. Although as Borg points out, just three centuries later the Roman empire had indeed fallen and Jesus was Lord of the known world. But, as Wright points out, Jesus’ death was not purely political, but has to be seen in its wider, cosmic sense. When looked at in this way, Jesus was not a failure (p. 51) but a resounding success. 

After all this dense argumentation involving the understanding at the time of the Messiah and his mission, Borg comes as somewhat of a relief. He distinguishes between Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ – the before-Easter and the after-Easter figures. Focusing on the before-Easter figure, he sees him a a mystic, one who lived close to God, intoxicated by God is a phrase Borg uses somewhere. He was a healer and a great teacher of wisdom. He did not, though, according to Borg see himself as the longed for Messiah. Borg, though, does believe that Jesus actually was the longed for Messiah even though he did not recognize himself as such during his life. In other words Borg and Wright agree completely on who Jesus was even though they disagree on whether Jesus was conscious of his messiahship.

Why might his distinction matter? The question, says Borg, is whether Jesus (the man) was trying to get people to believe in him or whether he was trying to get people to believe in his message.

Part of the reason why Borg is sceptical about Jesus as Messiah is that he does not believe in a God who is “out there,” sitting on a throne above the blue sky who then “sends” his son from out there into the world “down here.” God, for Borg,  is “here and now,” always present, always with us. Jesus, therefore, could not be sent from out there. So, in place of the sent, Borg envisages a man who was acutely aware of this ever present God, a man who lived in the Spirit, in other words what we would term a mystic.

Jesus’ life thus becomes central for Borg because it was during his life that people became aware that God was shining through him. In other words, God was made visible in this world through the life of Jesus. After his death and in the light of the after-death experiences that the disciples and Paul had, the early church struggled for words to describe what they had experienced. Truly, they said, this man must have been the Son of God. There are simply no other words to explain what we experienced. Jesus ability to heal, his wisdom teachings, his willingness to reach out to everyone as typified by the meals that he shared, are for Borg signs of the kingdom of heaven, signs of God demonstrating His nature through Jesus,

Central themes

Both Borg and Wright seem to bring a central theme to their work, which they embroider as they go.

• Wright’s basic theme is that Jesus was a first century Jew whose life and death was determined by the current eschatology. Jesus, for him, is consciously fulfilling Old Testament prophecies as interpreted by the later Jewish books, some of which have found their way into the Apocrypha. He believed, says Wright, that the was acting on behalf of Yahweh and he saw his role as restoring the political kingdom of Israel. As such he believed that he was the Messiah. The Resurrection confirmed his belief in himself.
• Borg’s basic theme is that Jesus, the man, was a mystic, meaning someone who live a life that was filled with the Spirit. Borg believes that after the crucifixion, the disciples including Paul experienced a risen Christ. As the early church pondered on their amazing experience, they began to interpret the life and death of the man Jesus in Old Testament terms. They began to see that he was indeed the Messiah, even though he had not recognized himself as such in his lifetime.

Both Borg and Wright end up at the same place regarding Jesus the Christ, Jesus the risen – both acknowledge him in their own lives as Lord. Both believe that Jesus was engaged in a larger struggle than ensuring personal salvation for each of us. Both believe in a spirit world and see the Cross as a victory won in a battle between good and evil. Where they differ is in how much Jesus the man as opposed to Jesus the Christ knew of his destiny. Both agree that Jesus the Christ is victorious.

Jewish history

I found it helpful to create a quick timeline for myself of Jewish history. I took this from an NIV commentary so it does reflect conservative/traditional thinking. I have rounded the dates off to the nearest century in many cases. I have added some comments at the end after the timeline.

2000 BCE Abram leaves Ur

1500 BCE Moses leads the Exodus from Egypt

1000 BCE David becomes king and the first temple is built

700 BCE Israel falls to the Assyrians – and later Judah falls to the Babylonians

500 BCE The exiles return to Jerusalem and the second temple is built – last books of OT are written

200 BCE Judas Maccabeus revolts unsuccessfully and the Romans take control

4 BCE Jesus is born

30 CE Jesus is crucified

47 CE Paul begins his ministry and the first letters are written

65 CE Mark’s gospel is written probably in Rome

70 CE Jewish revolt leads to the destruction of Jerusalem

75 CE Remaining gospels are written (after the destruction of Jerusalem)

95 CE Revelations is written

132 CE Bar Kochba, believed to be the true Messiah by the Jews, leads an unsuccessful revolt. Jews are exiled from Palestine (a Roman word) not to return for almost 2,000 years. Christians did not support the revolt sealing the split between Christianity and Judaism.

Most scholars outside of fundamentalist seminaries find no evidence for Jews in Egypt, the Exodus, or a King David. Instead, they believe that most of the bible was written after the return from exile in Babylon.

The dating of Paul’s letters and the gospels is very dependent on the date of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Scholars say that if the document reflects knowledge of the destruction then it must be post-70; if it is ignorant of the catastrophe then it is pre-70. Borg, and others, believe that there were many pre-70 stories about Jesus that were in circulation, but these were colored by the early church in the light of the destruction of the temple.

As we noted in an earlier class, there is a huge gap in time between the Old and the New Testament. Jesus did not enter an Old Testament world, but one shaped by documents that have found their way into the Apocrypha. Wright, in particular, makes much use of the messianic hopes that were running rampant in the Inter-Testament period to build a picture of Jesus for us.

The meaning of Jesus (His death)

Borg: “Why was Jesus killed?” Chapter 5

Wright: “The crux of faith” Chapter 6

These two chapters focus on the Cross. I think it is fair to say that for Wright the Cross is the central feature in the story of Jesus whereas for Borg it is his life that carries more weight. One might ask Wright, would it matter if we knew nothing of Jesus’ life. One might ask Borg, would it matter if we knew nothing of Jesus’ death. That’s an exaggeration, of course, but I think it reflects a tendency in the theology of each.

Borg as noted in Chapter 4 sees Jesus as a Jewish mystic or, in terms of his other books, as someone who lived constantly in a “thin place” aware at all times of God and, in that sense, living God out for those around him. For Borg, Jesus body of wisdom teaching, his passion for justice as a social prophet, his healings and inclusive meal practices are all crucial. This is not to say that Borg thinks that Jesus did not expect to die, he did, or that the Cross has nothing to do with our salvation, it does. Borg accepts both of these but argues that the notion of salvation was revealed to the disciples after the crucifixion by their experience of the risen Christ.

So, why did Jesus die? According to Borg it was because the was threatening the temple authorities. The throwing out of the money changers in the temple was a clear provocation but his willingness to heal and to pronounce forgiveness outside of the temple where these things were normally done were clear challenges to the authorities. Ultimately, “Jesus was killed because he stood against the kingdoms of this world and for an alternative social vision grounded in the kingdom of God.” (p. 91) It was a political killing in other words rather than a theological killing. And it was carried out by the Romans and the religious elite with very little involvement of ordinary Jews. Borg believes that the blame was shifted to the Jews later as the church sought to curry favor with Rome and that the result was hundreds of years of terrible persecutions of Jews by Christians.

Wright, on the other hand, believes that Jesus went to the Cross believing that he was the Messiah. As Borg describes it (p. 80) “Tom sees Jesus’ death as central to his messianic vocation and purpose. Jesus not only knew that his life would end in crucifixion, but he also saw it as the climactic kingdom action that would defeat the powers of evil and bring about the real return from exile.” And again (p. 81), Tom claims “that Jesus saw his own death as accomplishing something of utmost importance in the God-Israel relationship, an as ‘the final battle against the real enemy.’ Jesus took the suffering and sin of Israel and the consequences of its present historical direction upon himself. He saw his death as atoning for the sin of which Israel was guilty and he himself was innocent.”

Stating this another way, Wright rejects the notion that Jesus died for purely political reasons. He also rejects the notion that Jesus died for our sins, although this is a side-effect. He argues that the Cross fulfilled a much larger purpose. In his words (p. 105), the New Testament points “to a larger and stranger victory that is to be worked out in the world . . . Darker powers, unseen forces, are involved in these struggles.” His death, says Wright, is the “hinge upon which the door to God’s new world has swung open.” Our individual salvation becomes possible, but only as part of a larger cosmic salvation wrought by Christ’s suffering and as we suffer with him we make his death “effective in strange ways in the world around, beyond what may be calculated in terms of individual humans coming to faith.” (p.106)

The meaning of Jesus (The resurrection)

Wright: “The transforming reality of the bodily resurrection” (Chapter 7 )

Borg: “The truth of Easter” (Chapter 8 )

It is important to note at the very outset that both Borg and Wright make the central affirmation that Jesus is Lord. Where they differ is in their estimation of the importance of understanding just what exactly happened in history on that first Easter Sunday. Wright is convinced (p. 122) that a camera could have caught it all; Borg is a little less sure of just what a camera would have seen.

 Borg’s uncertainty is probably best described (p. 134) in the Emmaus story from Luke 24:13-35. Borg asks why if Jesus were resurrected bodily did the two disciples not recognize him. And how then did the body vanish from their sight? Borg wonders whether the events really took place as described or whether the story was told to illustrate how Jesus walks beside each of us and is present at all our tables even today.

 Borg is convinced that the risen Lord did appear to the disciples and to Paul but he is equally convinced that the same risen Lord appears to all of us and is indeed the very foundation of our faith. He uses Paul’s imagery in 1 Cor 15 to suggest that the resurrected “body” is a transformed body like a plant is a transformed seed. He has difficulty in accepting that Jesus was in effect resuscitated. The key in all of this for Borg is not what happened 2000 years ago but what happens today:

 “For me (he says on p. 135), the historical ground of Easter is very simple: the followers of Jesus, both then and now, continued to experience Jesus as a living reality after his death . . . Thus I see the post-Easter Jesus as an experiential reality. I take the phenomenology of Christian religious experience very seriously. Christians throughout the centuries have continued to experience Jesus as a living spiritual reality, a figure of the present, not simply a memory of the past . . . The truth of Easter is grounded in these experiences, not in what happened (or didn’t happen) on a particular Sunday almost two thousand years ago.”

 Wright, on the other hand, goes to pains to demonstrate that a bodily resurrection did occur on that particular Sunday almost two thousand years ago. He sees in that bodily appearance of the risen Lord to the disciples and to Paul, the reason that the church got underway. He acknowledges that the gospels conflict with one another in what exactly happened but, as he says (p. 122) “the surface discrepancies do not mean that nothing happened; rather, the mean that the witnesses have not been in collusion.” The tomb was empty, Wright says, “I have no doubt.”

 But what does it all mean? And here the two authors draw together again. They both note in their own way and Wright, in particular, on p. 125 that the resurrection was not about life after death or about personal salvation, or about entering into a relationship with God through Christ. Instead, both see the resurrection in cosmic terms. Jesus’ resurrection means that “the story of God, Israel, and the world” has “entered its new phase” . . . It is “about history and eschatology, not just about personal futures.” Or in Borg’s words, “Good Friday and Easter are the defeat of the powers (that rule this world.) God in Christ ‘disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in the cross.’ (Col. 2:20)”

 To understand Wright’s position here, one must go back to Chapter 3 (p. 33) in which Wright describes Jesus as a Jewish prophet announcing God’s Kingdom and his role in that Kingdom as the Jewish messiah. Borg is not convinced that Jesus thought that he was the messiah but Wright is. Jesus, according to Wright, believed that the kingdom could not be brought in by force (p. 96) but by his suffering. He believed, according to Wright, that the nation of Israel was to be the light of the world and the source of its salvation, but that this would only be realized if Israel were to shoulder the necessary suffering. He, Jesus, elected to shoulder that suffering himself – not so as to create a new religion but so that a new order might come about with Israel at the center. He went to the cross as a Jewish messiah. He was resurrected by God as proof that the old age had indeed come to an end and a new age was born. The resurrection, therefore, is more than a matter of personal salvation. It is the triumph over the forces of evil and the inauguration of a new age.

Wright never spells out just what the resurrected body was like and how it was able to walk through walls. I have suggested in an earlier Sunday School lesson that one way that we might imagine this is in terms of atoms. I pointed out that we were 99% vacuum and that we only see one another because light waves are larger in size than the distance between our molecules that make up our bodies. If we imagine those molecules moving apart then the body would become invisible to the human eye. I am not suggesting that this is how it happened, but I find it a useful way to explain to myself what is otherwise incomprehensible to me. What it does for me is to go beyond the “apparition” that Wright says that Jesus was not. It also coincides a little with Paul’s line about God compressing himself to become man.

However, though, we choose to envisage the resurrection, Wright is insistent that only a bodily resurrection could have been an affirmation to the disciples that Jesus was indeed risen and that he had triumphed over the powers of evil and established his kingship.

Meaning of Jesus (Class handout 08/02/08)

I am planning to have a class handout. Could you help me to prepare some useful notes? I have dated this because I plan to add to it and edit it.

INTRODUCTION

We are planning to discuss the book The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright this coming year and a reasonable question is why. In a nutshell, Jesus is, or should be, the central figure in any Christian’s life. While it is something of a cliche, the question “What would Jesus do?” is an important one in our lives and one that we really should be asking ourselves at every turn. Would Jesus have invaded Iraq? Would Jesus support the death penalty? Would Jesus tithe? Would Jesus have been an accountant? Or a lawyer?

The answers to these sorts of questions depend very much on how we see Jesus. Was he “meek and mild” as the famous children’s hymn suggests? Or is he the general in charge of “Christian Soldiers” as another famous hymn would suggest? Should we follow his words in forgiving others seventy times seven or should we follow his actions in cursing a fig tree that was not carrying figs out of season? Just who was the man called Jesus? What can we glean from the gospels about this figure so central to our lives as Christians?

In other words, the main purpose of this year-long study is to bring us back to our roots as Christians and to challenge our understanding of our faith and our response in our daily walk in living out our faith. Who is Jesus and what is his meaning for our lives?

THE AUTHORS

The book is a conversation between two great theologians. N.T. (Tom) Wright is an internationally recognized biblical scholar. He is currently the Bishop of Durham and a leader in the Anglican Church worldwide. Marcus Borg is a leading New Testament scholar and a member of the somewhat controversial Jesus Seminar. Wright is more conservative; Borg is more liberal; both are passionate, dedicated Christians.

We have met Borg several times in class and mostly in connection with his vision of “thin places.” He believes that God is close at hand, here if you will, and not a Santa who lives up “there.” He sees religion as a story of how we come into contact with God. Much of the time our lives are so busy and we are so wrapped up in the things of this world that a thick wall separates us from experiencing God. But then there are the moments that we sometimes describe as mountain-top moments when a sense of God rushes in on us. This happens for some at a quiet, beautiful spot in nature; for others it happens in a church service maybe during a challenging sermon or an uplifting hymn or anthem; and for yet others it happens when listening to beautiful music or standing before a painting by a great artist. For Moses, it was a burning bush. For Borg, Jesus was a man who lived almost constantly in a thin place. In other words, Jesus was constantly in touch with God. Borg uses the phrase “God intoxicated” to describe Jesus. Borg believes that it is important for us to remember that Jesus, during his life on earth, was a real man, an ordinary human being like us in many ways, but a man who walked with God. If we bear this image of thin places and of a man who lived constantly in a thin place, then the rest of Borg’s theology falls into place. Clearly, Borg would urge each of us to find more thin places in our own lives if we are to be more like Jesus.

Wright’s vision of Jesus is more traditional and, probably, closer to the image that most of us carry of Jesus. His Jesus is conscious of himself as the Messiah and as someone who “came to earth” to fulfill a particular mission namely to bring in the Kingdom of God. Wright roots his Jesus deep into the Jewish tradition. Key to understanding Wright’s vision is his eschatology, that part of theology that deals with the end times. Israel looked back to King David and fretted miserably under the Romans. They looked to a time when the (political) kingdom would be restored and Roman rule would be overthrown. The kingdom that they longed for was not a heavenly state, as we would have it, but a real political state run by a new king, one like David. The one who was to bring this new kingdom about was called the Messiah. Jesus, says Wright, saw himself as the one who would restore the glories of the old kingdom.

Our goal

The point of studying the conversation between these two theologians is NOT to get you to vote for either side. This is not intended to be a debate in which we vote at the end on who has the better argument. Our hope is that as we hear the views of two highly-respected theologians, it will stimulate and challenge our own thinking. The ultimate question, and the only one that matters, is whether we will allow Jesus to speak to us in our own lives and, in hearing, to follow his call for us. As Albert Schweitzer put it: 

Jesus comes to us as one unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, he came to those men who did not know who he was. He says the same words, “Follow me!”, and sets us to those tasks which he must fulfil in our time. He commands. And to those who hearken to him whether wise or unwise, he will reveal himself in the peace, the labours, the conflicts and the suffering that they may experience in his fellowship, and as an ineffable mystery they will learn who he is . . . (Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer, page 487)

The Meaning of Jesus (How do we know about Jesus?)

Borg: Seeing Jesus: Sources, Lenses and Method (Chapter 1)

Wright: Knowing Jesus: Faith and History (Chapter 2)

Borg & Wright begin the book in their own individual ways but by addressing the same question: What does the educated Christian do with the knowledge that we have gained about the Bible in the last half-century. I, like them, grew up believing that the Bible was the Word of God and essentially inerrant. Any conflicts between the gospels were explained away by the blind men touching an elephant story. It was only later in life that I realized that David did not write the Psalms and that Moses did not write the Torah. It was later still that I was to discover just how much of the gospels were created by the Church, years after the death of Jesus, in order to promote a particular theology that the church had developed. This new knowledge has not been easy to fit into my old faith.

Both authors also discuss the challenge to religiont that our current world-view to religion poses. They describe this world view as one that treats the world that we can see as “real” and the world that we cannot see as “unreal.” For the Greeks and most of humanity for thousands of years, heaven was Real, with a capital R, and the earth was an emanation or unreal. Jean can talk about Aristotle’s cave in which the things that we see are merely reflections on the wall from the light that is shining from the Real World outside the cave. I tried, in my talk on modern science, to point out that modern atomic science has shown that what we can see and touch is really, truly “unreal” and that reality, which consists of atoms, is the true reality. But, until we all absorb that into our own world views, we will all continue to treat God as unreal and the trash bin, which we can kick, as reality.

Borg responds to these challenges by distinguishing between Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ, the human and the cosmic. Borg doesn’t particularly care whether the wedding at Cana really happened; he does care greatly about his relationship in the present to God through Christ. Borg makes the good point that by focusing on Jesus the man, “he” disappears from history until he returns whereas by focusing on Christ, that is the risen Jesus, the after-Easter Jesus, we are reminded that he is here and now with us.

Wright is a little harder for me to read but as I understand him he is averse to separating Jesus the man from Jesus the Christ. He sees the one as the Jesus of history and the other as the Jesus of faith. He argues that if we are to proceed we must keep history and faith going hand-in-hand. In the chapters that follow, we will see Wright saying that the historical Jesus can only be understood through the lens of faith and that faith becomes empty if we disconnect it from history.

Since these first chapters are largely academic, they will be potentially difficult to discuss. I suggest – but I  am more than open to persuasion – that we might usefully begin by introducing the book and its authors and by outlining the challenge that they are addressing: modernism and modern biblical scholarship. We might then ask the class where they are on their faith journey when it comes to the Bible. I suspect that many will be where I am – and where our two authors find themselves – not nearly as certain today about whether David slew Goliath as they were when they were younger. The book promises a wonderful voyage through the two faith stories of two remarkable men.

The Meaning of Jesus (Style Issues)

The curriculum committee selected this book (suggested by Bob Coleman) for study throughout the year in hopes of giving the year a uniting thread. The book talks about the great events in the life of Jesus, which we celebrate at the various seasons in the church year such as Christmas and Easter. We have tried, therefore. to pick chapters that will go with the season rather than to study the book sequentially and week-after-week.

The point of selecting the book was NOT so that the class might hear the views of two distinguished theologians, but that the class might have a chance to reflect and discuss their own views. The great value of having a conservative and a liberal scholar, both very dedicated Christians, is that it gives everyone in the class space to air their own views without feeling that they are out of some mainstream. Wright accepts the Virgin birth; Borg does not. Both are good Christians. We, therefore, can feel free to take a position at either end or anywhere inbetween.

The vision that we have for these sessions is that each presenter will take 10 minutes, ideally, and certainly no more than 15 minutes to present the views of their alter ego. The topic will then be opened for discussion, lasting 20 to 30 minutes. I will chair the discussions and will prepare questions for discussion in advance of the lesson in conjunction with those who are presenting. Those questions will be phrased along the lines of “What do YOU think?” or “How do YOU envisage the Ascension?” The purpose, as stated earlier, is not to educate people about the views of Borg and Wright, but to get them to ponder on their own faith.

Once you have started reading your chapter(s), you will soon discover that there is enough material in each chapter for a year’s study and for at least a one hour presentation. We are going to have to be very disciplined in picking up ONE point (or maybe two) to highlight in one’s brief presentation and to form the kernel of the subsequent discussion. Thinking ahead, I could imagine us focusing on a single issue around Christmas such as, “Would it matter to your faith if the nativity scene were discovered to be a myth?” Both Borg and Wright address this in different ways and their thoughts could stimulate a healthy discussion – we hope!

I am hoping that we will all work together to turn this into a coherent, year-long study that will deepen the faith of everyone in the class and enhance everyone’s understanding of the gospel message. These are two marvelous men and I look forward to studying their words together with you and with the class.

Falls Church voting to leave

This strongly worded editorial was sent to me. Some will agree; others disagree. The one point on which we can all agree is that reconciliation seems to be very hard.

From the Falls Church VA News Press
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?

Editorial: Descent Into The AbyssThursday, 14 December 2006
Few people in Falls Church, including many who attend the Falls
Church Episcopal here, fathom how bad what the church’s leadership is
asking its members to vote for this week really is. Balloting of the
2,800 church members will continue through services this Sunday, and
it is expected that the vote will be overwhelming in favor of the
church’s formal withdrawal from the Episcopal denomination.

This move has been coming since the Episcopal denomination, by wide
majority of its bishops nationwide, voted in November 2003 to
consecrate the openly-homosexual Rev. Eugene Robinson as a bishop.

Local church leaders have variously confirmed this, emphatically, and
also tried to cloud the issue with theological jargon, claiming the
denomination has, more generally, drifted from roots they claim are
grounded in “Biblical inerrancy.” That is, the claim there is not a
single mistake or outdated notion in the Bible. Therefore, since
homosexual behavior is condemned in a handful of random Biblical
verses here and there, it is anti-Biblical to consecrate a gay
bishop. You’d be surprised to see what other things are condemned in
different parts of the Bible.

The actions of the Falls Church Episcopal’s leadership, and that of
the Truro Church of Fairfax and some others across the U.S., is a
mild replay of the same sad history of centuries of division,
slaughter, discord and tyranny within Christendom. This week’s action
will not trigger another Inquisition, but the mentality is the same.

Rather than affirming a generosity of spirit and Good Samaritan
compassion that can embrace and nurture a complex and multi-faceted
humanity, in this case, the leaders of the Falls Church Episcopal
have chosen to stand against the civil authority of the U.S.
Constitution that promises equal rights for all, just as happened in
all those pulpits that, in the past, denounced what they called the
“un-Godly” acts of freeing slaves, ending segregation, or more
recently, ending prohibitions on interracial marriage. Church folk
experience such hate, emotionally, as a burning righteous indignation.

If this week’s vote results in the departure of Falls Church
Episcopal from the Episcopal denomination, the church will go down in
infamy as a regrettable and despised bastion of bigotry, prejudice
and hatred.

In order to earn this legacy, the church’s leadership is willing to
disenfranchise its members from access to one of the nation’s most
historic church structures and histories. On this one issue, of the
consecration of an otherwise completely qualified, but gay, bishop in
New England, this church’s leadership is descending from the heights
of grandiose plans for a major expansion in 2000, to years of
development paralysis, to now being expelled from its property by the
Diocese of Virginia following this week’s vote and its flock sent
wandering. The power of hate can be so strong.

Islam

I gave a talk a while back about Islam based on my wonderful experience of Muslims while growing up. I made the following points (in bullet form here)

• We in the States tend to think all Muslims are Arab fundamentalists, terrorists at heart and a fairly small sect. In reality there are one billion Muslims of whom only 20% are Arab, only a very small handful of Muslims are terrorists, and only a minority are of Muslims are fundamentalist in their beliefs. Five million of them are fellow Americans and an increasing number are my students. In other words, the average Muslim is very different from the image that many Americans carry in their heads.
• I grew up in a world where church, mosque and synagogue co-existed happily. Interfaith meetings always involved pastors, imams and rabbis. Muslim weddings were very colorful affairs accompanied by horses and landaus. New Year was brought in by the superb music of Muslim bands. We each had our preferred religion but respected the other’s.
• Muhammad, not unlike biblical prophets, began his ministry to protest social injustice in Medina. Muslims still respond to his call to go beyond a self-centered existence to establish a just society. We think of ourselves as a “perfect” society; they see segregation, inequality, pornography, violence, and the exploitation of women and the poor. It would help our conversain with them if we acknowledged that that they have something of a point — before we point out that there are also inequalities and injustices in their own societies.
• I presented a potted history of Islam, which led to the point that the European Renaissance owes a huge debt to Arab scholars. Many Arabs are angered that we forget this debt. At the same time, it is sad to note that the great universities of the Muslim world have fallen into neglect in our own time.
• The Muslim faith believes in a state that is subject to God, not unlike the Calvinists who believe that while politicians might be voted on by the people, the people do God’s will. Many Christians used to and many still do side with Muslims in this regard. Consider the remnants of our own religious past: religious holidays and tax deductions for churches, priests and pastors.
• Muslims hold to five principles:
  • Shahada: Faith in one God
  • Salat: Daily prayers
  • Zakat: Charity
  • Ramadan: An annual fast
  • Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one’s life
• Muslim law (the Shariah) begins with Ten Commandments and uses the Quran (the written record), the Summa (the oral record), precedents set by the early fathers, and analogical reasoning. There are a variety of schools i.e., different opinions as to how the law should be treated but all hold firm to the belief that law begins with God.
• The role of women is probably the most contentious issue in the States. There are a couple of points that are worth remembering:
  • One is that the treatment of women is not monolithic and tends to be more culturally than religiously driven
  • Muhammad himself had two important women in his life: Kadijah his mother and Aishah his aide. Both had more importance than many churches give to women.
  • Women may own property
  • Marriage is treated as an investment rather than a heavenly contract. As a result walkng away from a marriage has more financial overtones than the breaking of vows that go with Christian marriage and divorce.
  • As one studies strict Muslim practice in regard to women, it becomes apparent that it is fairly biblically based. We are the one’s who have moved on from a strict application of Old Testament practices.
  • To their credit, they reject the commodification of women.
• Quran
  • The Quran has many parallels to the Bible with stories of Isaac & Ishamael (called Hagar in the Bible). The Joseph story is recounted and Jesus is included as a great prophet. One great dilemma is that their stories differ slightly from ours. We claim ours as inspired; they claim theirs were inspired.
• In conclusion, we don’t have to become Muslims to hear the prophet’s call in our own day:
  • God first in all things: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”
  • Love your neighbor as yourself
  • Practice the spiritual disciplines of prayer, fasting and pilgrimage.