Shrewd or Unjust?

I don’t have a Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. blog this year as I have in years past. However, I will make a comparison before I get started. Not the usual, obvious comparisons of what is similar between his life and Jesus’ but how we treat the two differently.

You can’t tell the story of Martin Luther King Jr. without mentioning churches. You could skip the details of his career as a pastor but if you are telling the story with any detail at all, you would have to mention that he used the structure of the Southern Baptist church to do much of his organizing. You would not however need to stress these details or explain them. Churches and organizing just go together. When telling the story of Jesus, the context of his Jewish community is commonly left out, everything is fit into what his legacy eventually became. That is, the theology we humans have created.

Another set of details is normally left out and is not required to understand Rev. King’s part in the civil rights movement. That is, he liked to party on occasion. And he had some marital problems. There are websites dedicated to this. There are people that believe it defines the man and the movement and negates the progress that was made. Fortunately those people are few and far between. For most people, a simple examination of life in 1950’s America compared to life in the 1970’s is enough to understand the importance of what was accomplished in the 1960’s.

That is not to say that the movement was simple. Forces were at play for centuries leading to those momentous years. The individual actions of the Freedom Riders and people who did seemingly simple things like sitting at a “Whites Only” café were profound and heroic. We are getting far enough away from those actions that it is necessary to not only tell the story of those heroes, it is necessary to explain why it was heroic, why there was a “Whites Only” café in the first place. We are not so far away that the full contexts of the stories are inaccessible or the meaning of the details of actions and words are indecipherable.

When we tell the story of Martin Luther King Jr. we don’t need to embellish the man. Some may object that his role as pastor is not highlighted enough, others that his influence from the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hhan is rarely mentioned. Once these things are mentioned, what else is there to say? If his title as Reverend was the factor that made him great, then why didn’t a different Reverend accomplish what he did? If it was the influence of Christianity, why was such a Christian nation so slow in dealing with its civil rights problems in the first place? When we examine how the movement took hold, we only need to examine the words that were spoken, the deals that were made, the strategies that were applied, the causes and the affects.

We can examine those things in great detail. When King started his “I Have a Dream” speech, he talked about coming to Washington to “cash a check”. We know what that means. We can view the video from that day and see that that phrase was not very inspiring; the crowd was not reacting to it. We know his speech writer and he tells us that King had alternative scripts that he could use to improvise. When he moves on to drawing from the My Country Tis of Thee and the Old Testament, we know where he got those lines and we can see that his audience ate it up. We know why he choose those words and can marvel at his genius at being able to pull them up at that moment and inspire 250,000 people that day as well as generations to come.

We can only scratch the surface when attempting to do that with the Bible. When the New Testament talks of the “New Covenant”, we don’t know when exactly that started, or what changes to the laws of Moses it actually covered. The Old Testament refers to earlier books that we only know of because of those passages. We don’t know if they are quoted accurately or who wrote them. When Jesus tells the Parable of the Unjust Steward, we don’t know how his audience reacted.  That of course doesn’t stop people from claiming that they do know. Many people are quite sure they do know exactly what Jesus meant. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this is written on their heart, and we can’t read that.  

When we look at the life of Martin Luther King Jr. we don’t need to first create a mythology and then fit his life into it. His accomplishments stand on their own. We know what he was trying to do and how well he did it. When looking at the words of a small group of Jews in Palestine 2,000 years ago, we can’t be sure what they were trying to do. When we try to figure it out, we are stymied by ancient languages and symbolism that was already becoming arcane at the time. Records were not made until decades after the event. Enough of it was timeless, universal and powerful that it survived, but its original form has been lost.

Very few books, articles or sermons even attempt to examine the details of the words attributed to Jesus without first presupposing a theology. One that I just started is “Parables as Subversive Speech” by William Herzog. He draws heavily the history scholarship of Gerhard Lenski and compares the scriptures to the teaching work of Paulo Freire He takes a line by line analysis of several parables and tests them against his hypothesis. He synthesizes, compares and contrasts his conclusions with those of several theologians in the last century as he goes. I’ll spare you most of those details but supply enough of them to give you an idea of what this reveals.

The parable I’ll use as an example comes from Luke 16 and is sometimes called “The Parable of the Shrewd Manager” or sometimes “The Parable of the Unjust Steward”. The naming problem indicates the difficulty theologians have had. Later we’ll see how Luke himself may have been wrestling with what was meant. The parable begins:

 ¹ Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. ² So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

The first problem is determining who the characters are intended to represent. Many assume the rich man is a representation of God. This becomes a problem later as we shall see. Herzog sees these characters as representing exactly what the story says they are. What is missing, what is not supplied in the Bible, is an understanding of the roles these people would have played. More on that as the story unfolds.

We are also limited by the English language with the word “accused”. It doesn’t tell us if the accusation is false, verified, or groundless. According to some, the verb diaballo from the original text could imply a slanderous accusation. From history, we can know the manager is in a tenuous position. Neither the rich man nor his debtors completely trust him. He has to please both of them while attempting to gain profits from them.

Many interpreters also apply a capitalist’s viewpoint to these opening statements. Assumptions are made that the manager has failed in his ability to extract the correct amount of interest, or was accused of the type of banking malfeasance that we have seen in recent decades. If the setting of the story is a Jewish community, that analysis could not apply. The laws of Moses were clear on the subject of usury. That is not to say that there weren’t ways around those laws. Rather than looking for who is corrupt and who is just in this parable, it may make more sense if we see the whole corrupt system; the oppressors have found ways to hide the interest they are charging and the oppressed find it necessary to lie just to survive.

Some highlight the fact that the steward is not immediately dismissed, saying this is an act of Godly forgiveness. Instead he is told to get his books in order and explain his accounting. Some also note that the steward does not put up a protest, a seeming admission of guilt. It could be that he knows he is in a position of low power and a public display would only make matters worse for him.

Next we hear the thoughts of the manager, who has been accused of cheating the rich man,

   ³ “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— ⁴ I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’

A simple reading of this, with 21st century eyes, might sound like this manager is weak, not willing to do some hard work. What he would have known that isn’t explained to us here is that the demotion he is looking at, to beggar or laborer, is closer to a death sentence. Laborers did not enjoy long healthy lives. They worked hard because of the threat of becoming beggars. Once a beggar, his life may only last a few more years. Managers such as he were motivated by this threat and rich men made sure to maintain the pool of beggars through arbitrary firings.

   ⁵ “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
   ⁶ “‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.
   “The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’

A fifty percent cut. Anyone can easily understand this was good for the debtors. Who are these debtors? There were not very many middle men in this system. Most likely these are the people who worked the land. They might have been some type of merchant, the power relationships change little if they were.  If they were tenants, they would keep some of the produce for themselves, but must give much of it to the manager. The manager is probably taking a small cut of his own, off the books, and the land owner gets the lion’s share, but he in turn he is taxed by the Romans and is in constant competition with those of his class.

   ⁷ “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
   “‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.
   “He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’

The rich man is telling his tenants (the debtors) to grow olive oil and wheat.  From the perspective of our culture where all produce is a commodity, this doesn’t tell us much. A little understanding of agriculture at that time tells us much. The audience hearing these words would know that the rich man had used Roman law to force the peasants from their land and turned it from land that provided food for them to land that produced a commodity. Where once they could live off that land with their own labor, they now had to work for the rich man for whatever meager wage he would supply. The manager’s job was not only to handle the books and run the errands; he needed to know just how much he could squeeze out of the peasants. The master is careful to keep his hands clean of this and no matter how the manager explains his accounting; he will end up being blamed for some kind of wrongdoing.

Note also that the steward deals with each debtor individually. The debtors are not aware the he is about to be let go. They are all aware of the inherent corruption of the system and recognize that the amounts of the reductions are equivalent to the hidden interest. This paints the rich man into a corner and provides an explanation for the punch line of the parable.

   ^8a “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.

This is the difficult line, actually half line, that anyone who has equated the rich man, now referred to as the master, with God or Jesus or anything good. That good character is now praising the manager for cutting deals that significantly reduce his profits. If up to now you have painted the manager as lazy or corrupt, why is the master suddenly praising him? If the riches of the oil and wheat are equated with riches in heaven, why is it good that he reduced their value?

Herzog and others assume that the manager has brought the debtors and master together, back in the public light, putting the master in a position of refusing to honor the negotiations of the lowered prices, thus hurting his relationship with the debtors, or honoring them and saving face. If he protested, he would have to argue that he deserved the interest payment that was kept secret by silent agreement. His loss will only be short term. The debtors know they have got away with a deal this time but it won’t happen again soon. So the rich man has lost this hand, but new cards have been dealt for him.

In the end, all parties, normally at odds with each other, are happy with the current outcome and praising each other. The steward, although weak, has used one of the few weapons at his disposal to demonstrate his value. Briefly, the distinction of mine and thine was erased, giving all a glimpse of a more just world.

The following verses may or may not be from the original parable. This post is longer than usual and you may qualify for canonization if you have read this far. I won’t bore you with more details about when the book of Luke was written, who the actual author might have been, what his style was or any of the four or more theories about where this parable actually ends. Suffice it to say that these verses appear to be attempts to make sense of the parable, just as we are doing now.

^8b For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. ⁹ I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
   ¹⁰ “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. ¹¹ So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? ¹² And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?
   ¹³ “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
 ¹⁴ The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. ¹⁵ He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

*** Footnotes and references should be provided to clarify the reliability of statements in this article. I decided to forego them and refer you to Herzog’s work, a thorough and scholarly thesis. 

2012 Kickoff

Over the course of the last several years, I have searched for a perspective on ancient scriptures that could make sense. I discovered there are 30,000 perspectives on Christianity including something called The Emerging Church. I found an activist in my area who says that every church should be a peace church. For Christmas, I got a few books that have been on my list for a while, one of them says Everything Must Change. While waiting to unwrap them, I came across a tattoed, sarcastic Lutheran.

When I tired of looking for new leaders, I looked into more details about the old and dead people they were referencing, and found there was not much new under the sun. The recent authors, writers and leaders have brought some fresh language, some challenges that are more entertaining than the typical Sunday Sermon and, although it can’t proven, hopefully they have inspired some young people to participate in a world that would be happy to have them be disenfranchised consumers of a prepackaged culture. But the core message only changes slightly in flavor, not substance, and the substance is still paper thin.

Seeing young people inspired is an inspiration in itself. But it is not enough. Religion has been on the skids for 500 years. Warmed over versions of it have shown its amazing staying power but they don’t indicate real change. The latest techno hip-hop networked version is not emerging as anything that will stand out when this millennium is reviewed.

As I prefer concrete examples, take a closer look at the Sarcastic Lutheran’s sermon about Jesus walking on water and inspiring Peter to have faith and do the same.

The new packaging starts with the ripping of the old interpretation of the parable. And I agree completely with her assessment that simply telling someone to have faith doesn’t accomplish much. This begs the question of why she is there preaching on that very story, and she addresses that directly. She answers that God’s story speaks to us better than any other story. She only offers this as an assertion then moves on to suggesting ways to find yourself in the story. This is slightly better than just telling you what a sinner you are or who you should be, but she gets to the “shoulds” soon enough.

She moves on to her new and improved insight for the parable. She switches from you wanting to go walk on the water, to seeing that Jesus is coming to you. I see a room of twenty somethings leaning forward as Nadia dances through that first half of the sermon, then slumping back, some showing disappointment, some looking thoughtful as they try to figure out what the message was. Perhaps they discuss it over a macchiatto, or send a tweet, “Jesus walks on the water towards me #parable”. Hopefully they feel the sense of community as they clean up the park or visit the nursing home.

  

On to Christmas Day

When I unwrapped my books, I couldn’t decide on just one so I had to skim several. I found that Brian McLaren’s title “Everything Must Change” came from a Burundi woman living in Rwanda. He had met her while there on a mission trip just after the war in that country. They had been discussing the “essential” message of Jesus. The woman was stunned by this discussion and realized,

“I see that it is about changing this world, not just escaping it and retreating into our churches. If Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God is true, then everything must change. Everything must change.”

He goes on in the book to explain how he went through a personal conversion, from wanting to organize a church with celebrations and support groups to becoming a participant in working on global problems. I was attracted to the book because I agree that everything must change, or it is unlikely that anything resembling our current civilization will survive. What I doubt the book will address is why the presupposition of “If Jesus’ message…” is needed.

And Into the New Year

One of the other books I got comes a little closer to answering that. This one has been on my list for a long time. It contains a discussion of the original interpreter of The Parable of the Talents that inspired this blog. It is a rare look at the first century using historical analysis, rather than a theological one. There are attempts at this that claim to use historical analysis and the author, William Herzog, addresses them in his Introduction. He realized that previous interpreters started with an idea of what Jesus’ ministry was then fit the interpretation of the parables into that framework.

This would be expected in theology. There is an overriding theme that Jesus came to die for our sins and everything has to fit into that. An historical analysis can’t make such an assumption, or even assume that Jesus was thinking it when he spoke. In fact, an historical analysis can’t even assume that Jesus was an actual person that ever walked on this earth. The book does not go that far.

The sub-title of the book is “Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed”, and that is the assumption, the hypothesis, that he attempts to test against the analysis of the parables. He is selective of scripture and admits that it will not work on all scripture. He acknowledges the possibility that scripture may not always accurately reflect the original teachings either by misrepresentation from the time they were written or the introduction of later errors. I have only just started the book, but as yet I don’t see any hint that he would consider Jesus was a made up character.

So his historiography may not be perfect, but I am not aware of any similar application to this particular subject. With the increasingly disappointing results from theology in a world in need of teachers, it is long overdue. 

Jesus Retires

If I had more time or talent I would make a YouTube out of this or a cartoon or something. But here is a little script I wrote:

TV: (Play by play of baseball game. Fade this volume out as characters begin to speak. Props such as a ball, glove and bat for sound effects as well as a couple people imitating crowd noise could add to the scene.)

Jesus (watching a baseball game in an easy chair)

Mary (walking by, cleaning): Aren’t you supposed to be working today?

Jesus: This is work (picks up a stack of paper and slaps it down)

Mary: It sure doesn’t look like it.

Jesus: Mother, please, I have 10,000 people praying for a home run and 12,000 praying for a strike, not to mention a few dozen praying no one will get hurt and that one Methodist who just wants everybody to do their best. I have to figure out how to make this all look like they have free will but still need all my love and power.

Mary: Well okay, but don’t forget your father had plans today.

Jesus: What is Joseph up to now, he is not my real father you know.

Mary: Of course I know, he reminds me of how he got left out of the gospels almost every day. I mean God’s plan.

Jesus: Oh, right, now what?

Mary: He is still trying to work in adoption. He started that “Adoption, it’s part of God’s plan” campaign before he had all the details worked out and people are getting a little antsy waiting for some results.

Jesus: Why is this my problem? I go down there, tell them to think for themselves, I wrap it all up with “it is finished¹”, and they are still looking up in the sky for answers.

Mary: You told them think for themselves? I don’t remember that.

Jesus: Well, not exactly, Aramaic is so difficult and then Mark goes and writes in Greek... I said, “laws are for man²” or something like that, isn’t that clear?

Mary: Yes, well, the “man” part didn’t have much foresight, you could have at least mentioned your mother. Anyway, you also said you came to fulfill the law, not to change it³.

Jesus: As soon as someone figures out exactly which laws I was talking about, I’ll fulfill them. I’m pretty sure they won’t. Why do you think they say, “God works in mysterious ways”?

Mary: You also said you came with a sword⁴.

Jesus: That was allegory. It was about how change tends to tear families and communities apart. Who couldn’t get that? When Peter went to pull out a real sword, I told him to put it away⁵. How much more clear can I get?

Mary: Then why did you tell him to go get the sword in the first place⁶?

Jesus: There was a lot of ad-libbing while we were doing that scene, I can’t explain everything. Ya know, maybe I should just retire.

Mary: You can do that?

Jesus: Sure, the Father hasn’t been needed for ages, all the vanquishing is long done.  He’s just symbolic. And now the Holy Ghost is everywhere, flowers, baby’s cries, Muppet movies. The whole thing pretty much runs itself.

Mary: What about the game? (points to TV)

Jesus: If I choose which prayers to answer, we’d either have every batter hitting 1,000 or every pitcher pitching a perfect game. There wouldn’t be a game⁷.

Mary: What about the end of times?

Jesus: I still can’t figure out how Revelations got in there. The Greeks don’t use it, that’s why they get to be called “Orthodox”. Let them explain it to everyone else.

Mary: We have to leave them with some instructions.

Jesus: It’s all in the book. Or one of the millions of other books that have been written in the last 2,000 years. Look, Paul clearly said, “base the law on love⁸”, we’ll start that ad campaign and people will adopt out of compassion for their fellow human beings. They’ll be fine.

TV: (Slowly raise the volume of the announcer.)

Mary: Huh, okay, skooch over. (joins Jesus on the couch, grabs some snacks) Who’s playing?

Jesus: (Insert your favorite teams and scenario here. )

Mary: I never really understood bunting, why just tap it like that when you could hit it way out in that big grassy area.

Jesus: The outfield, right, well, it isn’t always that easy, you never know what is going to happen with each pitch, that’s what makes it so fun…..

1 John 19:28-30

2 Mark 2:27 to Mark 3:5

3 Matthew 5:17-20

4 Matthew 10:34-42

5 Luke 22:47-53

6 Luke 22:36-38

7 David James Duncan

9 Romans 13:8-10

Emerson

Ralph Waldo was a minister who had disagreements with doctrine and became a secular minister. He traveled across America in the mid 19th century "preaching" on manners, politics and literature. His words are as relevant today as they were then.

It is time that this ill-supported murmur of all thoughtful men against the famine of our churches... should be  heard through the sleep of indolence, and over the din of routine... 

The stationariness of religion: the assumption that the age of inspiration is past, that the Bible is closed; the fear of degrading the character of Jesus by representing him as a man; indicate with sufficient clearness the falsehood of our theology. It is the office of a true teacher to show us that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake. The true Christianity - a faith like Christs' in the infinitude of man, - is lost... 

Let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those most sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or veil... 

Yourself a newborn bard of the Holy Ghost, - cast behind you all conformity, and acquaint men at first hand with Deity... Look to it first and only... that fashion custom, authority, pleasure, and money are nothing to you, - are not bandages over your eyes, that you cannot see, - but live with the privilege of the immeasurable mind. 

The OTHER STUDENT

Stories, like the one in this link, sometimes get passed around as emails, sometimes appear on science vs. religion web sites, or sometimes actual people try them out. They are pretty crazy, but if you haven’t thought about them much, they can almost sound plausible.

It is a made up story where a student outsmarts a professor, but I would like to cover what would most likely happen in real life. This may be elementary for some, but hopefully a good exercise for others. I’ll even skip the part about the professor taking an attitude that he knows everything and his students are just empty vessels that need his wisdom. Certainly there are professors like that, just as there are priests like that. Fortunately, either one of them leaning into a student’s face and challenging them is becoming more and more rare.

The first argument that silences the professor and the class would not stump even the most elementary of philosophers. Terms such as “cold” are abstractions. If you want to get scientific about it, hot and cold are properties that are expressions of temperature. The OTHER STUDENT is right, “cold” is not really a scientific term. Temperature is relative. Cold to a person is hot to a polar bear. None of that matters. If the student has demonstrated anything, it is that some words are abstractions. I’m sure the philosopher would agree that “god” is a word that expresses something that is difficult to express. The same goes for the terms “light” and “dark”.

The next argument is at least two arguments meshed together and that mixing of arguments continues from here on. The OTHER STUDENT claims the professor is working on the premise of duality. What he then describes is actually a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. The professor is somewhat guilty of that. A false dichotomy presents two options, God exists or he doesn’t, demonstrates one of those is false, or can’t be proven, and concludes the other must be true. This leaves out the possibility of any other options or of either option being partially true. Philosophy professors love playing with these possibilities, so it is unlikely one would act like the one in this story.

Before discussing any of this, the OTHER STUDENT has already moved on to using a lack of scientific knowledge as proof. Specifically, science has yet to map a thought, or even understand exactly what one is. That only proves that we don’t know everything. To leap from there to believing that there is a powerful being behind creation is no argument at all. That form of argument is called “the argument from ignorance”, when faced with a lack of knowledge, make something up that is simple and easy to digest and claim that it is true. He then tries another abstraction about “life” and “death”.

Without taking a breath, he moves on to immorality and fires a couple more abstractions. In the story this puts the PROFESSOR on his heels, in reality the PROFESSOR would be thinking, “abstraction, abstraction, abstraction”. He would also be thinking about how “good” and “evil” can’t be used as properties in the same way that “hot” and “cold” are. But thinking he has the PROFESSOR in a corner, he pulls out the Bible. He needs it, because he is entering another area that science has not figured out, free will. He will need an authority to support anything he says about that and Biblical teaching relies on free will extensively. The OTHER STUDENT tries to use his “some things only exist as the absence of some other thing” argument and say the existence of immorality proves God’s existence, but this is so unbelievably flawed, that he needs to throw in a new question before the PROFESSOR can respond. In a classroom, or just about anywhere, that would be addressed.

Instead, the OTHER STUDENT is allowed to go on with more questions about whether or not evolution has ever been observed. It of course has been observed. One of the first accounts is by Aristotle who noticed hair color being passed on from one generation to the next. Darwin used the long observed practice of breeding dogs for desired traits as part of his research. Since Darwin, more and more transitional species have been observed in the fossil record. Darwin could not explain a mechanism, but Watson and Crick did. Since then observations of DNA have demonstrated how evolution occurs. High School students breed fruit flies in test tubes and observe the traits being passed on from generation to generation. The OTHER STUDENT apparently requires seeing something like a monkey begin to talk, as in the latest installment of the Planet of Apes series, as the only possible evidence for evolution. This discussion never happens in the story because the PROFESSOR is turning red and making sucking sounds through his teeth.

As an aside, humans did not evolve from the monkeys that we see in zoos today. Both of us evolved from a common ancestor a few hundred million years ago, some little furry butted thing that might have looked like a lemur. It is actually worse than monkeys. Before the lemur, we were fish and before that we were vegetables.

This leads to the crescendo, where the OTHER STUDENT proclaims, “SCIENCE IS FLAWED”. His final proof, a good joke that a 4th grade boy might be able to pull off on his little brother, but would never get past a PROFESSOR. The idea that the PROFESSOR has no brain because no one has ever observed it. Instead of teaching children that these kinds of jokes can be used as serious arguments in a university setting, we should be teaching them how we know things. It is this very flaw in arguing that leads to millions of dollars being invested in museums that show people in robes and sandals running around with dinosaurs.

We begin with our five senses, but we need a lot more than that to fully understand the universe. When Galileo extended our ability to see, he figured out that some of the lights in the sky were planets and we could finally fully understand why they moved the way they did. When we figured that things fit patterns that could be explained with formulas, we also figured out that those formulas could help explain things that we couldn’t observe directly. Epistemology is really pretty interesting, something you might learn at a university. Or just look it up.

Just as a simple example, here’s how we know the PROFESSOR has a brain. First we rely somewhat on the authorities. Just a few hundred years ago, people still accepted that Aristotle was right, and the brain was there to cool the blood. Emotions came from the heart or the gut, thoughts came from the soul. Now we point to our heads when we say “think” and little children pick this up and never question that it is the center of our nervous system. We accept that everyone needs a brain to remain an upright, walking, talking person. The PROFESSOR does not appear to be a robot, a hologram, a figment of our imagination or anything other than a real person. We accept that the university had some sort of process to determine that he was intelligent enough to teach the class. All of this would require a brain. So, barring any far fetched notions and implausible scenarios, he has one. If as a philosophy student, you want to argue that is not 100% positive proof, that’s fine, and exactly what philosophy is all about. As a proof that science is flawed, it is a misunderstanding of science.

Even if all of the other arguments of the OTHER STUDENT were accepted as sound, in the end, he has only proved that the existence of God cannot be disproved. Some scientists would argue that when enough evidence has been examined, a lack of evidence constitutes proof. We don’t really need to go there. We can at least say that there is not enough evidence to constitute a valid theory of God. Assuming we agree on the understanding of what a valid theory is. I’ll leave that for later.

Banned Questions VI

The final installment of my responses to some of the questions in Banned Question about the Bible by Christian Piatt. I know this hasn’t been my most exciting blog series, but it gave me a chance to comment on some new areas. The stack of books I’m getting for Christmas should prove to be more interesting.

Why would an all-knowing God begin the process of creation knowing that it would be corrupted by evil and lead to so much heartache?

Joshua Einshon tells a story of hearing the answer to this question in 9th grade. I can understand why the answer worked for him at that young age, but not as an adult. The answer is “free-will”. That is, God could have made a bunch of “wind up dolls”, but he didn’t. This answer is quite a bit more sick if you realize that this also means that God created us in a way that leaves us unsure if we should choose Him. It just leads you right back to the original question. Joshua restates the choice, saying it is between being loving to each other or not, which is really irrelevant to God’s existence. We do have that choice and that would seem to me to make the case that there is no God and we have to figure this out for ourselves.

This question contains within it a few theological questions that anyone who believes that they believe should consider. Is God all-knowing? What is time to God? Did he know the consequences of his creation? Why would he do it if knew it would turn out as it has? If He could give us more information to make an informed choice about Him, why wouldn’t He? What purpose could be served by leaving that choice up to His creation?

Why are there so many completely different interpretations?
This question goes unanswered in my opinion. I suppose because the obvious answer is that people throughout history have used the Bible to mean whatever it serves them to mean. The Bible does not provide answers that can be tested, or provide logical explanations. It chronicles a history of changing norms. Interpretations change depending on your knowledge of the author or the time of the writing. Leaving out some of that context, or making some up can easily alter what the text seems to mean.

This quote is typical, “The result of these multiple interpretations of passages is precisely why there is so much division among Christians and Jews – all of whom base their faith on the same text.” It is a logical fallacy, in that it states the reason as the explanation. It is similar to saying, “Ronald Reagan was the great communicator because he gave great speeches.”

Why are (or were) the Jewish people God’s chosen people? Why not someone else? Are Christians now God’s chosen people?
This is just a silly question and I only comment on it for comic relief. The Bible or any religion is about justifying yourself and your friends as the chosen ones. I’ll give Brandon Gilvin a little credit for having a discussion of the changing theism throughout the Bible, from Elohim to YHWH and the eventual switch to monotheism. But the more humorous statement comes from Christian Piatt,
“It’s no real surprise that those who wrote these scriptures down also are the ones chosen by God in the stories. The fact that men wrote the texts down probably had a similar effect in placing males at the top of the social pyramid.”

There is nothing in the surrounding text that gave me the sense that this was tongue-in-cheek. I know it doesn’t help, but the only response I have to this is, “Ya think!!?”

Banned Questions V

My continuation of comments and additional answers to the questions in “Banned Questions about the Bible”, a book by Christian Piatt.

Banned Questions IV

I skipped this one earlier but then thought it worth addressing:

In the Old Testament, God seems to be actively involved in world events. In the New Testament, God is portrayed as less interventionist but still directly involved. Now, it seems God is much more abstract. What happened, and is this a good or a bad thing?

Gary Peluos-Verdend completely confuses you with “it is important that we understand the interaction of god’s agency with human agency”. Jarrod McKenna goes quite a bit further, suggesting the question is easy. He dismisses any theology that would say god is elsewhere or that god is everything. He says God is the redeemer. I won’t try to explain that, but he tries by using a series of other words that theologians pretend have meaning like “web of creation”, Trinity, Incarnation, “heal the brokenness” and grace. This is all almost completely useless.

In an earlier time, a “banned question” would get you a smack on the back of the head, or time cleaning the pews. Now, it gets you a string of words that sound like they are important, and will keep busy if you want to find out what a bunch of people think they mean. In the end, you will find out that someone a long time ago started using these words, and since then, people have argued about what they might have meant.

Where are all the miracles?

This question has one of the stranger quotes in one of the answers. There is a brief discussion about televangelists and faith healers, then, “Perhaps we don’t see or hear about more miracles because too many Christians have made us too cynical. When we put God to the test in prayer, it may put undue pressure on everybody. “

This is really twisted. It avoids the question and tries to deflect the reader into loosening up their rational thought process. What pressure does it put on anybody to test whether or not prayer works? Since when is praying a test for God?

Christian Piatt has some nice words about the miracle of birth and the little, everyday miracles, but he also says, “There may have been a time when people miraculously received sight, walked on water, or came back from the dead.”

This is dangerous thinking. Either we can demonstrate that miracles happen or not. If we can demonstrate that they are currently not possible, then they were not possible in the past. By some definitions, miracles go against what we can prove to be possible, so if one was claimed to have happened in the past, the only way to disprove it is to have been there and have collected evidence. This sets up non-falisifiability and is as worthless as my claiming that there is a pink dragon in my garage, unless you go look, because he goes away when you look.

Modern Christians attempt to reconcile the modern world with the worlds of Jesus and Moses by creating a world that has physical laws that have changed over time. If that were true, science would not work.

Are there any mistakes in the Bible?

This question has been central to the de-conversion of many since the Enlightenment. Many people still focus on this. If you come from a community that claims there are no mistakes, but then you find some, I can understand that it would be important. Many sects have dealt with this by modernizing the notions of God’s word and revelation, as does this book. Finding books or websites that discuss the known discrepancies is not too difficult these days but unfortunately many people will still not find these until later in life and continue to be surprised by them.

David J. Lose starts out with an important distinction that anyone looking to the Bible for truth should consider. That people didn’t think in terms of facts the same way we do now. In a Marcus Borg’s Heart of Christianity, he says, “ “the pre-modern meanings of English words believe and believing and Latin word credo very different from what believing has come to mean in our time.” Credo “does not mean ‘I hereby agree to the literal-factual truth of the following statements.’ Rather its Latin roots combine to mean ‘I give my heart to.” The word itself is possibly related to French term cri de couer (cry of my heart)- meaning "a passionate belief that comes from the heart...Given the pre-modern meaning of ‘believe,’ to believe in God is to belove God.” (39-41)

They don’t include Borg’s book in their references, but in this brief answer, David does gives you a decent way of approaching the Bible. The rest is pretty much repeats of earlier commentary about the Bible being “inspired” instead of inerrant. Great for discussion with a fundamentalist, but elementary to someone who has already dealt with that question.

In some cases, Paul (the purported author of many New Testament books) seems to support women in leadership roles in church, and in others, he says, they have no place. Which is it? Any why the seeming contradiction?

Becky Garrison scores big again with this answer. Although others in this book have given passing references to translation problems, changing doctrine, unknown authorship and understanding historical context, Becky applies that knowledge skillfully to this answer. She addresses women covering their heads and suggests this was done because others in the Roman Empire were doing it, and a small persecuted religious sect probably should be pragmatic and not draw attention to itself. The stronger statement about women being submissive in Ephesians, was probably edited in later, according to scholars, says Becky. She ends with this whopper:

“As the church became more closely aligned with empire, it began to tone down some its more radical teachings, such as the full equality of all in Christ.”

I wish she had more time to develop that thesis.

David J. Lose reiterates some of what Becky says, and makes an interesting comment about how the New Testament chronicles the splits that may have been occurring in the early leaders. The Letter to Timothy, sometimes attribute to Paul but more likely came later, constrains gender equality. This pattern of splitting of doctrines soon after the death of the original authors can be seen in other major religions, such as the Sunni/Shia split for Muslims and the North/South split of Buddhism. Rather than diminish religion and expose it as a farce, these patterns of cultures dealing with values bring color to history and give us an opportunity to reopen the conversations. I find it much more interesting than trying to guess how Paul would have voted on the Equal Rights Amendment.

All 4 answers take a strong stand that Paul was following an egalitarian message of Jesus and the statements that clearly state otherwise were probably added later by a male dominated world. This is the clearest stand like this that I have seen in this book so far.

Who gets to decide which laws in the Bible are irrefutable, which laws are out of date, and which laws should be applied only in certain situations?

This is the essence of the problem with religion. People who think they know the answer to this question and ignore any actual laws of their government when they enforce what they believe is God’s law. Or more often, just tell you what they think you are doing wrong. Fortunately, the answers are light hearted and admit that no one should be deciding this, only attempting to understand it. Nadia Bolz-Weber sums it up best. She says she would like to just know the rules and then follow them, but, “To do this is to effectively leave Jesus idling in his van on the corner as though to say to him, ‘If we know what to do to be saved, we’ll just do that rather than rely on you’.”