progressive involvement

Pastors at play

Otagosh started it.  He referenced a post at Cyberbrethren titled "Why Believing in a Real, Actual Adam and Eve Matters" wherein a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) pastor had defended the historicity of Adam and Eve, and said: 

For our Lord Christ, the fact of the creation of Adam and Eve by God, and their union to one another, ordained by God, is the very foundation of marriage and all human sexuality.

Otagosh thinks it's bizarre that people can still hold such a view today.  Over the past 50 years, the number of people holding an "inerrant" view of the Bible has indeed declined rather sharply, all the way from about two-thirds of the people to about one-third.  That said, about a third still believe it.

As the quote from above indicates, Cyberbrethren apparently believes that Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were historical people.  This was a new one to me so I asked:  Is there anywhere in the four gospels where Jesus reflects on the historicity of Adam?  I requested a chapter and verse citation of any place in scripture where Jesus says anything about Adam and Eve being real historical persons.

"Adam," incidentally, is simply the Hebrew word for earth.  "Eve" is a word related to the Hebrew word for life.  Put "Adam" and "Eve" together and you have "living earth people."

The author of Cyberbrethren was not amused by my asking this question.  First, he tried to get by with snark.  When I asked "when?" and "where?" he responded:  "When?  Roughly AD 30-33.  Where?  Palestine.  You can find an account of this teaching in the Bible, specifically the Gospels."

I do not take condescension for a legitimate answer, so I asked again:  "Is there a chapter and verse in which Jesus asserts the historicity of Adam?"  He responded:  "What's always surprising to me is how some liberals, rather than simply being honest and coming out and simply asserting that Christ was wrong, or Paul was wrong, instead of trying to dance around the text and play little games to try to justify their denial of its (sic) assertions.  You are wasting my time and yours with such nonsense."

It is true, of course, that I am wasting my time.  I know full well that he cannot name a single passage in the New Testament where Jesus or Paul asserts the historicity of Adam, which I why I responded the way I did:  "You must be confused.  I don't think either Christ or Paul was wrong.  I think you are." 

Lectionary blogging: The Transfiguration: Luke 9: 28-36

²⁸Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. ²⁹And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. ³⁰Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. ³¹They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. ³²Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. ³³Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” —not knowing what he said. ³⁴While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. ³⁵Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” ³⁶When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.

Translation:  And it happened, after these words, eight days, and he took Peter and John and James, he went up into the mountain to pray.  And it happened, as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothing flashing white.

And behold! two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah, being seen in glory, they were speaking of his exodus, which he would make full in Jerusalem.  But Peter and the ones together with him were being weighed down with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men, the ones standing with him. 

And it happened, as they were departing from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here, and we might make three tabernacles, one to you, one to Moses, and one to Elijah," not knowing what he said.

As he was saying this, a cloud happened and was overshadowing them and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud.  And a voice happened out of the cloud, saying, "This is my son, the one having been chosen.  Hear him."  And when the voice had happened, Jesus was found alone.  And they kept silent, and they told no one in those days anything which they had seen.

"God is; God is as he is in Jesus; therefore, we have hope."

This is a statement offered by an Anglican bishop when asked to give a one sentence answer to the question:  What is the Christian faith?  Personally, I think the use of two semi-colons is cheating, but nonetheless, it's a good statement.

The church has three official creeds.  The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were borne out of the trinitarian debates of the fourth century.  As for the Apostles' Creed, it goes back a long ways, at least to the fourth century, but its origins are murky and the issues it was responding to are unclear.

The Nicene Creed is partly a political document.  In AD 313, Constantine had declared religious freedom in the Roman Empire.  He embraced religion--pretty much all religions, and especially Christianity--and believed religion contributed to harmony in the Empire.  Constantine bestowed large benefactions on the church, including new churches, nice houses for bishops, and--mirabule dictu--tax breaks for clergy!  (Not surprisingly, this policy led to an increase in the number of people who considered themselves Christian clergy.)

Little did Constantine apparently know, but, at the time, the church was in the throes of a vigorous debate on the relationship of Jesus to God the Father.  Was Jesus of the "same substance" as God the Father, or was he of "like substance"?  Was Jesus' divinity the same as that of God the Father, or was it derivative and "lesser" in some way?

Constantine called a meeting of bishops at Nicea in AD 325.  His objective was not necessarily theological precision--or even truth--but rather harmony.  He thought that harmony in the church contributed to harmony in the Empire.

The Creed that came out of Nicea--the Nicene Creed--tried to settle the issue by saying that Jesus was "begotten, not made."  In other words, Jesus was not a created creature.  He was of the "same substance" as God the Father.

Nothing was really settled at Nicea.  The "Nicene party" continued to advocate for its position, which was Jesus' full equality with God the Father.  The "subordinationists," who argued that Jesus was in some sense "divine," but also less than God the Father, continued to advocate for their position as well.  Both groups interpreted the Nicene formula so that it fit with their own theology.

Constantine's own view is difficult to discern.  He tended to promote the "Nicene party," but not always.  He ordered the church to end its excommunication of the subordinationist leader, Arius, for example, and ordered Athanasius, Arius' primary opponent, into exile.  When Constantine was finally baptized, the sacrament was performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a "subordinationist" bishop. 

Later that same century, the Emperor Theodosius affirmed the "Nicene party" by imperial decree (AD 380).  Theodosius' decree ended religious freedom in the Roman Empire, established the "Nicene party" in power, and squashed freedom of thought in Christianity.

There were at least two reasons Theodosius did this.  First, the Empire was under threat from the Goths who wiped out the Roman Army led by Emperor Valens just two years before at Adrianople (AD 378).  (Adrianople was not far from Constantinople, then the capitol of the Empire.)  The Goths had been converted to "subordinationist" Christianity.  By outlawing "subordinationist" theology, Theodosius was trying to rally the Empire against the Goths on a religious as well as a military level.

Secondly, a Jesus co-equal with God the Father--kicked upstairs, you might say, into the mystery of the trinity--fit with imperial theology.  The Emperor might have been skittish about endorsing too-human a Jesus, who, after all, had been assassinated by Imperial Rome, and had a disconcerting tendency to side with the have-nots against the "principalities and powers."

That was the issue then, but, frankly, hardly anybody today cares whether or not Jesus was "begotten, not made."  When your health has gone bad, or you've lost your job, or your kid is in jail, you don't spend all that much time contemplating the trinity.

Which is why the Anglican bishop's statement of faith is a good statement for modern times.  First, it confronts atheism with the flat assertion that "God is."  Atheism is all the rage these days.  It used to be that you had to be pretty sharp to debate an atheist because atheism was represented by people like Buckminster Fuller.  Nowadays, not so much.

Secondly, "God is as he is in Jesus"--no dispassionate, antiseptic Unmoved Mover!  Jesus shows God's heart, which is with the lost, the poor, the bereft--not with the Emperor so much, but with the people the Emperor persecutes.  Thirdly, "therefore, we have hope."  If God is as he is in Jesus, then God comes to our rescue.  

For a 21st century statement of faith, that's not bad, and more in tune with the cares and anxieties of today than the issues of the fourth century.  Plus, you can tweet it--that's very 21st century. 

Requiscat in Pacem, Edward Schillebeeckx

Edward Schillebeeckx O.P., great Dutch Catholic theologian, died on December 23 at the age of 95.  Schillebeeckx taught dogmatic and historical theology at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, Netherlands.  He was a Dominican, hence the O.P., which stands for "Order of Preachers." 

Schillebeeckx believed in "rethinking the Christian faith in light of contemporary culture."  One thinks of Paul Tillich's "method of correlation," which similarly related faith to culture.  People should read more of these theologians of the 1950's and 60's.  Christian theology was once interesting--and hopeful!

The man is not widely known outside of church circles, but his influence has been considerable.  The revival of the eucharist--particularly among protestants!--is partly attributable to his work.  His Jesus:  An Experiment in Christology (1974) and Church:  The Human Story of God (1989) were ground-breaking works of theology.  Progressive Catholic:

These works were born of his studies of, and participation in, vital movements in the church and the world at large, including those towards a growing autonomy in faith and ethics, towards democratization, the engagement of Christians in politics and of women in the church, liberation theologies and base communities.

Schillebeeckx wanted to move away from a rigidly heirarchical church.  He was for a broadening "democratization" of the church.  Talking that way is quite likely to get you investigated by the theology police, and sure enough, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, investigated Schillebeeckx three times, which is a tribute to the man, right there.  These words from 1990 are more appropriate than ever:

My concern is that the further we move away in history from Vatican II, the more some people begin to interpret unity as uniformity. They seem to want to go back to the monolithic church which must form a bulwark on the one hand against communism and on the other hand against the Western liberal consumer society. I think that above all in the West, with its pluralist society, such an ideal of a monolith church is out of date and runs into a blind alley. And there is the danger that in that case, people with that ideal before their eyes will begin to force the church in the direction of a ghetto church, a church of the little flock, the holy remnant. But though the church is not of this world, it is of men and women. Men and women who are believing subjects of the church.  

As an aside, I added Edward Schillebeeckx to my "heroes" section three days ago, but only found out that he had died just now.  I'm taking this as a message from the Holy Spirit to re-read Jesus. 

 

On second thought

I agree with Justice Scalia.  In regard to the Christian cross at the Mojave National Reserve, which honors war dead from World War 1, he had said, "I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead."

In regard to the case itself, Salazar v. Buono, which has to do with whether or not the cross should stay or go, Scalia argued that the cross should stay because it is a "universal" symbol rather than a sectarian one. 

In the exchange which followed that comment, Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU made the point that the cross "does not honor the non-Christians who died in the war."  Scalia responded that the cross is a common symbol of the "resting places of the dead."  He seemed surprised at the thought that it might not be the "common symbol" in Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish cemetaries.

The account in the link above makes it sound like Scalia then responded in frustration or pique or something, and then said this:  "I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead." 

I don't know if he quite understood what he was saying, or the links which brought him there, but that statement, as it stands, is absolutely true.  Does he not reconcile all things?  (Colossians 1: 15-20)  While I certainly agree with the Christian theology expressed in Justice Scalia's statement, that is a point of theology, not of constitutional law.

My own view is that Christians ought to have better things to do than insist on putting their symbols on things.  "Love does not insist on its own way," said St. Paul (1 Cor. 13).  You want to make Jesus happy, then do something to help the poor.  That's my philosophy.

Today's surprise

Water on the moon.

Quote of the Day

Let me tell you what we think.  You begin when you are little to work hard.  After you get to be men, you build big houses, big towns, and everything else in proportion.  Then, after you have got them all, you die and leave them behind.  Now, we call that slavery.  You are slaves from the time you begin to talk until you die, but we are free as air.  The Mexicans and others work for us.  Our wants are few and easily supplied.  The river, the wood, and plain yield all that we require.  We will not be slaves, nor will we send our children to your schools, where they only learn to become like yourselves.

Cadete, Mescalero chief, to Capt. John Cremony, 1864

Someone deserves a prize for this photo

Taken on April 3, 2008, at Lariat Sandridge Energy outside of Ft. Stockton, Texas.

Apparently, the person who took the photo was on another oil rig and was unaware of the tornado until the lightning flash illuminated it.

Click to enlarge.

The problem

See Paul Krugman at his best today at the New York Times.  His topic is the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill, which narrowly passed the House last week on a vote of 219-212.  Forty some Democrats flaked and voted against it.  Eight Republicans--all in districts carried by Obama--voted for it--and provided the margin of victory.

Considering the situation, it ought to be astonishing that 212 members of the highest legislative body in the United States voted against it.  Global warming is a fact.  It is perhaps the most widely held point of view among scientists in the entire world.  Yet, some weather man in Akron says God won't let it happen, and James Inhofe (R-Awl Bidness) calls him an expert.

I can't help thinking of Jared Diamond's books where he argues that the Easter Islanders and the Scandinavian Greenlanders both failed and essentially became extinct because of they were unwilling to adapt to their environmental situation.  No doubt there was a significant faction of Easter Islanders who said, "We have plenty of trees.  Trees are eternal.  Keep cutting," or a faction in Greenland saying, "We will never change our centuries old way of life, and we will keep eating cows."  Krugman says thus:

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Or something like that anyway