My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations.
All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
I have to assume this would include Judas
13:10 Jesus said to him, "One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you."
13:11 For he knew who was to betray him; for this reason he said, "Not all of you are clean."
13:12 After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you?
13:13 You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am.
13:14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.
13:15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.
Both before, and after.
Compare it to Luke 7:36-50. There is an interesting tale of transmission here. The Synoptics and John don't share are many stories as we might imagine, but the anointing is one of them. For Mark and Matthew, that anointing takes place just before Jesus retires to the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke relocates it to the beginning of Jesus' public ministry away from the Pharisees (it is their last lesson, for awhile, in who is called to the basiliea tou theou). John's story takes place almost entirely from the time Jesus enters Jerusalem for the last time (the cleansing of temple occurs right after the wedding in Cana). John includes the anointing story after Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (which is only in John), and has it performed by Mary, while Martha serves; an echo of a similar story in Luke.
The other echo is here. Luke moved the anointing from the head to the feet. John keeps that alteration in chapter 12, and repeats the gesture in chapter 13. Luke's story clearly involves a prostitute (women in the company of men, even a wife, would be shamed as a whore in Jesus' time; his inclusion of women, and their willingness to be included, is more radical than we realize) and solicitation (her actions are straight from 1st century Greek erotic literature). Jesus' actions clearly accept her, even though she is a "sinner" (the point of the story). John's gospel includes no "last supper," but only this tale of foot-washing. It is the sacrament-that-wasn't, though it gives rise to the name for this day, "Maundy" being an older English word meaning "command." But when Jesus says "love one another--as I have loved you, so you are to love one another," Jesus doesn't say "except for traitors like Judas." And Jesus doesn't say "you should do as I have done for you, except for Judas." And John underlines that, by pointing out Jesus knew what Judas would do, but at no point does Jesus exclude Judas from the circle.
Neither before, nor after.
G.K. Chesterton
Our faith begins at the point where atheists suppose it must be at an end. Our faith begins with the bleakness and power which is one night of the cross, abandonment, temptation and doubt about everything that exists! Our faith must be born where it is abanoned by all tangible reality; it must be born of nothingness, taste this nothingness and be given it to taste in a way that no philosophy of nihilism can imagine. H. J. IWAND
"That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point - and does not break.
"In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane.
"In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God.
"And now let the revolutionists of this age choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."
"That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point - and does not break.
"In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane.
"In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God.
"And now let the revolutionists of this age choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."
The limits of belligerence
The drumbeat of war will not be as it was before.
48% of the American public say they are ready to go; but they don't know what they are going for, nor do they trust the Commander in Chief to lead them. That support is not likely to get stronger as reports like this come out:
There are limits to belligerence, and it is time to consider the truth of that. Arianna Huffington points out that left blogistan can be as belligerent as the right wing, and just as avidly go seeking after power.
It is time to consider that, if there is no power without resistance, then the only purpose of power is to seek resistance. And what is the point of that?
48% of the American public say they are ready to go; but they don't know what they are going for, nor do they trust the Commander in Chief to lead them. That support is not likely to get stronger as reports like this come out:
Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020.The entire article makes clear that what we have in Iraq is two parties (the US and Iraq) behaving like children in a sand box. Whether the adults can take charge is still an open question.
There are limits to belligerence, and it is time to consider the truth of that. Arianna Huffington points out that left blogistan can be as belligerent as the right wing, and just as avidly go seeking after power.
It is time to consider that, if there is no power without resistance, then the only purpose of power is to seek resistance. And what is the point of that?
Maundy Thursday, 2006
God, bless to me this day,
God, bless to me this night;
Bless, O bless, Thou God of grace,
Each day and hour of my life;
Bless, O bless, Thou God of Grace,
Each day and hour of my life.
God, bless the pathway on which I go,
God, bless the earth that is beneath my sole;
Bless, O God, and give to me Thy love,
O God of Gods, bless my rest and my respose;
Bless, O God, and give to me Thy love,
O God of Gods, bless my rest and my respose.
Psalm 42
As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.
My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God?
When I remember these things, I pour out my soul in me: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holyday.
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance.
O my God, my soul is cast down within me: therefore will I remember thee from the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites, from the hill Mizar.
Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts: all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me.
Yet the Lord will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and in the night his song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life.
I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?
As with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy God?
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God.
John 13:1-15
13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
13:2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper
13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God,
13:4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself.
13:5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him.
13:6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
13:7 Jesus answered, "You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
13:8 Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no share with me."
13:9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"
13:10 Jesus said to him, "One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you."
13:11 For he knew who was to betray him; for this reason he said, "Not all of you are clean."
13:12 After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you?
13:13 You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am.
13:14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.
13:15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.
Life be in my speech,
Sense in what I say.
The love Christ Jesus gave
Be filling every heart for me,
The love Christ Jesus gave,
Filling me for every one.
God, bless to me this night;
Bless, O bless, Thou God of grace,
Each day and hour of my life;
Bless, O bless, Thou God of Grace,
Each day and hour of my life.
God, bless the pathway on which I go,
God, bless the earth that is beneath my sole;
Bless, O God, and give to me Thy love,
O God of Gods, bless my rest and my respose;
Bless, O God, and give to me Thy love,
O God of Gods, bless my rest and my respose.
Psalm 42
As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.
My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God?
When I remember these things, I pour out my soul in me: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holyday.
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance.
O my God, my soul is cast down within me: therefore will I remember thee from the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites, from the hill Mizar.
Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts: all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me.
Yet the Lord will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and in the night his song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life.
I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?
As with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy God?
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God.
John 13:1-15
13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
13:2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper
13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God,
13:4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself.
13:5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him.
13:6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
13:7 Jesus answered, "You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
13:8 Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no share with me."
13:9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"
13:10 Jesus said to him, "One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you."
13:11 For he knew who was to betray him; for this reason he said, "Not all of you are clean."
13:12 After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you?
13:13 You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am.
13:14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.
13:15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.
Life be in my speech,
Sense in what I say.
The love Christ Jesus gave
Be filling every heart for me,
The love Christ Jesus gave,
Filling me for every one.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Wendell Berry
The speaker is Jayber Crow in Berry's novel of the same name.
For a while again I couldn't pray. I didn't dare to. In the most secret place of my soul I wanted to beg the Lord to reveal himself in power. I wanted to tell him that it was time for his coming. If there was anything at all to what he had promised, why didn't he come in glory with angels and lay his hands on the hurt chchildren and awaken the dead soldiers and restore the burned villages and the blasted and poisoned land? Why didn't he cow our arrogance?...
But thinking such things was as dangerous as praying them. I knew who had thought such thoughts before: "Let Christ the king of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Where in my own arrogance was I going to hide?
Where did I get my knack for being a fool? If I could advise God, why didn't I just advise him (like our great preachers and politicians) to be on our side and give us victory? I had to turn around and wade out of the mire myself.
Christ did not descend from the cross except into the grave. And why not otherwise? Wouldn't it have put fine comical expressions on the faces of the scribes and the chief priests and the soldiers if at that moment he had come down in power and glory? Why didn't he do it? Why hasn't he done it at anyone of a thousand good times between then and now?
I knew the answer. I knew it a long time before I could admit it, for all the suffering of the world is in it. He didn't, he hasn't, because from the moment he did, he would be the absolute tyrant of the world and we would be his slaves. Even those who hated him and hated one another and hated their own souls would have to believe in him then. From that moment the possibility that we might be bound to him and he to us and us to one another by love forever would be ended.
And so, I thought, he must forebear to reveal his power and glory by presenting himself as himself, and must be present only in the ordinary miracle of the existence of his creatures. Those who wish to see him must see him in the poor, the hungry, the hurt, the wordless creatures, the groaning and travailing beautiful world.
I would sometimes be horrified in every moment I was alone. I could see no escape. We are too tightly tangled together to be able to separate ourselves from one another either by good or by evil. We all are involved in all and any good, and in all and any evil. For any sin, we all suffer. That is why our suffering is endless. It is why God grieves and Christ's wounds still are bleeding.
For a while again I couldn't pray. I didn't dare to. In the most secret place of my soul I wanted to beg the Lord to reveal himself in power. I wanted to tell him that it was time for his coming. If there was anything at all to what he had promised, why didn't he come in glory with angels and lay his hands on the hurt chchildren and awaken the dead soldiers and restore the burned villages and the blasted and poisoned land? Why didn't he cow our arrogance?...
But thinking such things was as dangerous as praying them. I knew who had thought such thoughts before: "Let Christ the king of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Where in my own arrogance was I going to hide?
Where did I get my knack for being a fool? If I could advise God, why didn't I just advise him (like our great preachers and politicians) to be on our side and give us victory? I had to turn around and wade out of the mire myself.
Christ did not descend from the cross except into the grave. And why not otherwise? Wouldn't it have put fine comical expressions on the faces of the scribes and the chief priests and the soldiers if at that moment he had come down in power and glory? Why didn't he do it? Why hasn't he done it at anyone of a thousand good times between then and now?
I knew the answer. I knew it a long time before I could admit it, for all the suffering of the world is in it. He didn't, he hasn't, because from the moment he did, he would be the absolute tyrant of the world and we would be his slaves. Even those who hated him and hated one another and hated their own souls would have to believe in him then. From that moment the possibility that we might be bound to him and he to us and us to one another by love forever would be ended.
And so, I thought, he must forebear to reveal his power and glory by presenting himself as himself, and must be present only in the ordinary miracle of the existence of his creatures. Those who wish to see him must see him in the poor, the hungry, the hurt, the wordless creatures, the groaning and travailing beautiful world.
I would sometimes be horrified in every moment I was alone. I could see no escape. We are too tightly tangled together to be able to separate ourselves from one another either by good or by evil. We all are involved in all and any good, and in all and any evil. For any sin, we all suffer. That is why our suffering is endless. It is why God grieves and Christ's wounds still are bleeding.
Wednesday of Holy Week, 2006
God guide me with Thy wisdom,
God chastise me with Thy justice,
God help me with Thy mercy,
God protect me with Thy strength.
God fill me with Thy fullness,
God shield me with They shade,
God fill me with Thy grace,
For the sake of Thine Anointed Son.
Jesu Christ of the seed of David,
Visiting One of the Temple,
Sacrificial Lamb of the Garden,
Who died for me.
Psalm 70
1 Make haste, O God, to deliver me;
make haste to help me, O LORD.
2 Let them be ashamed and confounded
that seek after my soul:
let them be turned backward, and put to confusion,
that desire my hurt.
3 Let them be turned back for a reward of their shame
that say, Aha, aha.
4 Let all those that seek thee
rejoice and be glad in thee:
and let such as love thy salvation
say continually, Let God be magnified.
5 But I am poor and needy;
make haste unto me, O God:
thou art my help and my deliverer;
O LORD, make no tarrying.
John 13:21-35 (SV)
When he had said all this, Jesus became deeply disturbed. He declared: "I swear to God, one of you will turn me in."
The disciples stole glances at each other, at a loss to understand who it was he was talking about. One of them, the disciple Jesus lved most, was sitting at Jesus' right. So Simon Peter leans over to ask that disciple who it was was talking about. He, in turn, leans over to Jesus and asksk him, "Master, who is it?"
Jesus answers: "I am going to dunk this piece of bread, and the one I give it to is the one." So he dunks the piece of bread and gives it to Judas, Simon Iscariot's son. The moment the piece of bread, Satan took possession of him. Then Jesus says to him, "Go ahead and do what you're going to do."
Of course no one at dinner understood why Jesus had made this remark. Some had the idea that because Judas kept charge of the funds, Jesus was telling him, "Buy whatever we need for the celebration," or to give something to the poor. In any case, as soon as had eaten the piece of bread he went out. It was nighttime.
When had gone, Jesus says, "Now the son of Adam is glorified, and God is glorified through him. If God is glorified through him, God in turn will glorify him through the divine self, and will glorify him at once. My children, I'm going to be with you only a little while longer. You'll look for me, but, as I told the Judeans, I'm going where you can't come; it's to you that I say this now. I am giving you a new directive: Love each other. Just as I've loved you, you are to love each other. Then everyone will recognize you as my disciples--if you love each other."
Bless to me O God,
Each thing mine eye sees;
Bless to me O God,
Each souind mine ear hears;
Bless to me O God,
Each odour that goes to my nostrils;
Bless to me O God,
Each taste that goes to my lips;
Each note that goes to my song,
Each ray that guides my way,
Each thing that I pursue,
Each lure that tempts my will,
The zeal that seeks my living soul,
The Three that seek my heart,
The zeal that seeks my living soul,
The Three that seek my heart.
God chastise me with Thy justice,
God help me with Thy mercy,
God protect me with Thy strength.
God fill me with Thy fullness,
God shield me with They shade,
God fill me with Thy grace,
For the sake of Thine Anointed Son.
Jesu Christ of the seed of David,
Visiting One of the Temple,
Sacrificial Lamb of the Garden,
Who died for me.
Psalm 70
1 Make haste, O God, to deliver me;
make haste to help me, O LORD.
2 Let them be ashamed and confounded
that seek after my soul:
let them be turned backward, and put to confusion,
that desire my hurt.
3 Let them be turned back for a reward of their shame
that say, Aha, aha.
4 Let all those that seek thee
rejoice and be glad in thee:
and let such as love thy salvation
say continually, Let God be magnified.
5 But I am poor and needy;
make haste unto me, O God:
thou art my help and my deliverer;
O LORD, make no tarrying.
John 13:21-35 (SV)
When he had said all this, Jesus became deeply disturbed. He declared: "I swear to God, one of you will turn me in."
The disciples stole glances at each other, at a loss to understand who it was he was talking about. One of them, the disciple Jesus lved most, was sitting at Jesus' right. So Simon Peter leans over to ask that disciple who it was
Jesus answers: "I am going to dunk this piece of bread, and the one I give it to is the one." So he dunks the piece of bread and gives it to Judas, Simon Iscariot's son. The moment
Of course no one at dinner understood why Jesus had made this remark. Some had the idea that because Judas kept charge of the funds, Jesus was telling him, "Buy whatever we need for the celebration," or to give something to the poor. In any case, as soon as
When
Bless to me O God,
Each thing mine eye sees;
Bless to me O God,
Each souind mine ear hears;
Bless to me O God,
Each odour that goes to my nostrils;
Bless to me O God,
Each taste that goes to my lips;
Each note that goes to my song,
Each ray that guides my way,
Each thing that I pursue,
Each lure that tempts my will,
The zeal that seeks my living soul,
The Three that seek my heart,
The zeal that seeks my living soul,
The Three that seek my heart.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Ethics
One is distressed by the failure of reasonable people to perceive either the depths of evil or the depth of the holy. With the best of intentions they believe that a little reason will suffice them to clamp together the parting timbers of the building. They are so blind in their desire to see justice done to both sides they are crushed between the two clashing forces and end by achieving nothing...The news that God has become man strikes at the very heart of an age in which the good and the wicked regard either scorn for man or the idolization of man as the highest attainable wisdom.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, trans. Neville Horton Smith (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965), pp. 65-67.
Tuesday of Holy Week, 2006
Come I this day to the Father
Come I this day to the Son
Come I this day to the Holy Spirit powerful;
Come I this day with God,
Come I this day with Christ,
Come I this day with the Spirit of kindly balm.
God, and Spirit, and Jesus,
From the crown of my head
To the soles of my feet;
Come I with my reputation,
Come I with my testimony,
Come I to Thee, Jesu;
Jesu, shelter me.
Psalm 27
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
3 Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.
4 One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.
5 For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.
6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Lord.
7 Hear, O Lord, when I cry with my voice: have mercy also upon me, and answer me.
8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek.
9 Hide not thy face far from me; put not thy servant away in anger: thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.
10 When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.
11 Teach me thy way, O Lord, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies.
12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.
13 I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14 Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord.
John 12:37-50
Although he had performed ever so many miracles before their eyes, they did not believe in him, so that the word the prophet Isaiah spoke would come true:
'Lord, who has believed our message?
To whom is God's might revealed?
So they were unable to believe, for Isaiah also said:
He has blinded their eyes,
he has turned their hearts to stone,
so their eyes are sightless
and their hearts closed to understanding,
or they would do an about-face
for me to heal them.
Isaiah said these things because he saw God's majesty, and spoke about it.
Nevertheless, many did believe in him, even many of the ruling class, but because of the Pharisees they did not acknowledge it, so they wouldn't be thrown out of the synagogue. (You see, they were more enamored of human approval than of God's endorsement.)
Then Jesus proclaimed aloud: "Those who believe in me do not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. And those who see me see the one who sent me. I am light come into the world, so all who believe in me need not remain in the dark. I won't pass judgment on those who hear my message but don't keep it. You see, I didn't come to pass judgment on the world; I've come to save the world. But those who reject me and don't accept my message have a judge: the message I've spoken will itself be their judge on the last day. For I don't speak on my own authority, but the Father who sent me ordered me to say what I said and will say, and I know that his commandment is unending, real life. Therefore, I say just exactly what the Fahter told to me to say."
O Christ of the road of the wounded
O Christ of the tears of the broken
In me and with me the needs of the world
Grant me my prayers of loving and hoping
Grant me my prayers of yearning and healing.
Come I this day to the Son
Come I this day to the Holy Spirit powerful;
Come I this day with God,
Come I this day with Christ,
Come I this day with the Spirit of kindly balm.
God, and Spirit, and Jesus,
From the crown of my head
To the soles of my feet;
Come I with my reputation,
Come I with my testimony,
Come I to Thee, Jesu;
Jesu, shelter me.
Psalm 27
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
3 Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.
4 One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.
5 For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.
6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Lord.
7 Hear, O Lord, when I cry with my voice: have mercy also upon me, and answer me.
8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek.
9 Hide not thy face far from me; put not thy servant away in anger: thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.
10 When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.
11 Teach me thy way, O Lord, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies.
12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.
13 I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14 Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord.
John 12:37-50
Although he had performed ever so many miracles before their eyes, they did not believe in him, so that the word the prophet Isaiah spoke would come true:
'Lord, who has believed our message?
To whom is God's might revealed?
So they were unable to believe, for Isaiah also said:
He has blinded their eyes,
he has turned their hearts to stone,
so their eyes are sightless
and their hearts closed to understanding,
or they would do an about-face
for me to heal them.
Isaiah said these things because he saw God's majesty, and spoke about it.
Nevertheless, many did believe in him, even many of the ruling class, but because of the Pharisees they did not acknowledge it, so they wouldn't be thrown out of the synagogue. (You see, they were more enamored of human approval than of God's endorsement.)
Then Jesus proclaimed aloud: "Those who believe in me do not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. And those who see me see the one who sent me. I am light come into the world, so all who believe in me need not remain in the dark. I won't pass judgment on those who hear my message but don't keep it. You see, I didn't come to pass judgment on the world; I've come to save the world. But those who reject me and don't accept my message have a judge: the message I've spoken will itself be their judge on the last day. For I don't speak on my own authority, but the Father who sent me ordered me to say what I said and will say, and I know that his commandment is unending, real life. Therefore, I say just exactly what the Fahter told to me to say."
O Christ of the road of the wounded
O Christ of the tears of the broken
In me and with me the needs of the world
Grant me my prayers of loving and hoping
Grant me my prayers of yearning and healing.
Ecclesiology and Humanity
For an interesting insight into ecclesiology, listen to this report on DemocracyNow! And especially if you are not Roman Catholic, remind yourself that St. Augustine is a Roman Catholic church.
These situations are always very complicated. But the people in power never have absolute power (and they are the first to recognize that), and the exercise of power is never without thousands upon thousands of complications and unforeseen consequences.
These situations are always very complicated. But the people in power never have absolute power (and they are the first to recognize that), and the exercise of power is never without thousands upon thousands of complications and unforeseen consequences.
Monday, April 10, 2006
I have never read any works by Elaine Pagels
This may be why:
But the Jesus Seminar wasn't so sure many of the words in the canonicals could be accurately related to Jesus. Disagree with their scholarship and conclusions as you wish, but their method was quite exacting and has to be met on its own terms to be properly challenged. Just as with the word "gnostic," which was used by Iraneaus because it is from a Greek word meaning "knowledge" (i.e., it was not originally a perjorative). And the emphasis on knowledge as a source of salvation is a very Greek one, not a Hebrew one, because Greek epistemology (fundamentally) is centered on discovery, Hebrew epistemology (fundamentally) on revelation. If we are going to assume that Jesus was more interested in Greek mysteries than in the communal and scriptural based Hebrew society, then we need a basis for such a fundamental shift in the Nazarene's thinking. There are no real mysteries in Torah; the "secret teachings" in Judaism, so far as I know and Pagel confirms, come from Kabbalah. My brief review, via Google, indicates Kabbalah reliably dates back no earlier than 100 C.E. and originally referred to the publicly available teachings of Torah. Which buttresses my memories from seminary, that "mystery cults" were of Greek influence, if not entirely of Greek origin, and makes a connection between Jesus of Nazareth (crucified in about the 4th decade of the 1st century) and Kabbalah dubious at best. Although the connection to John's Gospel and Kabbalah or similiar teachings could certainly be made (and certainly has been, somewhere). Perhaps Pagels' makes that argument elsewhere; if so, it must be a very interesting one.
The fundamental critique of the Gnostics is that they preferred individual over corporate revelation. In a post-Romantic world, we are inclined to side with such sentiments against the "corporatizing" institution, which we immediately assume to be soulless. But it wasn't always seen that way, and it isn't ipso facto true, in any case. I've often thought that hasty conclusion was Pagels' primary scholarly sin. I think in that, I may have been right. In fact, Pagels' NYT column raises a half-serious question (courtesy of my snarky brother): who did write this gospel? And did Judas leave a really long suicide note?
Startling as the Gospel of Judas sounds, it amplifies hints we have long read in the Gospels of Mark and John that Jesus knew and even instigated the events of his passion, seeing them as part of a divine plan. Those of us who go to church may find our Easter reflections more mysterious than ever.Well, if you consider something written in the middle of the 2nd century of the common era to be a more reliable record of the words of Jesus of Nazareth than the Gospel of Mark (70 C.E.) or the gospel of John (circa 100 C.E., and I have a memory of dating it as late as 120 C.E.), I suppose so.
But the Jesus Seminar wasn't so sure many of the words in the canonicals could be accurately related to Jesus. Disagree with their scholarship and conclusions as you wish, but their method was quite exacting and has to be met on its own terms to be properly challenged. Just as with the word "gnostic," which was used by Iraneaus because it is from a Greek word meaning "knowledge" (i.e., it was not originally a perjorative). And the emphasis on knowledge as a source of salvation is a very Greek one, not a Hebrew one, because Greek epistemology (fundamentally) is centered on discovery, Hebrew epistemology (fundamentally) on revelation. If we are going to assume that Jesus was more interested in Greek mysteries than in the communal and scriptural based Hebrew society, then we need a basis for such a fundamental shift in the Nazarene's thinking. There are no real mysteries in Torah; the "secret teachings" in Judaism, so far as I know and Pagel confirms, come from Kabbalah. My brief review, via Google, indicates Kabbalah reliably dates back no earlier than 100 C.E. and originally referred to the publicly available teachings of Torah. Which buttresses my memories from seminary, that "mystery cults" were of Greek influence, if not entirely of Greek origin, and makes a connection between Jesus of Nazareth (crucified in about the 4th decade of the 1st century) and Kabbalah dubious at best. Although the connection to John's Gospel and Kabbalah or similiar teachings could certainly be made (and certainly has been, somewhere). Perhaps Pagels' makes that argument elsewhere; if so, it must be a very interesting one.
The fundamental critique of the Gnostics is that they preferred individual over corporate revelation. In a post-Romantic world, we are inclined to side with such sentiments against the "corporatizing" institution, which we immediately assume to be soulless. But it wasn't always seen that way, and it isn't ipso facto true, in any case. I've often thought that hasty conclusion was Pagels' primary scholarly sin. I think in that, I may have been right. In fact, Pagels' NYT column raises a half-serious question (courtesy of my snarky brother): who did write this gospel? And did Judas leave a really long suicide note?
Monday of Holy Week, 2006
Thanks be to Thee, O God, that I have risen today,
To the rising of this life itself;
May it be to Thine own glory, O God of every gift,
And to the glory of my soul likewise.
O great God, aid Thou my soul
With the aiding of Thine own mercy;
Even as I clothe my body with wool,
Cover Thou my soul with the shadow of Thy wing.
Help me to avoid every sin,
And the source of every sin to forsake;
And as the mist scatters on the crest of the hills,
May each ill haze clear from my soul, O God.
Psalm 25
Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.
Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause.
Show me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.
Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.
Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies and thy loving-kindnesses; for they have been ever of old.
Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.
Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
What man is he that feareth the LORD?
Him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant.
Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net.
Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted.
The troubles of my heart are enlarged: O bring thou me out of my distresses.
Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
Consider mine enemies; for they are many; and they hate me with cruel hatred.
O keep my soul, and deliver me: let me not be ashamed; for I put my trust in thee.
Let integrity and uprightness preserve me; for I wait on thee.
Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles.
John 12:1-11
12:1 Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
12:2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.
12:3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said,
12:5 "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?"
12:6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)
12:7 Jesus said, "Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.
12:8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
12:9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
12:10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well,
12:11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.
O Christ of the poor and the yearning
Kindle in my heart within
A flame of love for my neighbor,
For my foe, for my friend,
for my kindred all.
From the humblest thing that lives
To the Name that is highest of all
Kindle in my heart within
A flame of love.
To the rising of this life itself;
May it be to Thine own glory, O God of every gift,
And to the glory of my soul likewise.
O great God, aid Thou my soul
With the aiding of Thine own mercy;
Even as I clothe my body with wool,
Cover Thou my soul with the shadow of Thy wing.
Help me to avoid every sin,
And the source of every sin to forsake;
And as the mist scatters on the crest of the hills,
May each ill haze clear from my soul, O God.
Psalm 25
Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.
Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause.
Show me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.
Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.
Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies and thy loving-kindnesses; for they have been ever of old.
Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.
Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
What man is he that feareth the LORD?
Him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant.
Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net.
Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted.
The troubles of my heart are enlarged: O bring thou me out of my distresses.
Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
Consider mine enemies; for they are many; and they hate me with cruel hatred.
O keep my soul, and deliver me: let me not be ashamed; for I put my trust in thee.
Let integrity and uprightness preserve me; for I wait on thee.
Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles.
John 12:1-11
12:1 Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
12:2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.
12:3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said,
12:5 "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?"
12:6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)
12:7 Jesus said, "Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.
12:8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
12:9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
12:10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well,
12:11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.
O Christ of the poor and the yearning
Kindle in my heart within
A flame of love for my neighbor,
For my foe, for my friend,
for my kindred all.
From the humblest thing that lives
To the Name that is highest of all
Kindle in my heart within
A flame of love.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Soundtracking Holy Week 2006
I am listening to Anonymous 4's recording, "1000: A Mass for the End of Time."
Somehow it just seems appropriate, given that the Washington Post has independently (and with no reference to him whatsoever) confirmed Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article. The only comfort I draw is that obviously the Pentagon is taking this threat to invade Iran very seriously, and are doing all they can to stop it, short of resignations and insubordination. And at least one of those is on the table.
I figure later I'll get out my recording of Messian's "Quartet for the End of Time." More and more these two seem like the appropriate soundtrack for Holy Week 2006.
Kyrie eleison
Christe eleison
Kyrie eleison
Somehow it just seems appropriate, given that the Washington Post has independently (and with no reference to him whatsoever) confirmed Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article. The only comfort I draw is that obviously the Pentagon is taking this threat to invade Iran very seriously, and are doing all they can to stop it, short of resignations and insubordination. And at least one of those is on the table.
I figure later I'll get out my recording of Messian's "Quartet for the End of Time." More and more these two seem like the appropriate soundtrack for Holy Week 2006.
Kyrie eleison
Christe eleison
Kyrie eleison
Palm Sunday
I have remembered bits of information bouncing around in my head that I cannot confirm, and some of them have to do with Lent, the 40 days before Easter, which, if you stop and calculate them, are obviously not 40 days at all, but longer than that. One explanation (Thomas Merton's, I believe) is that the Sundays of Lent are excluded from the count because, much as Lent is a season of penance and penitence, Sundays are the day Christians celebrate the Good News, the Resurrection, the hope in Christ. It is not a day, on the liturgical calendar, for mourning.
"On the liturgical calendar," because liturgy, leitourgia, is the work of the people, and the liturgical calendar, the church's calendar, is the people's calendar. Not in the Congregational (Protestant) v. episcopal (Roman Catholic hierarchy) sense, but in the sense that Augustine knew, when it was the people who pressed him into service as their bishop. "The people" in the sense of the gathered body of believers who consider themselves corporately as part of a larger body, the "body of Christ," not as part of an institution, "the [fill in the blank] Church." The work of the people is the work and worship of the Church, guided and directed by God, led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, founded and taught by Jesus. The Church lives after Easter, and so the Church corporately does not mourn.
But the Church liturgy has no place for mourning; except during Holy Week. Lent is a season of penance, created in a time when worship and church and life were seamless, so that the flow from personal penance to public worship back to personal penance, was a natural one. It was a time of preparation for the great celebration of Easter, the communal and corporate memory of the reason the Church is present. Still, the liturgical calendar reflected the seasons: the coming of the light as the darkness was growing in December: Advent. The celebration of the Light of the World from Christmas to Epiphany, in the darkness of the year. The winter months of Epiphany giving way to preparation for spring that are Lent into Easter. The celebration of spring in Easter, and then the months of the Church itself, in the Season of Pentecost, until the year came round again, and the Church started a cycle of birth and renewal and life to give its corporate life structure and reliability, and ordinary life even richer meaning.
Life is not all celebration and elation, though; part of life is mourning. The Church, corporately, needed its acknowledged time of morning. It worshipped, after all, a crucified God. It needed to acknowledge the crucifixion, in order to enjoy the Resurrection. And so we find ourselves again, in Holy Week, trying to conduct, or just prepare to conduct, the ritual of mourning. And we take three days almost out of the calendar altogether: the Triduum of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. We silence the music this week; we strip the altar and remove all colors, leaving only black. We bring the world of the Church almost to a halt. This morning we praised the coming of the King in triumph into Jerusalem, and the very same morning mocked him, and spat on him, and demanded his crucifixion. Now we are ready to mourn him.
We will try again to recall the last meal; try to recall the agony of his dying. We will try to recreate, as a community, that time and those events, so we can feel them, so we can mourn our God whom we helped crucify. Were you there? Sometimes it causes me to tremble.....
Christians around the world will be trying again, this week, to prepare ourselves for what must be done, to take it seriously enough to know it is serious, to accept the paradox of a God who can be crucified, to try to grieve for him, so the reality will become a little more real to us. Were you there? Peter was, and three times denied him. But if he hadn't, would he have lived to be the rock, the petros, upon which the Church would be founded? It is mysteries like that, that Christians this week will be pondering. Questions like that prick and fuel and disturb and quiet, our mourning.
"On the liturgical calendar," because liturgy, leitourgia, is the work of the people, and the liturgical calendar, the church's calendar, is the people's calendar. Not in the Congregational (Protestant) v. episcopal (Roman Catholic hierarchy) sense, but in the sense that Augustine knew, when it was the people who pressed him into service as their bishop. "The people" in the sense of the gathered body of believers who consider themselves corporately as part of a larger body, the "body of Christ," not as part of an institution, "the [fill in the blank] Church." The work of the people is the work and worship of the Church, guided and directed by God, led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, founded and taught by Jesus. The Church lives after Easter, and so the Church corporately does not mourn.
But the Church liturgy has no place for mourning; except during Holy Week. Lent is a season of penance, created in a time when worship and church and life were seamless, so that the flow from personal penance to public worship back to personal penance, was a natural one. It was a time of preparation for the great celebration of Easter, the communal and corporate memory of the reason the Church is present. Still, the liturgical calendar reflected the seasons: the coming of the light as the darkness was growing in December: Advent. The celebration of the Light of the World from Christmas to Epiphany, in the darkness of the year. The winter months of Epiphany giving way to preparation for spring that are Lent into Easter. The celebration of spring in Easter, and then the months of the Church itself, in the Season of Pentecost, until the year came round again, and the Church started a cycle of birth and renewal and life to give its corporate life structure and reliability, and ordinary life even richer meaning.
Life is not all celebration and elation, though; part of life is mourning. The Church, corporately, needed its acknowledged time of morning. It worshipped, after all, a crucified God. It needed to acknowledge the crucifixion, in order to enjoy the Resurrection. And so we find ourselves again, in Holy Week, trying to conduct, or just prepare to conduct, the ritual of mourning. And we take three days almost out of the calendar altogether: the Triduum of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. We silence the music this week; we strip the altar and remove all colors, leaving only black. We bring the world of the Church almost to a halt. This morning we praised the coming of the King in triumph into Jerusalem, and the very same morning mocked him, and spat on him, and demanded his crucifixion. Now we are ready to mourn him.
We will try again to recall the last meal; try to recall the agony of his dying. We will try to recreate, as a community, that time and those events, so we can feel them, so we can mourn our God whom we helped crucify. Were you there? Sometimes it causes me to tremble.....
Christians around the world will be trying again, this week, to prepare ourselves for what must be done, to take it seriously enough to know it is serious, to accept the paradox of a God who can be crucified, to try to grieve for him, so the reality will become a little more real to us. Were you there? Peter was, and three times denied him. But if he hadn't, would he have lived to be the rock, the petros, upon which the Church would be founded? It is mysteries like that, that Christians this week will be pondering. Questions like that prick and fuel and disturb and quiet, our mourning.
A minor observation
about American political culture. But maybe evidence is not "evidence," at least in the public discourse, unless it is evidence in a criminal proceeding.
We don't even give civil proceedings as much weight. A lawsuit against tobacco sellers or car manufacturers, and the plaintiff's evidence is theirs alone. But a criminal proceeding is, apparently, truth indeed. There is nothing in the evidence presented by Patrick Fitzgerald that is new. What is noteworthy, apparently, is that it is part of a criminal proceeding. Indeed, the article makes the point for me:
For some reason, our standard of truth in American political discourse, is criminality. It brought Tom DeLay down, and "Duke" Cunningham, and is doing George W. Bush more harm than Iraq and immigration and Katrina, combined. What can only be argued when it is observed or even experienced, somehow becomes inarguably true when it is evidence in a criminal case.
I'm not sure why that is.
Addendum: the other side of this problem, and perhaps the more worrisome one, is that, absent evidence that would satisfy a criminal prosecution, we seem to accept that the people in charge, are not also responsible. In other words, we find ourselves back at the "Ken Lay" defense. We can see that being arranged already, as a response to last week's news:
An interesting gap in our public discourse.
We don't even give civil proceedings as much weight. A lawsuit against tobacco sellers or car manufacturers, and the plaintiff's evidence is theirs alone. But a criminal proceeding is, apparently, truth indeed. There is nothing in the evidence presented by Patrick Fitzgerald that is new. What is noteworthy, apparently, is that it is part of a criminal proceeding. Indeed, the article makes the point for me:
One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before."Unremarked" by whom, exactly?
For some reason, our standard of truth in American political discourse, is criminality. It brought Tom DeLay down, and "Duke" Cunningham, and is doing George W. Bush more harm than Iraq and immigration and Katrina, combined. What can only be argued when it is observed or even experienced, somehow becomes inarguably true when it is evidence in a criminal case.
I'm not sure why that is.
Addendum: the other side of this problem, and perhaps the more worrisome one, is that, absent evidence that would satisfy a criminal prosecution, we seem to accept that the people in charge, are not also responsible. In other words, we find ourselves back at the "Ken Lay" defense. We can see that being arranged already, as a response to last week's news:
In a federal court filing last week, the prosecutor in the case said Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, testified before a grand jury that he was authorized by Bush, through Cheney, to leak information from a classified document that detailed intelligence agencies’ conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.Maybe we should call it the "Mafia don" defense: so long as the Don never actually said "Kill Lucco Brazzi," you can't hold him responsible for the execution his hit man carried out. That, at least, almost seems to be our standard for political accountability. I say "almost" because Tom DeLay has not yet even stood trial, but his political career is over. So while the politicians and pundits insist on evidence even beyond a shadow of a doubt, the public seems satisfied with a preponderance of the evidence.
A lawyer knowledgeable about the case said Saturday that Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Libby be the one to disseminate the information.
An interesting gap in our public discourse.
A bit of teeth gritting
Perhaps this is a purgative in preparation for Holy Week. But reading this article in the New York Times, all I could think at the end was: Huh?
The article is about the Republican implosion, and it details the annus horribilus of the GOP, which was replicated last week in microcosm: DeLay abruptly resigns, the immigration bill blows up, the budget bill fails, Bush is identified as "leaker-in-chief." It's even clear that Tom DeLay, as ever, is not thinking of the party, but of Tom DeLay:
Ms. McKinney is what we'd call in a parliamentary system a "back bencher." She's known mainly for her inflammatory rhetoric (and not much known for that), and for losing and then regaining her seat. Other than that, she seems to be known now for having changed her hair-do, and having rendered the perfectly valid concept of racial profiling, almost completely meaningless. So the question is: how does her foolish contretemps with a Capitol Police office counter-balance the implosion of the GOP political and legislative machine?
As my favorite TV ad says: "Squirrel, please!"
The article is about the Republican implosion, and it details the annus horribilus of the GOP, which was replicated last week in microcosm: DeLay abruptly resigns, the immigration bill blows up, the budget bill fails, Bush is identified as "leaker-in-chief." It's even clear that Tom DeLay, as ever, is not thinking of the party, but of Tom DeLay:
Mr. DeLay, meanwhile, told The Washington Times that the new House leadership lacked vision and an agenda.Now, of course, it can't be that the GOP were the only politicians in D.C. this week, so some kind of nod has to be made to the Democrats. And what can the mighty New York Times come up with? Cynthia McKinney:
"Breaking up our leadership team has taken its toll," Mr. DeLay said.
Here was the man who, having kept conservatives in power by his relentless insistence on party discipline, was now turning around on his way out the door and telling his former followers that they were falling down on the job.
"These guys went out on so many limbs for DeLay," said the Congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein. "And now he saws it off just as they're trying to get their act together."
But Democrats did not emerge unscathed. Representative Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia Democrat, made comic headlines after a scuffle with Capitol Police. Ms. McKinney, who is black, apologized Thursday on the House floor — but not before appearing on talk shows to accuse the police of "racial profiling."Actually, the only reason I'm glad she's in this article is because it was the first I'd heard of Mr. Lewis's quote. He is, of course, dead on; and a reminder of what real civil rights violations are.
Ultimately, Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and 1960's civil rights leader, told Ms. McKinney, "You need to come to a nonviolence workshop."
Ms. McKinney is what we'd call in a parliamentary system a "back bencher." She's known mainly for her inflammatory rhetoric (and not much known for that), and for losing and then regaining her seat. Other than that, she seems to be known now for having changed her hair-do, and having rendered the perfectly valid concept of racial profiling, almost completely meaningless. So the question is: how does her foolish contretemps with a Capitol Police office counter-balance the implosion of the GOP political and legislative machine?
As my favorite TV ad says: "Squirrel, please!"
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Is a Christian Institution Possible?
The UCC is trying to defend itself:
Thomas Cahill makes much the same argument in How the Irish Saved Civilization. Unconcerned with establishing a centralized institution, the Irish monks (and the Celtic church, according to many scholars) focussed on serving the ideal of Christianity, by serving individuals receptive to that ideal. Patrick was subject to more severe critique than John Thomas will ever know. The story that accompanies his famous "Breastplate" (and the reason it bears that title, as well as "The Deer's Cry") is because his life, and those of his disciples, was threatened by the Druids, and reciting that prayer they passed (so the story goes) before their enemies as a harmless doe and her fawns. Not, one should note, as a she-bear and her cubs, or something else equally menacing.
Merton's stories of the Desert Fathers never include one about a monk defending his cell or even his property. In one story similar to others, a monk returns to his cell to find thieves taking away what little he owns, and he runs after them to offer his Bible as well, reasoning they need it more than he does.
This is the paradox of powerlessness. Are we, as Christians, ever authorized to employ power to protect our Christian institutions? Is that why our institutions exist, because they need our protection? Do we call them into existence, or does God? There has been a very lively debate on this subject at Street Prophets, because both pastor dan and Chuck Currie are UCC members. So, in part, I suppose I am responding to that discussion, as well. Much as I am sympathetic to a desire to respond to enemies, I'm still inclined to wonder: as a Christian, when is my enemy not my enemy, such that I don't need to turn the other cheek, or walk the extra mile?
The Rev. John H. Thomas, the denomination's president, has sharply criticized the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a conservative religious watchdog and advocacy group, for supporting groups within mainline denominations that would further a conservative theological and political perspective. And the church has undertaken new advertising and e-mail campaigns to combat more conservative forces.And it has allies:
Others have joined the United Church of Christ in speaking out. Recently, the Rev. Michael Livingston, the new president of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., told a meeting of representatives of the group's member churches, "Mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches have been pounded into irrelevancy by the media machine of a false religion; a political philosophy masquerading as gospel; an economic principle wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue."But it brings me back to the question: is this what church is for?
Although some mainline Christians feel energized by the new toughness, others worry that such an approach could threaten the very pluralism that the mainline churches have come to stand for and the gospel of love that so many preach.This is the paradox of powerlessness. Thomas Merton collected The Wisdom of the Desert Fathers, and specifically explained their retreat into the deserts in the 4th century as a means of salvation, of grabbing on to whatever piece of floating jetsam they could find in the shipwreck of civilzation they found themselves in. Rather than preserve the institution, in other words, Merton praises them for preserving the idea, the spirituality, of Christianity.
"I think this is a dangerous place to be," said Mr. Sharen of Yale. "You stand to lose the integrity of 'turn the other cheek.' "
Thomas Cahill makes much the same argument in How the Irish Saved Civilization. Unconcerned with establishing a centralized institution, the Irish monks (and the Celtic church, according to many scholars) focussed on serving the ideal of Christianity, by serving individuals receptive to that ideal. Patrick was subject to more severe critique than John Thomas will ever know. The story that accompanies his famous "Breastplate" (and the reason it bears that title, as well as "The Deer's Cry") is because his life, and those of his disciples, was threatened by the Druids, and reciting that prayer they passed (so the story goes) before their enemies as a harmless doe and her fawns. Not, one should note, as a she-bear and her cubs, or something else equally menacing.
Merton's stories of the Desert Fathers never include one about a monk defending his cell or even his property. In one story similar to others, a monk returns to his cell to find thieves taking away what little he owns, and he runs after them to offer his Bible as well, reasoning they need it more than he does.
This is the paradox of powerlessness. Are we, as Christians, ever authorized to employ power to protect our Christian institutions? Is that why our institutions exist, because they need our protection? Do we call them into existence, or does God? There has been a very lively debate on this subject at Street Prophets, because both pastor dan and Chuck Currie are UCC members. So, in part, I suppose I am responding to that discussion, as well. Much as I am sympathetic to a desire to respond to enemies, I'm still inclined to wonder: as a Christian, when is my enemy not my enemy, such that I don't need to turn the other cheek, or walk the extra mile?
Friday, April 07, 2006
And now for something completely different....
We are developing a culture based on the "Ken Lay" defense: i.e., so long as you can seal off the top person, the person who is at the "top" because he/she is supposed to be the responsible one, then anything under their authority can be done with impunity. Remember "The Buck Stops Here"? That was a different reality. Now our reality is "The Matrix:" There is no buck, and there is no "here."
I suppose, by the same token, DeLay can act in Jesus' name, claiming the authority without making Jesus responsible for what DeLay does. But then that's the whole point: if you act on another's authority, apparently no one has to take responsibility.
There is no buck. Just learn that, and you will know how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Supporters of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay protested at an event Thursday held by the Democratic candidate for the congressman's seat, and the event quickly dissolved into a shouting and shoving match. Police were called, but made no arrests.So DeLay is out of the race, but he's going to keep campaigning against Lampson anyway? And DeLay is absolved of all responsibility because his campaign manager doesn't tell him what is being done in his name?
"I got pushed. I got hit. I got a sign wadded up in my face and my hat pulled down over my eyes," said Marsha Rovai, 69, a supporter of Nick Lampson. "They just did it to be nasty."
DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said he organized the protest but DeLay, a Republican, didn't know about it.
"Mr. Lampson is going to have to get used to being confronted about his voting record the next seven months," Homan said.
I suppose, by the same token, DeLay can act in Jesus' name, claiming the authority without making Jesus responsible for what DeLay does. But then that's the whole point: if you act on another's authority, apparently no one has to take responsibility.
There is no buck. Just learn that, and you will know how deep the rabbit hole goes.
The Lost Gospel?
A word about the newly announced "Gospel of Judas," which National Geographic was breathlessly promoting to booksellers a few months ago, all the while withholding all information about it save that it would be a major event:
Whatever.
Probably that is too dismissive. No, certainly that is too dismissive. Here is what National Geographic is saying about it at their website:
In a time over-heated by The Da Vinci Code, when yet another book is already out claiming Jesus left children and didn't die on the cross (and this author has evidence of the 2000 year old conspiracy to cover this up!), it's all too clear what market The Lost Gospel is meant to appeal to. And I don't blame National Geographic from wanting to cash in.
I'm just not convinced there is any there, there. Dom Crossan, in a lecture he gave when I was at Eden (material I think he included in his book on the crucifixion, and how it was wrongly attributed to the Jews, one of the worst source of anti-Semitism in Western culture), claimed that "Judas Iscariot" probably didn't even exist, largely based on the name. "Judas," if I recall correctly, is an unattested name in the literature, but clearly derives from "Judea," from which place name the Romans got "Judean." German still retains almost that pronunciation: "Jüden." In English, we say "Jews." Crossan's argument is that the name designates, not a person, but a people. When you are a marginal religion among the marginal people, it's best not to incite the Empire against you; safer to blame another marginal people. That's only a piece of his argument, from a memory that is now over 10 years old, but there is good reason to believe "Judas" was an invention of the early church, and little reason to believe he was a real person. So the idea that there was a relationship between Judas and Jesus is about as probable as the idea that in his youth Jesus caused a rainbow bridge to appear over a lake, the better to lure children onto it to their doom. Yet that is the story in one of the infancy gospels.
Sadly, however, this is not how it is going to be reported in the press. The New York Times article opens this way:
In the end, I suspect this isn't even as explosive as Elaine Pagels thinks it is: "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was." "Exploding" is perhaps a little strong. It certainly adds a new source for our knowledge of the early Christians. But it also means we have to endure statements which are, frankly, just stupid. As the NYT article points out, the Gospel of Thomas introduced popular audiences to the idea of the Gnostics in 1959:
The generations of Christians that learned otherwise, especially in Europe, were hardly "new" by the late 1950's. This is why new Biblical discoveries vex me, more than thrill me.
Whatever.
Probably that is too dismissive. No, certainly that is too dismissive. Here is what National Geographic is saying about it at their website:
"The Gospel provides an alternative view of the Jesus-Judas relationship and evidences the diverse theological beliefs that circulated among early Christians."That sounds about right; if only it would stop there. This is an important find; for Biblical historians; of that there is no doubt. But I have a copy of The Complete Gospels, assembled and published by the Jesus Seminar. It includes the canonical gospels as well as: The Signs Gospel; The Dialogue of the Savior; Secret James; The Gospel of Thomas; Q; The Gospel of Mary; The Infancy Gospel of James; The Gospel of Peter; The Infancy Gospel of Thomas; Secret Mark; and the Egerton Gospel, along with various other bits and pieces. So this "Gospel of Judas" isn't exactly the lost coin or the single straying sheep. Frankly, I'd rather find a copy of Secret Mark. We only have two excerpts from that Gospel, in a fragment of a letter from Clement of Alexandria. The major interest is it seems to explain the strange appearance of a figure of a naked man running from the arrest of Jesus (check Mark's story and you tell me where he comes from).
In a time over-heated by The Da Vinci Code, when yet another book is already out claiming Jesus left children and didn't die on the cross (and this author has evidence of the 2000 year old conspiracy to cover this up!), it's all too clear what market The Lost Gospel is meant to appeal to. And I don't blame National Geographic from wanting to cash in.
I'm just not convinced there is any there, there. Dom Crossan, in a lecture he gave when I was at Eden (material I think he included in his book on the crucifixion, and how it was wrongly attributed to the Jews, one of the worst source of anti-Semitism in Western culture), claimed that "Judas Iscariot" probably didn't even exist, largely based on the name. "Judas," if I recall correctly, is an unattested name in the literature, but clearly derives from "Judea," from which place name the Romans got "Judean." German still retains almost that pronunciation: "Jüden." In English, we say "Jews." Crossan's argument is that the name designates, not a person, but a people. When you are a marginal religion among the marginal people, it's best not to incite the Empire against you; safer to blame another marginal people. That's only a piece of his argument, from a memory that is now over 10 years old, but there is good reason to believe "Judas" was an invention of the early church, and little reason to believe he was a real person. So the idea that there was a relationship between Judas and Jesus is about as probable as the idea that in his youth Jesus caused a rainbow bridge to appear over a lake, the better to lure children onto it to their doom. Yet that is the story in one of the infancy gospels.
Sadly, however, this is not how it is going to be reported in the press. The New York Times article opens this way:
The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.As Mahanoy indicates at Street Prophets (and the analysis there is very good), this is simply indicative of a Gnostic text, not of a whole new light shed on the "truth" of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Not unless, as I say, we are going to take the Infancy Gospel equally seriously. There will be comments like those of Craig Evans of Acadia Divinity College:
Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.
"It is possible that the Gospel of Judas preserves an old memory that Jesus had actually instructed Judas in private, and the other disciples did not know about it," Dr. Evans said.But frankly, that strikes me as being about as plausible as the theory that Jesus walked on ice, and it looked like water.
In the end, I suspect this isn't even as explosive as Elaine Pagels thinks it is: "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was." "Exploding" is perhaps a little strong. It certainly adds a new source for our knowledge of the early Christians. But it also means we have to endure statements which are, frankly, just stupid. As the NYT article points out, the Gospel of Thomas introduced popular audiences to the idea of the Gnostics in 1959:
The Gnostics' beliefs were often viewed by bishops and early church leaders as unorthodox, and they were frequently denounced as heretics. The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.But the Bible as the "literal word of God" was more a product of the post-Enlightenment era, and itself only became popular in the late 19th century, as a response to German hermeneutics which challenged the readings of the texts in ways the discoveris of Nag Hammadi could never do. Before the German scholars, we all largely accepted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that there was one Isaiah, that Paul was the author of all the letters attributed to him, and that the Gospel writers were contemporaries of Jesus.
As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.
The generations of Christians that learned otherwise, especially in Europe, were hardly "new" by the late 1950's. This is why new Biblical discoveries vex me, more than thrill me.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
DeLay delays
Not politics, really, more a question of law. And no comment arising from it, no diatribe or rant; just something to keep an eye on.
DeLay's announced (and pending) resignation has, as you might imagine, stirred a lot of interest locally. Fort Bend Now (a county next to Harris County, which includes Sugar Land, DeLay's home) has several articles on this matter, all of them interesting. (and go to the link now to see a picture of the DeLay supporters who tried to oppose Lampson's press conference today).
Let's start with the "special election." Apparently there is a fight over that, with DeLay telling Rush Limbaugh:
And yes, just yesterday, everyone expected this would proceed normally, and the seat would not be left vacant. DeLay had said he would resign by June. Already even the date is important, and when he will actually do it is becoming an issue. My own guess? Gov. Perry will avoid this controversy like the plague. He called special sessions of the Legislature (each one can only last 30 days) until they passed DeLay's redistricting plan (that's when several Democrats left the state to prevent it passing). He'll certainly stand as a tower of Jell-O on principle now. But he won't have a choice, and District 22 is not the solid GOP district the 30 people who showed up in Sugar Land today might think it is. This kind of naked power grab by the GOP is not going to sit well with the voters, and the more publicity Lampson gets about the GOP's interest in their own welfare, the better.
It's hard, really, to believe these people were ever able to organize a fire drill, much less take over the political power of the country. We'll just have to see what happens next, but my own expectation is that the courts and the voters will corral the more outrageous ambitions of the GOP. Finally.
Update: Supreme Irony of Life points out Gov. Perry has already decided not to call a special election. Let the lawsuits begin!
Further update: Well, more recent reports put a little flesh on the bones of the earlier report. The AP report (cited just above) said:
It will be interesting to see if Lampson or Campbell (or both) want to pay for the legal research on that issue.
DeLay's announced (and pending) resignation has, as you might imagine, stirred a lot of interest locally. Fort Bend Now (a county next to Harris County, which includes Sugar Land, DeLay's home) has several articles on this matter, all of them interesting. (and go to the link now to see a picture of the DeLay supporters who tried to oppose Lampson's press conference today).
Let's start with the "special election." Apparently there is a fight over that, with DeLay telling Rush Limbaugh:
“No, there won’t be a special election,” DeLay told Limbaugh. “Texas has a law that there’s only two dates that you can have a special election, November and May, and this weekend the deadline for the May special election will have passed.”Okay, here's some of the legal: DeLay is flat wrong. Texas Election Code Sec. 203.004 is the applicable law in this situation (scroll down to Chapter 12), and it doesn't specify either May or November as the only dates for a special election. This is why Delay is an ex-exterminator, not a lawyer, and why his name is not on any piece of legislation that ever became law. But pay attention to what he is saying, because it's in accord with the wishes of the Texas GOP:
DeLay’s resignation “will lead the governor to declare the seat vacant and either set a special election or leave the seat vacant for the remainder of the term ending December 31,” Fort Bend County Republican Party Chairman Eric Thode said in an email to party faithful on Wednesday. “If one is called, the special election should have NO impact on how the place on the ballot gets filled. In fact, I would argue that it could impair the Republican Party in November.”Oh, well, we can't let a little thing like no representative in the U.S. House for District 22 stand in the way of the good of the GOP, now, can we? There's another problem, of course: Texas has open primaries, and has no law restricting who can run in a special election. Which means:
Gary Gillen, a run-off candidate against Linda Howell to succeed Thode as county party chairman, said a special election to replace DeLay and finish his term would “at this point be a circus because a special election is open to everyone. I don’t see the value to the Republican Party.”You can see the dilemma for the GOP. Wait, it gets better. DeLay's opponent in the primary was Tom Campbell:
Gillen said voters would be “better served by waiting until November and electing their candidate then.
Campbell issued a press release calling on Gov. Perry to order a special election.As I say, having the people of District 22 represented is no reason at all, is it? And then, of course, there's that pesky U.S. Constitution. Art I, Sec. 2: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." Not a lot of wiggle room there. A suit seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the governor to act would, it seems to me, succeed rather handily.
Republican Party executive committees in Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston and Brazoria counties each are expected to choose one precinct chairman to serve on a four-person committee that will be charged with nominating a candidate to replace DeLay on the November ballot.
However, Campbell said, the special election should be held first and Republican leaders should then select a nominee for the November election informed by the results of the special election.”
“Our party can send a strong message that it stands for open elections and integrity by choosing a nominee based upon the results of a special election,” Campbell said.
Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, interested but as yet unannounced as a candidate for DeLay’s November ballot spot, said his understanding is that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is not obligated under the law to act to replace DeLay.
“I don’t know that there’s any reason to call a special election,” Eckels added.
And yes, just yesterday, everyone expected this would proceed normally, and the seat would not be left vacant. DeLay had said he would resign by June. Already even the date is important, and when he will actually do it is becoming an issue. My own guess? Gov. Perry will avoid this controversy like the plague. He called special sessions of the Legislature (each one can only last 30 days) until they passed DeLay's redistricting plan (that's when several Democrats left the state to prevent it passing). He'll certainly stand as a tower of Jell-O on principle now. But he won't have a choice, and District 22 is not the solid GOP district the 30 people who showed up in Sugar Land today might think it is. This kind of naked power grab by the GOP is not going to sit well with the voters, and the more publicity Lampson gets about the GOP's interest in their own welfare, the better.
It's hard, really, to believe these people were ever able to organize a fire drill, much less take over the political power of the country. We'll just have to see what happens next, but my own expectation is that the courts and the voters will corral the more outrageous ambitions of the GOP. Finally.
Update: Supreme Irony of Life points out Gov. Perry has already decided not to call a special election. Let the lawsuits begin!
Further update: Well, more recent reports put a little flesh on the bones of the earlier report. The AP report (cited just above) said:
The Democratic candidate for the seat, former Rep. Nick Lampson, had called on the governor to set a May 13 special election so the district would be represented after DeLay leaves. Perry, Republican, refused without elaborating.Now, apparently, he has elaborated:
Perry told reporters in Austin that if DeLay does not notify him by Friday that he has quit, "the election will be in November."I don't know the history of Art. I, Sec., 2, but the plain language seems to require that an election be held to fill the seat, not that it be delayed until the next regular election.
Democrat Nick Lampson, who is running for DeLay's seat, said in a raucous press conference on Thursday DeLay should resign immediately so a special election can be held at the earliest possible date -- May 13 in this case -- to choose his successor.
Under time requirements in Texas election laws, DeLay would have to quit by Friday to allow Perry to call for a May 13 vote.
An election could be held between May 13 and the November 7 vote if the governor, a Republican, wants it, but Perry's comment appeared to rule that out and raise the possibility the congressional seat could be empty for a while.
If the regular and special election are held on the same day, and there are two different winners, the winner of the special election would serve only until the winner of the regular election is sworn in January 2007.
DeLay said he was resigning because polls showed Lampson, a former congressman who lost his seat in a controversial redistricting pushed by DeLay, might beat him in the November election.
Lampson, speaking in front of the Sugar Land, Texas, city hall near Houston on Thursday, accused DeLay of putting off his resignation so there would be no quick special election and he would have time to "handpick his successor."
"Even in his resignation there is corruption," said Lampson while surrounded by two dozen DeLay supporters who shouted throughout his remarks while holding up signs calling him "Liberal Lampson."
It will be interesting to see if Lampson or Campbell (or both) want to pay for the legal research on that issue.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Don't wanna study war no more...
Blogs beget blogs. A great deal of the energy for this blog ends up coming from other blogs, from what they are saying. And a great deal of that ends up being negative. My "break point" appears to have come yesterday, when Chuck Currie posted at Street Prophets about Tom DeLay's resignation, and included a link to his own blog where he had enouraged readers to e-mail Tom DeLay's pastor and tell the pastor what he should be preaching and saying about his most famous congregation member.
It crossed a line for me, and I told Chuck so in a comment there. But it wasn't an argument I wanted to engage in, and I knew I would be sucked into a defense of my comments, so I regretted it even as I was comfortable doing it, and I walked away. It's another problem with blogs: there is less discussion in them than there is justification. One posts looking for confirmation for one's views, and as you seek more confirmation, your views get more and more strident. Like a child you test the limits of the envelope, find out just what the extent of your grasp is, and how much you can carry before you drop it all.
So maybe I'm about to drop it all.
Some blogs avoid this problem, but they do it by avoiding politics. It is hardly a critique to say they avoid it; it is a compliment, because the dominant style of blogging is becoming harsh political diatribes, whether they are dressed up as news analysis and recovery of minor news items, or are just community billboards for roiling discussions. But this is the only reason the media are paying attention to blogs, and attention equates to power, so surely this is a good thing?
But it leaves me with a different question: why is it easier to curse the darkness than to light a single candle? What is it about trust, that we no longer trust? The word "faith" that our Bibles usually translate from the koine Greek of the New Testament, is actually the word "trust." It isn't that we are asked to believe in what ain't so. It is that we are asked to trust in what we no not see affirmed in the world.
Maybe it's the new book I started that prompts this reflection: In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). It was certainly the comments here in the last few days. Crossan and Reed put forth a thesis that Paul co-opted the language of imperial Rome, of Augustus as Savior, Lord, Redeemer of the World, and God, Son of God, and God from God (which they call a Roman theology), and preached a counter-empire where the first were last and the last were first. Ironically that approach to the kerygma is very American today; we call it "secular religion," and it fuels our public discussions by everyone from Tom DeLay to Jim Wallis to Gore Vidal. You don't have to be a believer, in other words, to engage or critique the idea of American exceptionalism, but few question that the very notion springs from Christian roots. Our political discourse has co-opted the language of the church: all that is lacking is to call our President our savior, just as Augustus was proclaimed Lord, Savior, and redeemer of the world, and the circle will be complete.
But that's getting political again, and I don't want to do that here. Reflecting on what Merton said, I can't help but find it true, and yet realize that I don't reflect that here and even if I do, I look too much to other blogs for my reflection, and end feeling like an unsilvered mirror. I need to light a candle. I need to find some light I can reflect. And I'm going to start with Merton's insight, and this thesis, from Crossan and Reed's book:
It crossed a line for me, and I told Chuck so in a comment there. But it wasn't an argument I wanted to engage in, and I knew I would be sucked into a defense of my comments, so I regretted it even as I was comfortable doing it, and I walked away. It's another problem with blogs: there is less discussion in them than there is justification. One posts looking for confirmation for one's views, and as you seek more confirmation, your views get more and more strident. Like a child you test the limits of the envelope, find out just what the extent of your grasp is, and how much you can carry before you drop it all.
So maybe I'm about to drop it all.
Some blogs avoid this problem, but they do it by avoiding politics. It is hardly a critique to say they avoid it; it is a compliment, because the dominant style of blogging is becoming harsh political diatribes, whether they are dressed up as news analysis and recovery of minor news items, or are just community billboards for roiling discussions. But this is the only reason the media are paying attention to blogs, and attention equates to power, so surely this is a good thing?
But it leaves me with a different question: why is it easier to curse the darkness than to light a single candle? What is it about trust, that we no longer trust? The word "faith" that our Bibles usually translate from the koine Greek of the New Testament, is actually the word "trust." It isn't that we are asked to believe in what ain't so. It is that we are asked to trust in what we no not see affirmed in the world.
Maybe it's the new book I started that prompts this reflection: In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). It was certainly the comments here in the last few days. Crossan and Reed put forth a thesis that Paul co-opted the language of imperial Rome, of Augustus as Savior, Lord, Redeemer of the World, and God, Son of God, and God from God (which they call a Roman theology), and preached a counter-empire where the first were last and the last were first. Ironically that approach to the kerygma is very American today; we call it "secular religion," and it fuels our public discussions by everyone from Tom DeLay to Jim Wallis to Gore Vidal. You don't have to be a believer, in other words, to engage or critique the idea of American exceptionalism, but few question that the very notion springs from Christian roots. Our political discourse has co-opted the language of the church: all that is lacking is to call our President our savior, just as Augustus was proclaimed Lord, Savior, and redeemer of the world, and the circle will be complete.
But that's getting political again, and I don't want to do that here. Reflecting on what Merton said, I can't help but find it true, and yet realize that I don't reflect that here and even if I do, I look too much to other blogs for my reflection, and end feeling like an unsilvered mirror. I need to light a candle. I need to find some light I can reflect. And I'm going to start with Merton's insight, and this thesis, from Crossan and Reed's book:
The Roman Empire was based on the common principle of peace through victory, or, more fully, on a faith in the sequence of piety, war, victory, and peace.The political applications are perfectly obvious. But the spiritual applications are the ones I am interested in.
Paul was a Jewish visionary following in Jesus' footsteps, and they both claimed that the Kingdom of God was already present and operative in this world. He opposed the mantras of Roman normalcy with a vision of peace through justice, or, more fully, with a faith in the sequence of covenant, nonviolence, justice, and peace. In Search of Paul, xi.
What I have lost and found, lost and found....
From A Year With Thomas Merton:
"The Lord has plucked up proud men by their roots, and planted the lowly peoples." "He hath put down the mighty." - from the daily office in May, 1965.
He goes on to say:
If I were more fully attentive to the word of God I would be much less troubled and disturbed by the events of our time; not that I would be indifferent or passive, but I could gain strength of union with the deepest currents of history, the sacred currents, which run opposite to those on the surface a great deal of the time!
(courtesy janeboatler)
"The Lord has plucked up proud men by their roots, and planted the lowly peoples." "He hath put down the mighty." - from the daily office in May, 1965.
He goes on to say:
If I were more fully attentive to the word of God I would be much less troubled and disturbed by the events of our time; not that I would be indifferent or passive, but I could gain strength of union with the deepest currents of history, the sacred currents, which run opposite to those on the surface a great deal of the time!
(courtesy janeboatler)
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Pursuing other interests?
Tell me again Tom DeLay wasn't pushed:
Sorry, I keep thinking about this: the Chronicle article lists quite a few local luminaries who might be interested in this seat; not an unusual sitaution when there is a shift in power like this. How they will be selected for the special election, I'm not sure. It may be all of them could get on the ballot without going through a party selection procedure; or it may be party officials get to decide who the standard bearer is. My memory of special elections is hazy, but I think the former would prevail over the latter, and it could be the GOP's worst nightmare: a smorgasbord of candidates v. Nick Lampson.
And guess who wins? It gets worse if DeLay can't get his name off the ballot, and Lampson is the incumbent, even for a few months. Suddenly November looks very interesting, indeed.
DeLay is saving his hide with this departure, because he's hearing footsteps; and the shoes aren't being worn by Ronnie Earle. The time of reckoning labelled "Abramoff" draws nearer.
One last update on the way out the door: another reason DeLay quits now, is so he can use his campaign funds to pay his legal defense bills, which undoubtedly will be rising quickly. Wonder if these folks expected that?
Ain't politics grand?
Never say never again update: TPM Muckraker raises an interesting point: DeLay told Time Magazine he decided to quit the race on March 29th. He announced his decision yesterday, and continued fundraising for his race in the meantime. Federal law apparently allows him to commit this fraud on his benefactors. But his idea of ethical behavior is certainly a curious one.
A special election to fill the remainder of DeLay's term likely will be held on the next uniform election date, which is in May. Gov. Rick Perry will set the date.And, to add insult to injury:
It was unclear Monday night how Republicans will select a November nominee to replace DeLay, who won the GOP primary in March.
"We've never had this happen in a congressional race," Woodfill said. "We'll have a little bit of time to figure it out. We have our lawyers looking at it."
At issue is whether the responsibility for selecting a nominee falls to the 62-member state Republican Executive Committee or to GOP officials in the five counties that lie partly within the 22nd Congressional District.
"It's in our best interest to choose a nominee before the special election. Otherwise, the election is going to be a free-for-all," Woodfill said. "The situation you don't want is for our nominee to be someone different than the person who runs for the special."
[Campaign Manager Mike, yes-that's-his-real-last-name] Malaise said [Democratic nominee Nick] Lampson hasn't decided whether to run in the special election, and isn't sure DeLay legally can withdraw from the November ballot.This is not a situation the GOP in Texas wanted to be in, or even expected to be in. His resignation and withdrawal throw the race into disarray, quite a different picture from the self-serving one he painted for Time Magazine. "I'm very much at peace with it," he told TIME. Clearly, the Texas GOP is left with a mess on its hands, and aren't exactly at peace with what he's left them.
Sorry, I keep thinking about this: the Chronicle article lists quite a few local luminaries who might be interested in this seat; not an unusual sitaution when there is a shift in power like this. How they will be selected for the special election, I'm not sure. It may be all of them could get on the ballot without going through a party selection procedure; or it may be party officials get to decide who the standard bearer is. My memory of special elections is hazy, but I think the former would prevail over the latter, and it could be the GOP's worst nightmare: a smorgasbord of candidates v. Nick Lampson.
And guess who wins? It gets worse if DeLay can't get his name off the ballot, and Lampson is the incumbent, even for a few months. Suddenly November looks very interesting, indeed.
DeLay is saving his hide with this departure, because he's hearing footsteps; and the shoes aren't being worn by Ronnie Earle. The time of reckoning labelled "Abramoff" draws nearer.
One last update on the way out the door: another reason DeLay quits now, is so he can use his campaign funds to pay his legal defense bills, which undoubtedly will be rising quickly. Wonder if these folks expected that?
Ain't politics grand?
Never say never again update: TPM Muckraker raises an interesting point: DeLay told Time Magazine he decided to quit the race on March 29th. He announced his decision yesterday, and continued fundraising for his race in the meantime. Federal law apparently allows him to commit this fraud on his benefactors. But his idea of ethical behavior is certainly a curious one.
Monday, April 03, 2006
POI's
The sound on NPR this morning was the sound of the narrative disappearing. Deborah Amos reported not just on how civil war has probably already started (the meaning behind the words of the report) but on how it all went wrong: when Americans invaded Fallujah, they had no "cultural sensitivity" at all. No one who spoke Arabic, no translators; and shaming men and women in public, all in the name of "security." And, shockingly, if you kill the people you mean to liberate, they don't look kindly on you and decide maybe they should help you.
But doesn't this mean we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq? And couldn't that mean we were just as responsible for what happened on 9/11? That, ineed, no man is an island, and whatever our actions, they have unintended consequences, and so we never stand apart from what we do, we can never separate intentions from results. No one, of course, is going quite that far on NPR, but it was exactly that result which prevented, for the longest time, any discussion about US culpability and responsibility for the present crises in the world. Now that narrative is being permitted, and even the idea that a civil war is already active in Iraq is presented in the report almost without comment; certainly without critique or contradiction.
And it's all a little too much like 1984. We have always been at war with Eurasia; except when we were at war with Oceania. Orwell had that shift in enemies and allies occur mid-speech, to dramatize the moving target of modern statecraft, the amorphous and fundamentally abstract nature of warfare. What we are seeing now is merely a slow-motion version of that speech. We stand amazed that people hate us, but listening to reports from "the other side" of the war, what is amazing is how much we still think warfare and violence are pathways to peace. I read it everywhere in left blogistan; I hear it in all the news reports. Power is the only way to success, is the only path that leads to the goal, is the only energy that will fuel the ideals we aspire to put into practice. Power is the only hope for transforming the world.
And we never stop to think that, to the person with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Small wonder, then, that the mass of humans still lead lives of quiet desperation. Small wonder, then, that Merton's observations (courtesy of janeboatler) seem so trenchant. Because it does always get back to the same thing; it does always go round and round because the problem is not more power, or power used more effecively, or power used for our purposes rather than their purposes. The problem is standing inside a system that depends and relies on and worships, and is wholly controlled by, power:
How many of us think it is only a question of who has the power, and not a question of why we think power is more important than anything else? How many of us contemplate the paradox of that pursuit, in the face of a crucified God, the very antithesis, the very symbol and reality and icon, of powerlessness?
"POI's" the report calls them: "Pissed Off Iraqis." Is it love that pisses people off? Or is it power? And which one are we wiser to employ?
But doesn't this mean we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq? And couldn't that mean we were just as responsible for what happened on 9/11? That, ineed, no man is an island, and whatever our actions, they have unintended consequences, and so we never stand apart from what we do, we can never separate intentions from results. No one, of course, is going quite that far on NPR, but it was exactly that result which prevented, for the longest time, any discussion about US culpability and responsibility for the present crises in the world. Now that narrative is being permitted, and even the idea that a civil war is already active in Iraq is presented in the report almost without comment; certainly without critique or contradiction.
And it's all a little too much like 1984. We have always been at war with Eurasia; except when we were at war with Oceania. Orwell had that shift in enemies and allies occur mid-speech, to dramatize the moving target of modern statecraft, the amorphous and fundamentally abstract nature of warfare. What we are seeing now is merely a slow-motion version of that speech. We stand amazed that people hate us, but listening to reports from "the other side" of the war, what is amazing is how much we still think warfare and violence are pathways to peace. I read it everywhere in left blogistan; I hear it in all the news reports. Power is the only way to success, is the only path that leads to the goal, is the only energy that will fuel the ideals we aspire to put into practice. Power is the only hope for transforming the world.
And we never stop to think that, to the person with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Small wonder, then, that the mass of humans still lead lives of quiet desperation. Small wonder, then, that Merton's observations (courtesy of janeboatler) seem so trenchant. Because it does always get back to the same thing; it does always go round and round because the problem is not more power, or power used more effecively, or power used for our purposes rather than their purposes. The problem is standing inside a system that depends and relies on and worships, and is wholly controlled by, power:
It always gets back to the same thing. I have dutifully done my bit. I have been "open to the world." That is to say, I have undergone my dose of exposure to American society in the '60s - particularly in these last weeks. I love the people I run into, but I pity them for having to live as they do, and I think the world of U.S.A. in 1967 is a world of crass, blind, overstimulated, phony, lying stupidity. The war in Asia slowly gets worse - and almost more inane. The temper of the country is one of blindness, fat, self-satisfied, ruthless, mindless corruption. A lot of people are uneasy about it but helpless to do anything about it. The rest are perfectly content with the rat race as it is, and with its competitive, acquisitive, hurtling, souped-up drive to nowhere. A massively aimless, baseless, shrewd cockiness that simply exalts itself without purpose. The mindless orgasm, in which there is no satisfaction, only spasm.How many of us can honestly get beyond the first two sentences there? It may even be we love the people we run into, but if we pity them for the way they live, don't we do it hypocritically? If "the temper of the country is one of blindness," how many of us can claim to truly see? How many of us "are uneasy about it but helpless to do anything about it," and so we beat our little fists ineffectively against our computer screens, from the inside out, pounding our keyboards because we cannot otherwise pound sense into those who seem hell bent on ruining our country? How many of us think it is any different now from how it was then, in 1967, and think so simply because 1967 is history, and we know how it turned out? How many of us think it has never been this bad, and that what America was has been corrupted, co-opted, taken over by aliens and body-snatchers and interlopers and thieves?
How many of us think it is only a question of who has the power, and not a question of why we think power is more important than anything else? How many of us contemplate the paradox of that pursuit, in the face of a crucified God, the very antithesis, the very symbol and reality and icon, of powerlessness?
"POI's" the report calls them: "Pissed Off Iraqis." Is it love that pisses people off? Or is it power? And which one are we wiser to employ?
Sunday, April 02, 2006
"Freedom? That is a worship word!"
If you are young (old) enough, or geeky (sad) enough, you will remember the worst allegory of the Cold War the original Star Trek series ever engaged in: the Coms (long "o" so you don't recognize what it's short for) and the Yangs, where the former are very Asian looking (!) and the latter all look like blonde Beowulfs. The central idea, of course, is very American: that freedom is not just a concept, but a thing, and it is endemic, and identical in its precepts, for all "right thinking" people. Even on another planet far, far away.
Or in another country, on this planet. Listening to this story on NPR just now, I heard Dr. Richard Land express concern that Afghanistan, after all 'we' had done 'over there,' might not guarantee freedom of religion in its constitution. Now, that assumes that freedom of religion is a thing to which all "right thinking persons" would assent, and that it would be accepted as a result of American largesse following on an American invastion; a kind of benefit, as we bestowed on Germany and Japan.
Problem is, the Afghan people seem to have another idea about the importance of religion, and it isn't a tradition informed by the experience of the Baptists in England and later in this country. Here are the "money quotes" from that previous post:
Maybe before we decide freedom means the same thing to us it does to everybody else, and before we assume everyone wants the same cultural traditions we have, we'd better ask them. Maybe "freedom" is a worship word for us, but that doesn't mean our idea of freedom is shared by the rest of the planet.
Or in another country, on this planet. Listening to this story on NPR just now, I heard Dr. Richard Land express concern that Afghanistan, after all 'we' had done 'over there,' might not guarantee freedom of religion in its constitution. Now, that assumes that freedom of religion is a thing to which all "right thinking persons" would assent, and that it would be accepted as a result of American largesse following on an American invastion; a kind of benefit, as we bestowed on Germany and Japan.
Problem is, the Afghan people seem to have another idea about the importance of religion, and it isn't a tradition informed by the experience of the Baptists in England and later in this country. Here are the "money quotes" from that previous post:
Hamidullah warned that if the government frees Rahman, "the government will lose the support of the people. What sort of democracy would it be if the government ignored the will of all the people?"And from another report:
Franklin Pyles, president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada, said his organization is appalled Rahman's life is at risk for converting to Christianity.I suppose my sympathies are with Mr. Pyles. But is it freedom to force another culture to accept your standards? My Google skills are rather poor, but I remember hearing something in connection with this case about a centuries old decree settling some differences between Christianity and Islam, differences undoubtedly arising from the Crusades. One of the provisions of the degree was peace between Islam and Christianity, but a death sentence on any Muslim who converted to Christianity. We may find it a reprehensible position in this day and age; but we cannot forcibly change the minds of Aghans like Mohammed Jan.
"If we are not going to fight for all freedoms, then what are we doing (in Afghanistan)?"
...
Rahman's neighbours in Kabul showed little sympathy for him.
"For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian," said Mohammed Jan, 38, who lives opposite Rahman's father, Abdul Manan. "This has brought so much shame."
Maybe before we decide freedom means the same thing to us it does to everybody else, and before we assume everyone wants the same cultural traditions we have, we'd better ask them. Maybe "freedom" is a worship word for us, but that doesn't mean our idea of freedom is shared by the rest of the planet.
Oy, where to begin?
I just posted the comment below on this thread at Street Prophets. You'll have to read the thread to know what I'm talking about, but when you do, you can come back and make sense of my response. Or not. This is one issue upon which I definitely don't have any answers, and I'm not sure I even like the issue very much.
But it's worth thinking about. Here's my comment (you may need to skim the comments at Street Prophets to understand even this, come to think of it; but the remarks all come in response to the original post, so that might make it easier):
Which, you see, raises even more interesting questions. What is church for? How do you worship something you don't believe in? (Why would you worship it is a question for Mr. Jensen.) And I have to say that here, Rev. Rigby just wades into something he really can't explain very well:
Which brings me back to the question of church membership. What is it for? Why do we have boundaries around who is "in", and who is "out," of church? What is that all about?
But it's worth thinking about. Here's my comment (you may need to skim the comments at Street Prophets to understand even this, come to think of it; but the remarks all come in response to the original post, so that might make it easier):
Idolatry? True, that's a matter of the beholder. The Orthodox Christian sees windows on eternity; the Reformed tradition Christian sees the idols condemend by the Hebrew prophets. Some Jews even forbid representations of humans as idolatrous, as we are made "in the image of God."Another issue that comes to mind (you see how open ended this can be): is it fair to call Jensen a doubter? I appreciate Jim Rigby's distinction between atheism and antitheism, but I'd thought agnositicism had already filled that gap, and atheists had decided there is no "god" to worship.
Go and please the world.
Membership? What does church membership mean? You must pay dues? You must come to church every Sunday you are in town? You must tithe, accept the leadership of the priest/pastor, vestry/church council? You must volunteer? You must believe?
I had a neighbor once who was, in practice, the most Christian person I've ever known. If we judged solely by behavior, he was a Christian, no doubt about it. Kind, caring, sympathetic, generous with his time and talents. He was also an avowed atheist. We had stimulating discussions on the issue of God, and had to agree to disagree. And we still loved each other. Could he be a member of a Christian church? What would it mean if he was?
Is Church about faith, belief, doctrine? Or is it about behavior? Oy, now we're entering ecclesiology and traversing soteriology, not to mention implicating Christology and pneumatology.
Are we having fun yet?
Which, you see, raises even more interesting questions. What is church for? How do you worship something you don't believe in? (Why would you worship it is a question for Mr. Jensen.) And I have to say that here, Rev. Rigby just wades into something he really can't explain very well:
The problem with most religious discussions is that we are usually swimming in a sea of undefined terms. What sense does it make to ask whether God exists if we don't define what we mean by the term "God." For some it's easier to reconcile themselves to the universe by picturing a large person overseeing the process, while others reconcile themselves to the ground by using impersonal elemental images. These approaches are in conflict only when we forget what we are trying to do in the first place, which is to harmonize with the ground of our being.First, it's Paul Tillich who gave theology that "ground of being" talk, and I've never liked it. It's pseudo-phenomenology, and it's very weak stuff. True, Heidegger and Husserl can be nearly incomprehensible in their discussions of "being," but it isn't that we can't talk about the subject, any more than we can't talk about God. There is an apophatic tradition in Christianity ("negative theology," which says we can only say what God is not) but clearly that is not a wholly satisfactory answer to the question: "How do we speak of the transcendent and ineffable which is also active in creation and human history?" Nor is it really sufficient to say religion "is a kind of art that reconciles us to the ground from which we emerge." But it is a nice, fuzzy way of excusing making an atheist a church member.
Locke and Kant struggled to identify the ultimate categories that shape human perception, which is also the business of religion. We cannot think about being itself because it is too basic. We are like flowers that emerge out of a soil too primordial to be understood in plant terms; we can neither speak about the ground of our being nor ignore it. Religion is a kind of art that reconciles us to the ground from which we emerge.
Which brings me back to the question of church membership. What is it for? Why do we have boundaries around who is "in", and who is "out," of church? What is that all about?
"Religion is responsibility, or it is nothing at all."
The New York Times comes around:
The wise are put to shame;
they are dismayed and entrapped.
They have spurned the word of the Lord,
so what sort of wisdom is theirs?
Therefore I will give their wives to other men
and their lands to new owners.
For all, high and low,
are out for ill-gotten gains;
prophets and priests are frauds,
everyone of them;
they dress my people's wound,
but on the surface only,
with their saying, 'All is well.'
All well? Nothing is well!
They ought to be ashamed
because they have practiced abominations,
yet they have no sense of shame,
theou could never be put out of countenance.
Therefore they will fall with a great crash,
and be brought to the ground on the day of reckoning.--Jeremiah 8:9-12 (REB)
Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to open civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror.
...
One vital goal is to persuade the Shiites to abort their disastrous nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr. Jaafari is unable to form a broadly inclusive government and has made no serious effort to rein in police death squads. Even some Shiite leaders are now calling on him to step aside. If his nomination stands and is confirmed by Parliament, civil war will become much harder to head off. And from the American perspective, the Iraqi government will have become something that no parent should be asked to risk a soldier son or daughter to protect.
Unfortunately, after three years of policy blunders in Iraq, Washington may no longer have the political or military capital to prevail. That may be hard for Americans to understand, since it was the United States invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and helped the Shiite majority to power. Some 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have died there so far and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent
....
It was chilling to read Edward Wong's interview with the Iraqi prime minister in The Times last week, during which Mr. Jaafari sat in the palace where he now makes his home, complained about the Americans and predicted that the sectarian militias that are currently terrorizing Iraqi civilians could be incorporated into the army and police. The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.
The wise are put to shame;
they are dismayed and entrapped.
They have spurned the word of the Lord,
so what sort of wisdom is theirs?
Therefore I will give their wives to other men
and their lands to new owners.
For all, high and low,
are out for ill-gotten gains;
prophets and priests are frauds,
everyone of them;
they dress my people's wound,
but on the surface only,
with their saying, 'All is well.'
All well? Nothing is well!
They ought to be ashamed
because they have practiced abominations,
yet they have no sense of shame,
theou could never be put out of countenance.
Therefore they will fall with a great crash,
and be brought to the ground on the day of reckoning.--Jeremiah 8:9-12 (REB)
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Just to close this off...
I'm imagining Jill Carroll has some choice words for her U.S. critics, too:
My prayer is that they may find healing.
In her statement, Carroll thanked everyone who worked for her release, but devoted a significant portion of the statement to defending herself against criticism regarding the video, in which she said the insurgents were "very smart" and had treated her well.She was criticized for wearing traditional Muslim clothes (which her captors supplied) and for speaking well of her captors. As I said, she undoubtedly had good reason to do that. And she said as much today:
"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video," she wrote. "They told me they would let me go if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. I agreed.
"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."
She even lambasted her captors, who allegedly killed her interpreter, Alan Enwiya, when they abducted her in western Baghdad in January.
"They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends -- and all those around the world, who have prayed so fervently for my release -- through a horrific experience," she wrote. "I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this."
Saying she wants to be regarded as a journalist, and not a hostage, Carroll said she would not engage in polemics against her kidnappers, "but let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes."
"The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word," Carroll wrote. "At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times."She is angry with her captors; that seems perfectly reasonable to me. The CPT team has melted back into their lives out of Iraq, and don't seem anxious to return. That, too, seems reasonable.
My prayer is that they may find healing.
Literary Processions
What Eliot said
I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke's,
My cousin's, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
What Eliot was thinking of:
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke
What Churchy LaFemme said:
"Verse don't come no blanker'n what I done blunk at 'em!"
I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke's,
My cousin's, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
What Eliot was thinking of:
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke
What Churchy LaFemme said:
"Verse don't come no blanker'n what I done blunk at 'em!"
Blessed are the peacemakers...
Alright, this Jill Carroll matter is getting odder and odder.
This post, on AlterNet, pretty much sums up my feelings, whether Jill Carroll is a Christian, or not:
Jill Carroll is not a "Christ figure," in the sense Northrop Frye meant the term; and her life is certainly not in danger because she has not cursed her captors and called them vermin. But I am beginning to understand why Pilate would want to dispose of an itinerant rabbi, one with the presence and charisma to sway hundreds if not thousands while alive, and at least the presence to sway disciples and believers and followers long after his death (even setting aside the pneumatological explanation). And it wouldn't have to be because he preached a competing political vision.
It could very well be because he was such an effective preacher, and teacher, of peace. It could very well be that lesson is the one the powers that be simply cannot tolerate.
This post, on AlterNet, pretty much sums up my feelings, whether Jill Carroll is a Christian, or not:
Apparently Jill Carroll's attitude is just too damned Christian for conservative America. Angry and suspicious at her lack of vitriol for her captors who killed her translator but released her, the National Review-ers are doing a pile-on while the producer of the Imus show is doing his best to sound like an overgrown fratboy.Athenae took the overgrown fratboy to school; out behind the woodshed, actually. And CJR called his remarks "absolute lunacy." But that's not what bugs me. What bugs me is this, also from that Alternet post:
After yesterday's Podhoretz comment that Carroll may be a latter-day Patty Hearst, Podhoretz's little acolyte (and the LA Times' newest columnist) Jonah Goldberg is "getting a very bad vibe" by Carroll: "MAYBE IT’S JUST ME... But Jill Carroll is increasingly starting to bug me... But it would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors..."E&P and Think Progress point out the obvious: how many of these critics have spent 82 minutes in captivity, much less 82 days in what is the most dangerous city in the world? How dangerous? Consider this opening paragraph from the Boston Herald:
Jill Carroll, described as “emotionally fragile,” went reluctantly to Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone - the place her captors had warned her was infiltrated with insurgents - and spent Friday in seclusion, recovering from 82 days of captivity (ermphasis added).Ms. Carroll's actions and dress starting to make more sense, now? 82 days in captivity, and the first interview is with the Sunnis, and she's told even the Green Zone is not safe for her? Ask yourself: what would you do? Rush to explain yourself to the satisfaction of Jonah Goldberg and Howie Kurtz? Neither would I. And scared? Yes, she was very scared:
Jill Carroll wondered from day to day whether she would grow old or die a hostage.Take all that into account; and then take this into account:
"It was like falling off a cliff for three months, waiting to hit the ground," the 28-year-old American reporter said Thursday after being released by her kidnappers.
A shuffle from car to street to the branch office of a Sunni Arab political party and then to its headquarters brought Carroll to freedom on a beautiful spring day in Baghdad.
When she walked into the Iraqi Islamic Party's branch, she was still wearing one of the head scarves and enveloping embroidered dresses given to her by her captors. The black gloves of a conservative Muslim woman, also given to her by her captors, hid her hands.
Shortly after Carroll's arrival, the head of the party telephoned The Washington Post's Baghdad bureau. Carroll, a freelance journalist who wrote for the Christian Science Monitor, said she wanted to see familiar faces and had had many friends on The Post's staff since the early days of the war. Devoted to mastering Arabic and Middle Eastern culture and to covering Iraq, she was particularly close to the paper's young Iraqi interpreters and reporters.
In the party leader's chair-lined offices, with Sunni politicians looking on, Carroll and her friends were reunited. They embraced and cried through her first conversations in English in more than 80 days.
Party leader Tariq al-Hashimi presented her with an embossed Koran in a plush box. The Koran was for the true followers of Islam, Hashimi said, and he mentioned the Iraqi people. Accepting it, Carroll said her suffering was nothing compared with theirs.The real issue of the reaction to Jill Carroll is part of what I was trying to get at: we dare not see people as anything but enemies, or friends. "Peacemakers" are what we name rifles and missiles. We don't like them when the come packaged as human beings. Again, as Alternet says:
The point, the mission Carroll has been on from the get-go, is that seeing the enemy as human beings with their own customs but essentially like us, makes it that much harder to kill and fight and support killing and fighting. These right-wingers are angry because this kind of humanizing threatens to expose them to a different reality, a reality in which human lives are at stake and not just "ragheads" and "terrorists."I learned this in seminary, about the Hebrews, and the Jews of 1st century Palestine, the clouds of witness that attest to the presence of the living God: they were not strange figures in stained glass or children's bible illustrations: they were "human beings with their own customs but essentially like us." It was a great revelation. It meant I could, and did, worship the living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. But I also learned that Jesus was killed, not because he was a peacemaker, but because he proclaimed the basiliea tou theou, the empire of God that rivaled the empire of Rome. It seemed a reasonable conclusion: why would you want to kill someone who simply preached, and enacted, peace?
Jill Carroll is not a "Christ figure," in the sense Northrop Frye meant the term; and her life is certainly not in danger because she has not cursed her captors and called them vermin. But I am beginning to understand why Pilate would want to dispose of an itinerant rabbi, one with the presence and charisma to sway hundreds if not thousands while alive, and at least the presence to sway disciples and believers and followers long after his death (even setting aside the pneumatological explanation). And it wouldn't have to be because he preached a competing political vision.
It could very well be because he was such an effective preacher, and teacher, of peace. It could very well be that lesson is the one the powers that be simply cannot tolerate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)