Xenophobia draws divine wrath

The Biblical story this Sunday will bring us to the region of Sodom and Gomorrah. These legendary cities are famous for their sinfulness. But it is a different sinfulness that many might think! Those who associate these two cities with homosexuality show themselves to be redneck ignorami.
    Firstly: I wrote about this a year ago, homosexuality as such is a modern concept. If anything is under judgement in the Bible, it is not same gender attractions or love, but sexual violence!
    Secondly: Violence as the main factor behind this story is confirmed by a biblical parallel with an almost identical plot in Judges 19; there the brutality is heterosexual. Anyhow, both stories, in Genesis and in Judges, are not primarily about sexuality but about grave violations of the sacred code of hospitality and protection of strangers. In the classical Greek world these rules were called Xenia and if the strangers were gods in the disguise, they called it Theoxenia.
    Thirdly: The importance and influence of Xenia and Theoxenia is further illustrated from and confirmed in Greco-Roman literature. The closest classical parallel to Sodom and Gomorrah is the story of Baukis and Philemon as recorded by Ovid in his Metamorphoses.
    Baukis and Philemon, an elderly and poor couple one day welcomed two strangers after these weary pilgrims had been turned down by every other house in the town. The old couple offered their guest the best hospitality they could afford. And although the guests were feasting, the supplies were not running out. Thus the elderly couple started to suspect that they might have been visited by some divine guests. When they wanted to offer them their only goose, it ran for protection into the lap of one of the guests. At that point their guests put aside their disguises and revealed themselves as Zeus and Hermes (Jupiter and Mercury). Immediately the divine guests instructed the couple to leave the town and seek shelter upon the nearby hill. When they looked from the top, the entire valley was destroyed by a flood in a punishment for the inhabitants’ lack of hospitality to gods. The generous couple was granted long life together and further divine rewards and at the time of their death they were transformed into an intertwined oak and linden trees.
    Thus both the biblical as well as the ancient texts clearly show, that the crime of the proverbially sinful cities was a violation of the sacred rules of hospitality. The deadly sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not rooted in any form of sexuality but in what we now might call xenophobia, the fear or even hatred of strangers.
    All of this is just an introduction to this Sunday’s biblical stories (Both from Hebrew as well as from Greek Testaments). They will show us the mystery of meeting god in strangers (theoxenia), how we can react and what is the proper way of extending our welcome and hospitality.

Peter Paul Rubens, Zeus and Hermes as guests in home of Philemon and Baukis

-------------------------------------------------

And for those who read this far: It is possible that Ovid might be dependent on the story from Genesis (the Genesis story was certainly older and Ovid might know it). On the other hand, the concept of theoxenia is well documented in classical literature. Also individual aspects of Ovid's story are so arranged that any direct influence is improbable. Most likely Ovid and Genesis are independent reworkings of some original oral version. The story in Genesis is more heavily edited and developed into a more complex story - human characters are split between two couples (Abraham and Sara and Lot and his wife). Escape from the city and  observation of the valley in Genesis is also divided and multiplied into observation before and after the catastrophe. Ovid clearly follows more simple and closer to original narrative line than Genesis. Biblical doublet in Judges 19 is an example of historicising (transforming into history) of an older legendary (mythical) story. Most likely it was part of a political spin of Judeans at the time of composition of Judges to justify their violence against the tribe of Benjamin - "they made us do it because of their Sodom-like behaviour".     

New England Saving Machine?

    When you visit Lyman House in Hilo, Hawaii, a mid XIX century missionary residence turned museum, most likely you will be proudly shown one preeminent mission instrument. There it lies, just as it was shipped and delivered from the missionary hotbed of New England, you can behold one of the early specimens of the Singer sewing machine. Don’t laugh, this was a serious spiritual business! Judging from the activities of early Congregational missionaries, they heard twofold indivisible high callings: A) to save the souls of depraved pagans (this is their language, not mine!), and B) to cover the naked bodies of Sandwich Islanders (Hawaiians) with the proper Victorian attire. This is not just a funny anecdote of mixing bigot faith with cultural prejudice. Unfortunately, in its time it had sinister consequences.
    During this “divinely” sanctioned endeavor of naked-bodies-clothed and souls-saved-from-hell, the local population declined by about 80% due to epidemics, exploitation, and famine. When the American missionaries arrived there were more than 200,000 Hawaiians. In six decades, when missionary children (yes, they were predominantly direct descendants) misappropriated the islands for the American empire (overthrow of constitutional monarchy in 1893 and then military occupation in 1898), there were only 40,000 locals left! Can you imagine the magnitude of this national tragedy! And it hardly registered in missionary reports and dispatches!
    For several years it has been my anthropological hobby to study the history of Hawaiian religion (the original one as well as this transition to Christianity). After reading about it and studying it on the ground, I still do not know whether the missionaries were more, Christian bigots, cultural chauvinists or agents of an ascending empire (under cover of religion). Most likely all of it inseparably combined. Thankfully, around the time of Albert Schweitzer, Europeans first, later Americans, started to change mission gears. Finally, the main American denominations in the last decades of the 20th century, especially after the civil rights movement, went through thorough soul-searching, repentance, and rethinking of their mission endeavor. The changes in course and ethos were epochal. The international mission which is being sponsored by the mainline American denominations is not any longer what it used to be (and unfortunately still is with some evangelical zealots).
    Come this Sunday to meet Dr. Martha Sommers, a physician missionary in Malawi whose mission our church supports. Come to see and hear how completely different and more aligned with Jesus’ spirit the mission work is done these days! It is a mission without religious prejudice, without sewing needles, without Singer machines but with X-rays machines (as antiquated as they might be), syringes and donated medicines and most importantly real compassion. Direction is right, material challenges persist. Learning from our missionaries, supporting their work, we can make a real difference in life and health of entire communities and literally save lives. 

Lyman house in Hilo, HI, in autumn 2012

A bronze plaque commemorating the builders.
ABCFM stands for "American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions"
it is still active mission arm of the UCC.

 And by the way, the Lymans made fortunes in sugar plantations and careers in US military - for instance Hilo airport is named after Brigadier General Albert Lyman.

 And yet another by the way: These days tourists from all over the world frolic in Hawaiian beaches, resorts and even streets just as scantily clad as the original native Hawaiians who were labeled "perverted pagans" by those zealous missionaries. Those Victorian garbs which the poor XIX century Polynesian converts were forced to wear, might have worked in London, perhaps in Boston, but such cloths are utterly perverted idea for islands under the Tropic of Cancer. :-D

Quintessential others

Good old Samaritans still exist! But barely. There are just a few hundred left.

Of course I do not mean it here in the idiomatic sense as “a kind person who helps another in difficult situation.” I mean it in the literal sense of Samaritans as an ethnic and religious group. They still live near ancient Samaria, approximately today’s Nablus, on the slopes of Mount Gerizim. They still worship there and offer ancient old sacrifices there as prescribed in the Law of Moses. Yes, indeed, they still read from their version of Torah - the Books of Moses. 

Their version of the Law is similar, yet different from our current Jewish and Christian bibles. The biggest difference has been that the Samaritan Law expressly requires worship on Mt Gerizim while the Jewish Torah speaks about “the place which the LORD will choose” (which later tradition interpreted as Jerusalem). 

Modern academic scholarship oscillates in opinion between which version is original, Samaritan or Jewish. I am convinced that both biblical versions (Samaritan and Jewish) are more or less simultaneous (early Hellenistic) and were edited to suit ideological desires of each particular faith community. Most likely the Samaritan reading about Mt. Gerizim is closer to the original, while the Jewish version was falsified thus enabling the Jewish religious center to be placed squarely in Jerusalem. 

From that time on the ancient ethnic and religious tension was born and only grew. When shortly afterwards the Jewish (Maccabean) King John Hyrcanus destroyed the ancient Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim it certainly did not help their mutual relationships. Proverbial animosity matured and still persists millennia later. In the state of Israel, Samaritans, as old as their religion might be, operate without the status of a recognized religion.

Samaritans always were those quintessential others. Similar, but different; following the Law of Moses, but a different version; with faith in YHWH, but with different accents. They were a constant reminder of the diversity and plurality of faith/faiths. Jesus and the early Christians marvelously picked up, highlighted and embraced this theme. Unfortunately the church lost this diversity message soon afterwards. 

This Sunday and next, stories about Samaritans will remind us (it is needed again and again) that we are not the only people of faith. God does not belong to us alone, to church, to any church! Any religion, including our own, does not have an ownership license for God. 

So there might be only 700 or so real old Samaritans left, but the world is full of Samaritans, those quintessential others. They do not belong to our group (because many of them might have been alienated, offended or hurt by the church just like Samaritans were by Jews) but they still search and long for and, indeed, are loved by God. Come to celebrate this miracle of miracles!

Mood matters

Mood matters!

Mood really matters a great deal, even in the Bible. And here I don’t mean any moodiness, tempers or emotional swings.

     I speak about the grammatical mood. The most common and best recognized moods are: the indicative “You are light.” the imperative, “Be light!” and the conditional - “We would be light after it gets dark.” 

There are many more verbal moods such as interrogative - “Are you light?” the potential verbal mood - “We may be light.” the optative mood - “If only we were light!”, the jussive “You shall become light.” or the exhortative - “Let us be light!” These are just the most common verbal moods and you can see how substantially they can transform the meaning of the verb.

    Shortly after my arrival in Edinburgh as a student with only limited comprehension of spoken English, I attended a church and was surprised that the minister preached so passionately about lettuce! Soon I realized he was not an ardent gardener or salad chef. His interest in lettuce was actually caused by his proclivity for using exhortative “let us...”.

    When Jesus said to his audience (not only to his disciples, but also to common folks) “You are light.” He did not command, “Be light!” He did not encourage “You should be light.” Nor did he threaten, “You should rather be light!” Jesus used the plain indicative mood in clear declarative power, he said “You are light.” It was a declaration, an affirmation, an EMPOWERMENT.

    Unfortunately, as early as the time of the writing of the gospels, people did not sustain this power of Jesus’ statement and diluted it by attaching several exhortations. Clearly, Christians and especially preachers have this horrendous propensity to exhort, to form salad churches, with salad worship and salad theology, full of moralizing “lettuce - let us...” (Who could be surprised that they are so often so easily tossed even by the weakest trends, and dosed with spiritual sourness?)

Jesus did not exhort, he did not threaten, he declared, affirmed and EMPOWERED all those who were marginalized, vilified, persecuted and oppressed nobodies - YOU ARE LIGHT!

Let us heed and follow him! ;-)

Creepy omniscience

“NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!” Shrieks Cardinal Ximenez in the famous sketch done by Monty Python.
    My seminary professor of church history was Amedo Molnar, worldwide expert and published scholar (books and articles in Czech, French, German and Italian) on medieval reform movements, especially Waldensians. In his classes we read the early inquisition records from the archives in Bohemia, Austria and Bavaria.
    To theology students under the communist regime it provided an interesting insight into the mentality of secret police. Technology progressed (medieval inquisitors did not have cameras or wiretapping), but the main techniques and mentality remained the same; the use of fear, ruthless efficiency, and almost fanatical devotion to institutions (to quote Monty Python again).
    Common modern prejudice portrays inquisitors as a bunch of pathological brutes. They were nothing like that! Inquisitors were intelligent, creative, thorough, organized, hard working, with the best of intentions and sincere in their convictions. They gathered and sorted information into comprehensive and reliable archives and produced theoretical studies as well as practical manuals. They instituted safeguards to protect the integrity of their processes and controlled their own human inclination for cruelty (for instance substantially limiting the use of torture). In all respects the inquisition was much gentler than the interrogation by the common feudal yeomen.
    All these achievements of inquisition don’t impress us anymore; they do not exonerate the process and this medieval institution. We simply don’t buy their primary premise. Heresy, a doctrinal challenge to the established church, might be real, but it is not and never really was any substantial threat to civilization. Heresy was just one of those labels which the authority used to keep people in fear and under control, to justify its schemes and its power.
    This Sunday we will ask why it is, that human pursuit of omniscience is always so creepy, thoroughly dangerous and in the end unsuccessful and cursed. The Biblical Psalmist (Psalm 139) will help us to ask even deeper questions; When and where did the religious notion of divine omniscience come from? Is divine omniscience really integral to our faith? Might it be that this divine omniscience is spiritually and psychologically unhealthy for humans and toxic even for God? What is the difference between god knowing-all and God feeling-all. What is the difference between god - the divine intelligence officer and the God of self-giving compassion?

 

Albigensians also known as Cathars
are driven by inquisition from the city of Carcassonne in 1209.

3.14159265358979323846264... and Faith

Would you know how to calculate the volume of a spherical cap?
     Well, in preparation for this Sunday’s sermon I refreshed my high school mathematics. The volume of spherical cap is V = (3r²+h²)πh/6 where h is the height of the cap and r is the radius of the base of the cap.
    BUT DON’T WORRY, the Sunday sermon will not be a mathematical lecture. A few elemental mathematical facts will only help us to better appreciate the Bible and understand our faith.
    How could math help us to open up and deepen our faith? Because while describing the equipment in the Jerusalem temple (specifically a large bronze water basin 1 Kings 7:23-26) the Bible makes a shameful mathematical blunder defining π as equal to 3. Fundamentalists of all possible streaks and stripes tried an almost unending list of strategies and explanation to harmonize the Bible with reality. In the 19th century the pious American faithful even tried to legislate (declare by a state law) this biblical value of the Ludolph constant. There are rumors about these legislative attempt in Kansas, and Iowa and almost “successful”attempt in Indiana. Of course it did not work! The number “Pi” is not 3 even if the Bible says so. Any attempt to harmonize it with mathematics is an elementally misguided endeavor because this is not the only mathematical blunder. Here comes the reason for calculating the spherical cap; the volume of the basin according to the Bible was off by about 150%. (And I leave completely aside the impossibility of any ancient foundry handling about 30 metric tons of bronze). 

     Biblical authors were eager to exaggerate and embellish the furnishings of their faith tradition; they were not interested in detail and accuracy. They were poets not mathematicians. They were evoking impressions and feelings using large amount of life giving water, a fresh water sea in Judean highland (all 7,750 gallons of it). Our deeper understanding of life and faith streams from their aquatic evocations.

Polytheism, Monotheism and Beyond

An abstract from my presentation at The 2013 Julian Jaynes Conference on Consciousness and Bicameral Mind (June 5-8, Charleston WV).

---------------------------------------

Julian Jaynes presented an interesting anthropological theory of the origins and development of religion. He based most of his observations on Classic Homeric material with only cursory attention given to a few other regions and traditions. Recent developments in our understanding of the Near Eastern religious milieu and especially the most recent developments in our understanding of the Biblical religion asks for closer attention and assessment since it can provide interesting new perspectives and supportive insights.
    Small cumulative advances in the academic study of the Biblical texts (So-called Biblical minimalists also known as the Copenhagen School — Thomas L. Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche together with other scholars, for instance Philip R. Davies) and especially in the discipline of Near Eastern Archeology (Israel Finkelstein, cooperating on popularizing volumes with Neil Asher Silberman) started to accelerate in 1990s. Simultaneously the dating of the final authorship of the Biblical texts has been moved forward by several centuries to the Persian and perhaps even later Hellenistic period (the Persian dating being proposed by Peter Frei). It is now a well-established fact that the Biblical text cannot be used as a direct source for the study of Ancient History. For instance the stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs, of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Isaac, the Exodus narrative, the sagas of the unified monarchy of David and Solomon are now viewed as predominantly literary compositions.
    The full appreciation of the fact that the Biblical texts and narratives do not relate history in a straightforward fashion is only a negative aspect of the recent development. This development is complemented and greatly surpassed by a positive impact. Religious texts, appropriately understood, can help us decipher, illuminate and understand some of the most fascinating and complex anthropological processes.
    For instance, viewed in the ANE context, the Biblical texts preserved (like DNA) remnants of the developmental stages of monotheization of the original (polytheistic) religion. The work of Mark S. Smith from NYU and others ANE scholars like my Edinburgh professor Nicolas Wyatt clearly demonstrates that the Bible contains a substantial part of the North-West Semitic pantheon and mythology. Their publications illuminate the complex and diverse processes which lead toward the final form of the monotheistic text.
    Ancient myths were “democratized” and transformed into heroic legends while divine characters were re-named and re-coined as patriarchs and other human characters. The North-West Semitic Pantheon and the characteristics and functions of its original deities were assimilated (god El), substituted (gods Yarich and Shemesh), subsumed and sublimated (goddess Asherah) expropriated and suppressed (god Baal), or inhibited and obscured (plethora of minor deities). Old religious practices were re-framed, re-narrated, hidden, forbidden and/or suppressed.
    From a different point of view and with different accents, it can be described with Jan Assmann as a transition from the concept of multiple immanent deities representing natural forces towards a transcendent deity as a guarantor of the natural order. This process was accompanied by a transition from a broadly inclusive natural religiosity to a strictly exclusive supranatural one. We can also observe a simultaneous shift from sacrificial religion to a religion concerned with education and teaching (a shift from orthopraxy to orthodoxy) and from an oral tradition to the written fixation of religion.
    I find this new understanding of the development of the Ancient Near Eastern religion surprisingly harmonious with Julian Jaynes’s theory of the bicameral mind and its transition towards modern consciousness. The theory of Jan Assmann should be of particular interest. Assmann outlines a fast transition/shift from the primary to the secondary religion which cannot be reversed and which he calls “the Mosaic Distinction”. I would like to suggest that the immanent, natural, oral, inclusive and orthopraxy-oriented religion represents an original (and organic) religion of the bicameral stage and perhaps an early post-breakdown stage. As the process of the breakdown of the bicameral mind deepened, religiosity started to move first slowly, but inevitably, towards transcendent, supranatural, written, exclusivistic and orthodoxy-oriented religion. Breakdown of bicameralism and the disintegration of organic religiosity, are simultaneous and complementary processes. And just like the modern concept of consciousness, any contact between old organic religiosity and new world religions leads to irreversible changes in self-understanding.
    As the world monotheistic religions are discovering and deepening this ability of anthropological self-reflection, we are clearly entering a new stage of religious development. A radically new form of religiosity, non-dogmatic, post-transcendent, is becoming possible and probable just like some kind of new reintegration of the human mind and self understanding.
---------------------------------------
Directly associated older blogs:
Lady Wisdom, Did YHWH have a wife?, Outrageous biblical patriarchs, How many gods made up God?, and this slide from a presentation on the shift in sacrificial practice.

Julian Jaynes 1920 - 1997