Sin boldly!

    “Sin boldly” Wrote Martin Luther to his friend and theological colleague Philip Melanchton at the beginning of reformation. The very fact that this statement remains provocative is a testament that this reformation and its spiritual liberation are still ongoing and greatly needed.
    “Sin boldly” Martin Luther wrote and he was subverting the very essence of the false medieval religious system. The medieval church skillfully used feelings of shame and guilt in combination with the religious category of sin, to trap, manipulate, enslave and exploit people on a massive scale (entire continents). This truly totalitarian system surrounded individuals from birth to death, at home and at work, in private and in public. It permeated huts of serfs but also (to a lesser extend) castles of nobility, prescribing what to feel, what to think, what was allowed and what was not.
    “Sin boldly” wrote Martin Luther although he was born to and largely remained a son of this medieval superstitious world. Early in his life he took this neurotic religious world-view seriously and tried to comply. He employed all his German sincerity and thoroughness, but to no avail; he could not measure up. In fact, no one could; that was exactly how this whole spiritual system of enslavement was intentionally built. Then something snapped in him. Luther, by that time a trained biblical scholar, realized the artificial nature of this system. He started to unmask it. Reformation, the process of spiritual liberation, had started.
    “Sin Boldly” Martin Luther wrote thus starting reformation. But it is an unfinished quest. Until this day this statement makes religious people uncomfortable! It is because across the religious spectrum, from conservative Evangelicals to the most Liberal social activists, religion was reduced into religiously-justified morality. It is so particularly in America with its knack for pragmatism even in matters of religion. Religious people of different stripes apply religious morality from different angles, with different agendas and with different goals. At the end, conservative as well as liberal moralists want to improve or correct either individual or collective behaviour.
    “Sin Boldly” wrote Martin Luther, because he wanted to liberate people from enslaving obsessive-compulsive religiosity. People are uncomfortable because they are still under the spell of the ritualistic, mercantile religion which Sigmund Freud so aptly described as an organized collective neurosis. This critique of religion is particularly suitable for any church which forgets about the true message of Jesus and his liberating power. God loves us, we do not deserve it in any way, it is a free gift of grace. Only if we are liberated, can we rejoice in divine grace.
    “Sin  boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly!” There is a diametrical difference between guilt-ridden religion founded in fear and joyful faith rooted in divine grace. Come this Sunday to celebrate the ongoing Reformation, come to celebrate joyful faith.

Jesus in Nursery

I am convinced that we have to liberate Jesus, his apostles and our faith from centuries of stiff and stilted religiosity. That rigid, hyper-religious Jesus is unreal and unbelievable. Take for instance the end of the gospel reading for this Sunday (Mark 10:16). Standard hyper-religious biblical translations present something like this: And he took children up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. What kind of sad religious characters could possibly perpetrate such translation? They probably never even notice babies not to mention cradle some in their arms. Or perhaps they did, but then, when it came to church, religion and faith, they divorced themselves from their gentler-selves and they committed this atrocious translation. Unfortunately by the same token such translating made Jesus look like strange religious monster devoid of normal human emotions just conducting some strange religious rituals. 
       How much better it is to respect the context and search for meaning rather than mechanically translating individual words. How much better it is to use also our senses and emotions. Then we can end up with a normal and believable account. Jesus took children in his arms, cuddled them and made them laugh. This is just one sentence liberated from the hypertrophic religiosity and what a difference it makes! Finally, we can see Jesus in all his tender, caring divine humanity. And it is not only easier and nicer to read, it is also a more accurate translation.

And here is a paragraph for those who are interested in linguistic (phonetic) evidence. The Greek word ευλογεω (EULOGEŌ) did  mean “to bless”. But every Greek person would hear in it “speaking kindly, positively, nicely”. In addition, the oldest manuscripts attached to this verb uniquely a causative prefix κατα (KATA). Thus only with a little bit of license we can translate “Jesus made them happy, made them laugh.” A similar situation is repeated with the word for “putting hands down upon” τιθημι/τιθηναι (TITHĒMI/TITHĒNAI). There is a substantive homophone (same sounding word) and homograph (same written word) τιθηνη (TITHĒNĒ) meaning a nurse or a nanny. Although this word is from a different verbal root θαομαι (THAOMAI), in the given context of little babies the phonetic proximity of this word can hardly go unnoticed and unappreciated. That is the reason for our “cuddly” twist.

This Sunday morning I invite you to Rutgers Church to meet Jesus in the Divine Nursery.

Augury, Ornithology and (In/)Tolerant Monotheism

Is monotheism bound to be intolerant, insensitive and primitivistic?
This Sunday afternoon we filled our sanctuary with dogs and cats who came for the blessing of the animals. 

 
As a text for my short meditation I chose a verse from the book of Job,
 
    Who endowed the ibis with wisdom
    and gave the rooster his intelligence? (Job 38:36)
 
It is just one parallelism of a beautiful creation hymn from the end of the book of Job 38+39. This whole hymn celebrates a complex balance within creation and a persistent intricate interconectedness between creation and creator. This verse represents a stark religious alternative to the later dogmatic and intolerant form of monotheistic religion which soon followed and overwhelmed and to a large extent took over first Judaism and later  Christianity and Islam.
    The Hellenistic author Josephus Flavius wrote in the second half of the 1st century CE an interesting Jewish apologetic (a defense tract) called Contra Apionem. In the first book Josephus quotes from the Greek historiographer Hecataeus a story about Mosollam:
 
"As I was myself going to the Red Sea, there was a man, whose name was Mosollam. He was one of the Jewish horsemen who accompanied us. He was a person of great courage, of a strong body, and by opinion of all the most skillful archer that was either among the Greeks or barbarians. As people were marching along the road in great numbers, a certain augur was observing an augury by a bird, and required all the people to stand still. Mosollam asked why they stopped. The augur showed him the bird from which he took his augury, and told him that if the bird stayed where it was, they should all stand still; but that if it got up, and flew onward, they must go forward; but that if it flew backward, they must return back. Mosollam did not say a word, but drew his bow, and shot at the bird, hit it, and killed it. The augur and some others became very angry, and cursed him. He answered them: Why are you so mad? And taking the bird he asked, How can this bird give us any true information about our march when it could not save itself? Had it been able to foreknow what was in the future, it would not have come to this place, but would have been afraid lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at it and
kill it."  (Contra Apionem1:201-204)

• Josephus claims to quote from a work of Hecataeus (Hecateus of Abdera). But this claim is dubious. Hecataeus is a known ancient author, but this particular work did not survive, and was preserved only in Josephus’ quotations. There are also serious academic doubts about the veracity of Josephus’  quotation claim; some say Josephus quoted from Jewish-edited excerpts, others claim the story was from the works of Manetho. It is possible he quoted some kind of a falsum (fraud) written in the Jewish community of ancient Alexandria.

The source of this anecdote is uncertain and dubious, nevertheless it is quoted approvingly by our ancient author Josephus. What does it tell us about the author and his community?
    1) Militarism and military power is accepted with approval.
    2) Mercenary culture is a lived reality.
    3) Divination is rejected using a demagogic argument by violence.
    4) Subjectivity of animals is ridiculed, they are turned into objects. 
Militarism and selling out to dominant powers nicely fits with what is know about Josephus, his life and his community. I want to concentrate on the last two points. The story mocks ancient Hellenistic superstitiousness. Unfortunately it achieves its goal by using intellectual and logical dishonesty with serious and lasting consequences.
    Augury was just one of the many branches of ancient divination practices, which interpreted uninitiated (unprovoked), naturally occurring events. Another examples were teratomancy (interpretation of birth deformities of animals as well as people), astrology (interpretation of not only celestial objects, but also climactical events like circles around the sun or the moon), or different biological events (a fox seen in the city, a line of ants observed in the temple etc). The relationship between the divine source of the message, messengers carrying the information, means of communication and intended recipients were often diverse, unclear and complex. The divine realm and natural realm were perceived as interconnected and inseparable. Divination involved interpretation of tightly interwoven patterns and coincidences. In augury, for instance, birds were not autonomous free-willed subjects and as such they were not the source of the message - the message became manifest in their behaviour.    Even in the most simplistic understanding of augury, birds were just messengers. In such a situation, killing the messenger does not disprove the message or this mode of communication. Just as killing all the roosters in a village would not postpone the next morning or disprove the connection between cockcrow and daybreak. The next morning will come silently and unannounced and soon there will be no eggs for breakfast even for the most zealous mechanical monotheist. Killing roosters does not prove anything except the violent narrow-mindedness of the killer. Similarly Josephus’ story achieves its goal by radical simplification and distortion of the context. It uses a common and efficient technique of demagogy, it creates a caricature of its target and then mocks it. The unfortunate yet unavoidable consequence of this monotheistic demagoguery was the distortion of religion, distortion of human self understanding and unfortunate breakdown of the the human relationship to nature. Religion became mechanistic and dissociated from nature, humans assumed titanic features alienated from the context of nature, and nature itself becomes objectified.
    Thankfully the ancient biblical tradition (and for instance the medieval Franciscan sensitivity to creatures) show us viable non-dogmatic alternative. Most recently, the post-modern development of natural sciences, social sciences, and theological discourse offer us hope for starting a long process of re-balancing our existence and our religion.

Call for justice and good governance

What is the role of a prophet?
Irrespective of common understanding, true prophets are not in the business of foretelling the future nor are they in the business of moralising or being overly spiritual or religious.

The primary role of a prophet is to speak the truth and call for justice, to do it especially to those in power and do it in season and especially out of season.  In this respect, modern thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber or Karl Marx got it in my opinion wrong when they theorized about origins of slavish morality, religion of the suppressed and postulated biblical religion as an spiritual/religious escape of downtrodden and underprivileged.

I believe that thought-provoking German egyptologist and anthropologist Jan Assmann got it right when he maintained that the biblical call for justice actually originated in the Ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition. He is right to trace the call for justice to the ideal of a wise ruler. I myself can provide examples from the area of my intellectual interest - pre-biblical Ugaritic literature (in this case the epics of Keret and Aqhat). 

The prophetic (and generally Biblical) call for political and social justice, for protection of the vulnerable, poor and the weak, was not and is not a religiously cloaked whining from the "losers" of the world. From time immemorial, it has been a well established and age tested rule of good governance.

Exploitation of the poor and tax cuts for the rich is shortsighted and eventually self defeating. The growing social gap within the society and the neglect of the vulnerable in the end does not serve anyone--not even powerful and rich. Plutocracy combined with egotism and nepotism are like an aggressive corrosion, they have the potential to take down the whole societal structure including the rich and powerful.

Come this Sunday and hear a biblical prophet calling for justice and telling the truth to those in power! On this World communion Sunday catch glimpses and celebrate sparks of something different, something harmonious, something arriving, something of hope.

Cuneiform tablet of the Epos of Aqhat from Ugarit KTU 1.19.
Louvre Museum.

Don’t be afraid of deconstruction!

     It is a liberating philosophical insight and process. If we are in prison and in shackles, we yearn to be released. Deconstruction is a way which can help to take the spiritual prison of deceptions and illusions of language and ideology apart and set us free.
      Take for instance that famous, almost proverbial, Allegory of the Cave from Plato’s Republic. It speaks about prisoners in the cave who see only shadows of real things. Philosophers, the enlightened minds, are the only ones who have the privilege of leaving the cave and seeing things as they truly are... But what if this entire allegory is just another kind of deceptive ideological prison? What if Plato, himself a philosopher, constructed this allegory to postulate for many generations to come the difference between the cave and true world of forms outside and to deny understanding to anybody but his own pals? This whole dialogue is, after all, proposing a society governed by philosophers. The whole Allegory of the Cave can be deconstructed as a self-promoting tool powered by flattery.
       In the early 18th century, Giovanni Battista Vico, the Italian philosopher and linguist noted a very radical thought: verum esse ipsum factum (The true itself is stated/made). He is considered the father of constructivist epistemology. According to this theory, we humans are the constructing authors of our culture, society, economy, justice system and science. The primary construct is our language, the very essence of our communication and the only tool of our own thinking.
       I think that Vico was right; everything in our understanding of the world is in the end our own human construct. Here comes the good news of deconstruction. Everything that has been constructed can be also deconstructed; there are no untouchable constructs. If there is a thing which pretends to be untouchable and absolute, if there is a construct which claims authority over the lives of others, if there is a thing which controls or enslaves, such a thing should be the primary target for deconstructive probing. Nothing human is untouchable or holy.
       And what about religion, rituals, theologies, prayers, grace, even God godself? Can they... Could they...  Should they ... also be deconstructed? Of course they can and they should be! Especially if they are constructed to abuse trust and authority, promote ignorance, perpetuate violence. Religions have this dark propensity to shield, cloak and justify some very ugly stuff. Throughout the biblical tradition we hear about this constant deconstruction of religious illusions and deceptions. If it is deconstructible, then it is not of true divine nature. And if it is not deconstructible, well, then we must shut up (to paraphrase the famous final proposition of Ludwig Wittgenstein.)
       This weekend with our guest John Caputo we will look at what and how many of our social and religious structures Jesus would de*construct, and hopefully we will also touch that space of awakened and hesitant silence.

 

Misunderstood love poetry

Imagine that tomorrow morning all the Shakespeare’s Sonnets suddenly disappeared: from your library, from a public library and every library. 

The volumes would still be standing on the shelves, even the print in regular neat paragraphs would still cover the pages, but this beautiful Elizabethan love poetry would be mysteriously gone, simply not there any more, because this exquisite literature would suddenly be used in a different, weird and peculiar way – the sonnets would be used for weather forecasts not only above the British Isles but also all over the world. Television, radio, and the internet would not be showing weather readings and satellite and radar images, but only William’s poetic prosody. Academic climatologists would be developing highly sophisticated methods to utilize patterns in Shakespearean verbal tenses for describing and predicting El Niño phenomenon.

Does it make any sense? Doesn't it sound crazy? It might, but something very similar happened to the Biblical Love Poetry. The Song of Songs had been and remained the regular and undisputed part of the Bible, but it was virtually invisible all the way through the end of 18th century. It was still read and diligently researched by generations of Christian as well as Jewish theologians. An endless series of inspirational sermons were delivered by some famous and eloquent preachers (Origen, Gregory the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Reformers.) They claimed and argued to discover in Song of Songs hidden messages of divine theology, deep and ever deeper secrets of relationship between YHWH and Israel, or Christ and the Church. (Situation not unlike predicting weather from Shakespearean poetry!)

Only Enlightenment theology started to appreciate Song of Songs for what it truly was rather for what it was not. Two centuries later, the situation still remains fluid and not completely clear. Many people don’t even know that the Bible contains beautiful, intimate, even quite racy love poetry. Many other don’t know what to think of it. 

This Sunday I would like to invite you to participate in rediscovering biblical love poetry and its potential to transform and nurture our lives and our faith.

An interview with Satan Peter

Welcome to our weekly program - A moment for spiritual growth - I am your host Beth Childs in studio 7 of the Heavenly Broadcasting Corporation here on the corner of Broadway and 73rd Street.  
       This Program is brought to you today by The Genuine Scottish Oats - producing the PERFECT morning cereals for 452 years. One bowl of our celestial porridge in the morning makes you feel like a strong Presbyterian inside out and all day long.


Beth: Now, Today I have with me in the studio a very special guest - Simeon, the fisherman, also known in Aramaic as Cephas, in Greek as Peter and in English as Rocky, preeminent disciple of Jesus, in some traditions head of the church and first bishop of Rome.  St. Peter - welcome to our program.
Peter: Thank you for having me.

Beth: Without further ado I will start right away with the most intriguing question.  I always wanted to ask you - did Jesus really call you Satan?
Peter: Yes he did. Or do you think that I made it up?

Beth: I did not mean that you made it up.  What about the early church’s oral tradition?  What about the evangelists?  They write testimony about faith and not history.   Aren’t they proverbially unreliable?
Peter: Oh yes, they occasionally embellished and improved some stories. Sometimes they even made up stories of their own to make a point. But do you think that they would have made up such an unflattering story about me - one of the founding pillars of the church?

Beth: So it is a fact!  Jesus did call you Satan...  
Peter: I hope you understand that at that time, and in that context, the word “Satan” had not yet developed into a strong mythical, supra-natural character. That happened later. At our time in Galilee SATAN simply meant “a seducer”, “an adversary”. It was a name for a function, not for a demonic character. It wasn’t another name for the devil, It wasn’t another name for the alter ego of God - the ruler of the dark worlds. SATAN in Hebrew, SATANA in Aramaic, simply meant “the adversary”.

Beth: Well, that is not all that helpful, is it?  Satan or Seducer - how did you feel when your beloved master publicly called you seducer   or ... ADVERSARY?
Peter: How did I feel? Awful! Horrible! But let me backtrack a little – earlier that day I felt very hopeful, elated, almost exuberant. On the way to Caesarea Philippi Jesus asked us, his closest disciples, a question - "Who do people say that I am?" And we were in seventh heaven! Finally he got realistic! He started to pay attention to public opinion! (At least, so we thought.) Finally we could engage popular emotions and expectations! Finally we could tap into that powerful fountain of public anger and hopes! In no time, we could get a real and realistic big movement going.
    Until then, he was not real; he was losing so many potential supporters and powerful allies... At one moment, he was subverting Romans, the next time he healed a boyfriend of a Roman officer. One moment he criticized Pharisees, the next time he was at their table!
    He was asking about public opinion; that was to us a good sign! And then he even asked us "But who do you say that I am?" - I was so happy, finally we were talking real business, finally I had a chance to let him know how we can easily change our movement to make a real impact in this world, I almost exclaimed, I burst out - "You are the Messiah." And he?  He rebuked me!  He publicly humiliated me for confessing him to be the Messiah!

Beth: Wait a moment, wait a moment!  I thought that Jesus rebuked you only after you took him aside and started to talk him out of suffering? 
Peter: Oh no, it happened just like that, as I said. He rebuked me right away. What you have in the Bible is a later attempt to explain it step by step, by sequencing it, dividing it into several consecutive steps. In reality it happened all at once. I was full of hope and joy and expectation. I confessed him to be the victorious Messiah, and right away he rebuked me and called me Satan, just for calling him the Messiah!

Beth: Aren’t people confessing Jesus as Messiah all the time?  Does it mean that they (we?) are Satans? 
Peter: That is a very good question. It all depends on what you mean by Messiah, the kind of meaning you put into this word. That is one of the reasons this story was divided into those several stages.
    I called Jesus “Messiah” before the crucifixion and at that moment I wanted him to be a successful resistance leader who would change things by power from the top down. By ”Messiah” I meant the most successful and most powerful political figure, the avenger and victor.
    After the crucifixion, after his suffering - it all means something different. Suddenly when someone who was crucified is called Messiah, you do not worship worldly political success! When you declare someone who was crucified Messiah, you are raising your voice in protest against any and all inhumanity, against all humiliation of the powerless. Declaring someone who was crucified as the Messiah, points above and beyond, to something bigger and higher and more glorious.

Beth: Whew!  I am relieved. Since it is now after the crucifixion, we can call Jesus Messiah all the time...   
Peter: Not so fast, not so fast - again it very much depends on the context and your intentions. When you call Jesus the Messiah or Saviour in the midst of suffering, or when you feel pain for other people, when you care for them and want to help them, if it is your protest against injustice -- then it is OK. But when you call Jesus Messiah for political or personal agendas, if you call him Messiah to keep the oppression and injustice going, If you call him Messiah, to keep people in darkness, or to gain or retain your privileges or the easy life or anything else - oh, then it becomes truly very questionable.

Beth: Aren’t people doing it all the time? Does it really mean that, at least to some degree, we are all Satans, tempters, and misunderstanding and misleading adversaries of the LORD? 
Peter: I am afraid it really may be so, and that is also the reason I am happy that my unflattering story is preserved in the Bible. My reputation is less important than this important warning and spiritual lesson.
    But please note, that Jesus didn’t say, “Go away Satan!” He said to me, “Satan, get behind me!” It can be translated, “Satan, follow!” He used the exactly same words which he used when he called me the first time to be his disciple! I was strongly rebuked, but I was not expelled. Even as a Satan, I was re-invited to discipleship.

Beth: Do I hear you correctly saying that at different times and in different forms we all misunderstand, manipulate, even abuse Jesus’ legacy, that we all can be called SATANS  and yet he still calls us and urges us to follow him? 
Peter: Yes, that is correct, Even though we are at times misled and are misusing his legacy for our own agendas, he still invites us to follow him. Jesus invites absolutely everybody to follow him, because in him and in his Gospel there is hidden this enormous power for good, which can endure the biggest temptations, master most difficult people and change even our most selfish agendas.
    To use medieval church lingo - we are all sinners - and still we are all invited to follow him, and in that process many are transformed. Only in this way we are learning that, “those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for Jesus and his Gospel, will save it.”

Beth: Peter, who was once called Satan,...  
Peter: and would deserve it many times over...
Beth: Peter, who was once called Satan, thank you very much.
 
Does anyone in our distinguished audience want to ask Peter a question?
....
If not, I would like to invite you to our next program - next week we will be discussing the life and words of Somali poet Cilmi Boodheri and the surprising power of love poetry.
(Now) As our closing litany we will affirm together our faith: 
AFFIRMATION OF FAITH (Adapted from The Confession of 1967)
God’s sovereign love is a mystery
beyond the reach of human mind.
Human thought ascribes to God
superlatives of power, wisdom, and goodness.
But God reveals divine love in Jesus Christ
by showing power in the form of a servant,
wisdom in the folly of the cross,
and goodness in receiving sinful people.
The power of God’s love in Christ
to transform the world discloses that
the Redeemer is the Lord and Creator
who made all things to serve
the purpose of God’s divine love.