Genesis

I think the Genesis accounts demonstrate different conceptions of God, although trying to make a linear story from that is difficult for me.  I can see in the text roots from polytheistic people, people who understood their God to be quite physical and anthropomorphic, and people who saw their God’s power as more removed and perhaps privileged speech and naming.  I love that all of these roots are still in the text; in that sense I think it shows how people wanting to add “another way” in later years still honored the tradition before them and sought to avoid stamping out what we might consider contradictory.  That these early authors and collectors/protectors of these traditions sought to maintain the multiplicity of viewpoints is promising to me fore the future of religion.  Perhaps we can understand and experience God in diverse, contradictory ways, and still come together in worship and community.

That "Discernment" Thing

The bush burned alive with the truth and wonder of God.

"I Am that I Am," said God.

"What are you even talking about?"  I said.  "I don't get it."  I understood little, but I took off my shoes.

"I will be with you," said God.

"You didn't answer my question," I sighed.  "Where will I go?  What will I do?"

The mystery of God and the mystery of my future flamed before me in a beautiful, red ball of magic that seemed to move everywhere at once while staying still in front of me.  It was Truth, but I couldn't touch it.

I will follow you, I thought, and as I did, the road appeared before me.




The path is long and winding.  As I round each turn, I squint into the distance, trying to make out the future.

I came to a wall.  "I'm too short!" I yelled.  I waited for my reassignment, but the silence begged me to continue.  I climbed the wall.

I came to a river crossing.  "The water is too rough!  I will be swept away!" I said as I flopped down onto the sand.  I waited, but the only response I could hear was the water against the rocks.  I waded across.

I came to a narrow bridge.  "I guess it doesn't matter that I have terrible balance," I grumbled as I began to put one foot in front of the other.

Then the road ended






at the top of a cliff.

I looked down at the sunlight gleaming off of a world of possibility.  I looked around and found a hang-glider, a parachute, a bungee cord, and a rope ladder.

Exasperated, I sat down and stared into the distance, expecting a flag to wave in the distance.  "Here!  Here!  This way!"  they didn't say.  Only the sun glistened on the rooftops.

"Where am I going?  Where is this leading me?  How am I supposed to know what to do?" I cried.

"I Am that I Am," I heard echo all around me.  "I will be with you."

"Seriously?!"  I kicked the bungee cord off the cliff and watched it disappear.  I guess that's not an option, I suddenly realized.   I gathered the hang-glider, parachute, and ladder and stared at them, then back into the distance.

I don't know.  They all have their merits.

Lenses We Bring to Scripture

I think that transforming Christianity requires a continued search for new lenses and voices engaging with the text.  Being aware of our own cultural and contextual influences is important to this process and can help us to uncover when our vision may be limited, but we can never fully remove our own predispositions and biases.  Engaging alternative and varied voices therefore changes our own lives, perspectives, and helps us understand ourselves better, in turn bringing this varied perspective not only directly but indirectly to our interpretive work.  

If our work as theologians is, in many ways, counter-systematic work of resisting cultural normativity in search of the interstices where divinity lives (which I think it is), then we should also seek lenses of resistance by asking where resistance is in our time and place (and others) to ask how their lenses might inform our search and how that search might help us to embolden active resistance in the world.

Christian Education

Contrary to my expectations about what church education looked like, I found it can be diverse and multifaceted.  I have determined that I favor a Religious Education model that offers diverse and creative ways to learn and grow and that is based in an anthropology that sees humanity as reflections of Divinity, capable and responsible for co-creating a world in which we can live in harmony with other beings and our environments.  Assessing the needs and wants of a church will help me design programming that will resonate with a particular community and respect whatever theological and anthropological differences may exist within a congregation.  

Perhaps because I did not grow up in any church or attend any church educational programming as a youth, I made assumptions about what church education looked like; I assumed the main goal was to teach youth Bible stories and the interpretations of them that were standard for the particular denomination.  I have come to see that church education can have many forms and goals, from indoctrination to social transformation.  I have begun to think about what I would like both youth and adult education to look like in my church.  I would like youth education to adopt the Religious Education model and to offer diverse and creative ways for children to absorb material and grow in their understandings of faith.  I have also come to understand the need for a Needs Assessment– while I may want particular models of education, a church body may want or need something very different.  Likewise, I imagine adult education looking particular ways, but a community may have very different desires than I imagine.  Fundamental to creating programming that can reach a community and their needs is an anthropology that should dictate the way that I assess need and design programming for faith communities.  

Since it seems to me that more churches have youth educational programming than adult educational programming, it seems that children’s education is very important to many churches.  I have seen this truth alive in my home congregation as we have expanded our youth ministry staff, invested in Godly Play curriculum, and children and their well being continue to score high on surveys done by our church.  Considering how important youth programming is to families in faith communities, it is important to create quality programming that will be formational for youth and that parents are enthusiastic about.  While a needs assessment in any congregation is important in determining how to design programming for a particular context, I imagine that Fowler’s Stages of Faith would be important in considering how to design programming for particular age demographics.  Considering the types of thoughts and questions that youth in a particular age bracket might have when learning can help to form material that can elicit meaning for children of all ages.  

I imagine that this education would primarily fall under the category of “Religious Education,” but depending on the needs of a community, may encompass some “Sunday School” aspects (such as food or help reading).  Age-appropriate material would be important since, as Fowler articulates, faith tends to look very different at different stages of life and is perhaps more predictable at younger ages (1).  Certainly evangelism would not be part of Religious Education nor would I want to participate in programming that was.  The Religious Education model leaves choice about belief up to those learning and allows for well-rounded, social sciences-influenced programming to offer material to be absorbed in a variety of ways that allows youth to grapple with their questions and make meaning from biblical and religious material in their own ways (2).  I would hope to design programming that would also explore Christian practices and symbols so that while youth are encouraged to make their own meaning and ask questions about Bible stories, they would also come to understand our church’s particular ways of praxis and understanding.  I imagine programming that reads and acts out Bible stories, has “mock church” for children, and has time for personal art and written reflection so that youth can make their own meanings and explore what resonates with them (or does not!).  Despite whatever I might imagine youth and children's programming to look like in my future church, the Needs Assessment will be an important part of how I determine what educational programming will look like.

Jane Vella asks the important question, “Who needs what as determined by whom?” (3)  Upon accepting a ministerial position or taking on new roles at any church, it will be important to ask this question in order to determine the needs as people in the church may articulate them.  It will also be important to give time for observation before instituting changes in order to discern whether some needs that are present have not been articulated or are in conflict with those needs that are articulated.  It will be useful to discern how other patterns of teaching (sermons, worship, Bible studies, etc.) show how a community learns and likes to learn.  

I see adult education being a large part of my ministry.  Creating environments that can foster dialogue and growth are important to designing adult education.  In asking the WWW question, I can determine where interests lie in a church context.  Some congregations enjoy Bible study and exegetical work, while others (like my own church context) are more inclined to participate in programming around current social and justice issues, like immigration, environmentalism, or human trafficking– Bible studies are sparsely attended.  Understanding where general passions lie in a context can allow me to create programming that will be meaningful and desired in a church community.  

Part of this observation will be to determine how people in a particular context perceive themselves and their relationship to the Divine.  In my context of the UCC, wherein there is no creedal foundation, views of Jesus, God, and the human condition vary widely.  Determining how a particular congregation tends to view God, Jesus, and the human condition will allow me to create programming that will be understood and perhaps challenging to a church context.  In comparing a congregation’s theology, christology, and anthropology with my own, I can find ways of communicating that are authentic and meaningful to others and to find common ground to begin educational processes.  While I must live my anthropology, I must also make sure that I do not grasp it so tightly that I articulate my worldviews in ways that become empire-building over kingdom-building.  Christ will work differently in different people’s lives and I must honor the ways that other people represent him (4).

Thinking of how to find common ground requires me to examine my own beliefs.  I determined my anthropology to be the following:

Humans are manifestations of the Divine.  We act independently, but hopefully with our inherent interrelatedness in mind.  We are uniquely conscious and analytical in ways that other beings are not, which gives us great responsibility to act in ways that benefit the entire Earth system.  God aids us in this journey by luring us toward paths most advantageous to all, to enter into co-creating a better world until we reach a point of harmony.  This goal is one I refer to as “Kingdom.”

This anthropology is meaningful to me, but may not be for more traditionally-minded church-goers and may, on the surface at least, be at odds with the ways that people in a church context imagine their God and their role.  Finding common ground will allow me to articulate myself in ways that are meaningful to me, while allowing congregants to articulate and grow in their own beliefs in ways that are equally authentic and meaningful to them.  Living my values of interrelatedness and responsible stewardship while imagining my community as manifestations of Divinity will hopefully foster an environment in which adults can co-create meaning together while exploring issues that are important to their community and faith journey.

(1) Thomas Fowler, Becoming Adult. Becoming Christian.

(2) Models of education discussed in class on February 10, 2015.

(3) Jane Vella, Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach, 64.

(4) Thomas Groome, Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision, 268.

(5) Jane Vella, Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach, 4.

Meditation/Study Sounds #2

Here's another link for white noise.  I find these very helpful for both studying and meditation... much more so than music.

Number two:  Spring Stream Noise

Me Trying to Put My Life Back Together

la-ruiva:

me trying to put my life back together

Diarmaid MacCulloch

The Bible’s authority for Christians lies in the fact that they have a special relationship with it that can never be altered, like the relationship of parent and child. This does not deny relationships with other books which may be both deep and long-lasting, and it does not necessarily make the parental relationship easy or pleasant. It is simply of a different kind, and can never be abrogated. Once we see this, much modern neurosis about the authority of the Bible can be laid aside. Maybe the Bible can be taken seriously rather than literally.
Diarmaid MacCulloch, from Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

This echoes sentiments I have read from John Shelby Spong. Our relationship, like that of the relationship we have with our parents, matures over time. There comes a point when we can no longer see it as infallible, as the spotless book that is better than all of the other books. BUT WE LOVE IT. We love it deeply and messily. It is never perfect, but it is a true, IN YOUR BONES love. It is a connection I can’t deny or walk away from. It is a connection I will honor for the rest of my life. There is something about that book and its stories that is so different and meaningful to me in a way that nothing else is. It is beyond my ability to describe or relate and THAT is why I am a Christian: because that book makes me want to talk forever about it and leaves me speechless. I’m looking for the white fire.

Images of Leadership in the Hebrew Bible

Images of leadership in the biblical texts vary greatly between books and oftentimes within books. The first two books of the Bible, with focus on different time frames and different figures, can illustrate the differing of leadership figures we find within the text. Abraham, in the Book of Genesis, is willing to abuse and manipulate his wife and his concubine in order to get what he wants. His concerns as a leader are his homeland and his lineage. While Abraham is chosen by God to be patriarch, it is clear that he is incomplete and must transform in order to fill out his role. These themes repeat in Genesis as the patriarchs manipulate others and seek to continue their lineage and people. Moses, in contrast, reluctantly and violently begins his story. Moses acts as mediator between YHVH and the Hebrews through many divine encounters. He follows YHVH’s instructions and is able to liberate his people from oppression and deliver to them a legal system to form their society, but falls short of bringing them back to their promised land. While Abraham uses people in order to accomplish his goals, Moses liberates and defends his people.


When Abram, the apparent “father” of the Hebrew Nation is introduced, he is chosen by God, as the story tells us: YHVH promises Abram that YHVH “will bless [him], and make [his] name great,” further promising to bring fortune upon him and misfortune upon his enemies.(1) Abram goes to Egypt to avoid starvation, bringing his wife, Sarai, and uses her to gain better treatment. Sarai, a beautiful woman, is presented as Abram’s sister and the Pharaoh “took her for [his] wife.”(2) Calling back to this ancient people and their customs, we can recognize that Sarai, as Abram’s wife, would have been considered his property. He abuses his power society gives him over her and essentially trafficks her to the Egyptian ruler for personal gain. While we see little of how Sarai reacts to this affair and little explanation of how Pharaoh comes to learn of this deception, Abram and his wife are expelled with their wealth, offering a view of Abram and his family as nomadic herders. As Abram settles in Canaan, YHVH promises to give Abram and his lineage an expanse of land in that region (“for all the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever”).(3) Sarai, however, appears barren.


Perhaps we can see in the themes of barrenness present in the patriarch stories (Sarah, Rebekah) as a very real fear of a nomadic people. A wandering, herding people concerned with In-Group markers may feel that infertility threatens their people: the theme, arising in Genesis multiple times, likely marks a concern of the authoring people. However, as with the other figures who struggle with barrenness, Abram does have children and continues (or in his case, begins) the people. This begins, again, with an abuse of power (though not considered such at the time), this time by both Abram and Sarai. Sarai offers her servant, Hagar, (also considered property) to bear children for her husband. Hagar has a son, Ishmael, but in a story that may reflect origins with another tribe or histories of conflict between tribes, Ishmael, like other biblical figures, loses his claim when he (and his mother) are betrayed.


In later chapters, we see that when Abram and Sarai are chosen, they are incomplete– they are childless and must be transformed in order to have children. God gives them each an additional letter (Hebrew hei), renaming them and perhaps in this way, brings them under God’s “umbrella.” As we see in the earlier chapters of Genesis, predominantly in the “E” narratives, speech and naming is a prominent theme in creation. In naming Abraham and Sarah, God brings them under God’s care and claims them. This passage changes from referring to God as YHVH and progresses into usage of “God” (more often a translation of “Elohim” as opposed to YHVH). As the passage then reverts to the YHVH, anthropomorphic God who eats with Abraham and promises him a son by his wife, Sarah. In chapter 21, when Isaac is born, Sarah almost immediately calls for Ishmael and Hagar to be banished, which indeed they are.(4) Again Abraham, the leader of the tribe, abuses his power and sends of Hagar and his son, presumably because he now has a “better option.”


Abraham, the first of the Jewish patriarchs, begins the form for those that follow. Abraham needs to be transformed by God by naming (as does Jacob/Israel). He is portrayed as a nomadic herder, wealthy, as are those who follow. Abraham is deceptive, using and abusing others for his (and, presumably, his lineage’s) gain. He uses his wife in Egypt, uses Hagar, and then casts both Hagar and Ishmael aside. Similarly, Jacob will coerce Esau for power and his favorite wife, Rachel, will be barren (like Sarah) until she finally conceives. Perhaps in a turning from this story line, Joseph is coerced by his brothers because he is Jacob’s favorite. His brothers sell him into servitude and he no longer dwells in the family of his ancestors, but in Egypt, setting the stage for the Exodus storyline/s. Abraham is a manipulative leader, clearly willing to hurt others for his own gain and displaying ideas of people as property (as they were considered in the times these texts were written). His concerns, like those of the men who will continue his lineage, are for his tribe and their success and continuance as a people. As the stories of Genesis unfold and lead us back to Egypt, where Joseph dies with hope of his people returning to the land promised to them by God.


As Exodus begins, it illustrates that the Israelites have remained in Egypt, but are oppressed by a new Pharaoh who “did not know Joseph.”(5) In Chapter 2, we are introduced to Moses, who becomes the new leader and liberationist for the Hebrew people. Moses, although having an Egyptian name, is said to have been born of Levite lineage, qualifying him to be part of the Israelite tribe. The Egyptian king, then-ruler over the Hebrew people, is painted horribly as a ruler who not only enslaves the Israelites but then demands the murder of baby boys. When Moses reaches adulthood, he clearly has a concern for the wellbeing of his fellow Hebrew people, despite having been raised in the wealthy Egyptian family of the Pharaoh. He murders an Egyptian who is beating a Hebrew man and thereafter flees. Moses appears to be a reluctant leader who cannot help but follow the call of God. He must resist the suffering of the Hebrew people, even to the point of murder, which we might not advocate in our modern Western society, removed as it is from the death and disease that was more pervasive and on-the-surface of the ancient world. In self-exile, Moses takes on the role of shepherd, like the generations of Hebrews before. In Midian, he encounters YHVH (in the first of many divine encounters that mark his leadership) and is informed that he is to lead the Hebrews out of enslavement. Moses’ leadership involves a series of miracles/plagues, unlike the leaders who came before him. Through these miracles, done in concert with YHVH, Moses and the Hebrews escape from Egypt. Moses leads his people in their encampment, though the people are demanding of him in a way that Genesis leaders did not seem to face. He acts as mediator with YHVH, petitioning for them when they are thirsty,(6) warning them not to look at YHVH,(7) giving them God’s law,(8) and defending them after they formed a golden calf (whether as another god or a throne to their god).(9) Moses, the leader of the Israelites in Exodus, is liberator and mediator.


Moses begins his journey hesitantly and violently, killing a man in defense of a people he seemed never to publicly claim kinship with. After self-exile and an encounter with YHVH, he returns to Egypt to free the Hebrew slaves from an oppressive ruler. While Moses accomplishes this task and is able to keep the Hebrew people together in encampments for the next 40 years by acting as mediator between the people and YHVH and delivering the Law for the Hebrews to follow in order to live into their covenant; He does not ultimately bring them back to their homeland.


Abraham, the model patriarch, and Moses, the liberator of the Hebrews, show changing views of leadership between Genesis and Exodus. Abraham, concerned with building and preserving a lineage in covenant, uses those beneath him, often abusively so, in order to accomplish his goal of building his people and populating the promised land. His lineage will use other forms of manipulation and struggle with barrenness/threat to their people. When Genesis closes, this formerly shepherd/nomadic people arrive in Egypt to survive. As Exodus begins, Moses is reluctant to embrace his heritage but does so in violent defense of another Hebrew man. He flees until a divine encounter. Henceforth Moses acts as mediator between YHVH and the Hebrews, defending them at times from YHVH’s wrath and informing them of YHVH’s will. With miraculous powers, Moses and YHVH help the Hebrew people escape oppression and come into their own identity. Moses delivers the covenant law (perhaps a new way to guard their lineage and tibe) and continues to defend the Hebrews when YHVH becomes angry with them. While both leadership models are strongly rooted in an ethnic identity and its formation and protection, Abraham seems to abuse those beneath him (“making the hard decisions”) in order to walk his path, while Moses liberates his people from an abusive power and protects them both from government and, at times, YHVH.



1. Wayne A. Meeks, The Harpercollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, with the Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1993), 20.
2. Wayne A. Meeks, The Harpercollins Study Bible, 21.
3. Wayne A. Meeks, The Harpercollins Study Bible, 21.
4. Wayne A. Meeks, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 31.
5. Wayne A. Meeks, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 79.
6. Wayne A. Meeks, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 110.
7. Wayne A. Meeks, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 115.
8. Wayne A. Meeks, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 115-135.
9. Wayne A. Meeks, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 138.












Works Cited

Meeks, Wayne A. The Harpercollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, with the Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books. New York, NY: HarperOne, 1993.

Mary Ann Tolbert

“The doctrine of biblical authority has generally functioned to assure not the continuing importance of widely attested or programatic themes in scripture, but rather the divine inspiration of the tenuous and the marginal. Indeed, from just a superficial overview of Christian history since the Reformation, the invocation of the tenet of biblical authority has been remarkably negative; that is, it has been employed most often to exclude certain groups or people, to pass judgment on various disapproved activities, and to justify morally or historically debatable positions.” —Mary Ann Tolbert



Just as a reminder, I know that many of my non-religious friends like to group Christians/religious folks into the same category. Not all Christians use the Bible like a weapon or give it literal authority, nor do all science-minded folks agree with how science has been used to advance weapons technology and use drone strikes to kill innocent civilians.



Please remember that your own experience of religion is only your own and is limited to your own families and social circles and the folks you like to listen to on the radio/TV.

Genesis

I think the Genesis accounts demonstrate different conceptions of God, although trying to make a linear story from that is difficult for me.  I can see in the text roots from polytheistic people, people who understood their God to be quite physical and anthropomorphic, and people who saw their God’s power as more removed and perhaps privileged speech and naming.  I love that all of these roots are still in the text; in that sense I think it shows how people wanting to add “another way” in later years still honored the tradition before them and sought to avoid stamping out what we might consider contradictory.  That these early authors and collectors/protectors of these traditions sought to maintain the multiplicity of viewpoints is promising to me for the future of religion.  Perhaps we can understand and experience God in diverse, contradictory ways, and still come together in worship and community.

Preaching

Preaching

Follow the Light (Sermon from Jan 6, 2019, Epiphany)

When I was younger, the only thing I really knew about Jesus was the manger story. My grandparents had the manger scene with little porcelain figures and a manger my grandfather had made of wood and newspaper. I knew about this little holy family, and that the stories said Jesus was born in this manger-thing (I mean, what even is a manger?), and that there were animals and a shepherd and 3 wise men or magi.



I was basically the only Bible story I knew. For those of you who don’t know, I wasn’t raised in a religious environment. I grew up among my Irish Catholic family in California, but my parents left their religions of birth. So my younger sisters and I had only been to church a handful of times as kids, and I really couldn’t tell you what happened. I was mostly playing with She-Ra dolls in the pews.



My grandma and grandpa had this big painting of Jesus in their bedroom. I was at their house all the time because mother’s parents, the Irish Catholic ones, while my parents were at work.




Well, when I was little, I thought it was my dad. Because all I really knew Jesus was that little baby-in-a-manger Jesus that sat on my grandparents’ piano at Christmas time.



So when I was little, I knew very little about Jesus. I knew he was important, I knew Christmas as supposed to have been his birthday and perhaps apart from a couple anecdotes, all I knew was the simple Christmas story-- Jesus was born in that manger thing and the magi followed a star to bring him gifts that sounded fancy. I knew gold was fancy, so I figured frankincense and myrrh must have been, too.



And they are fancy. They’re gifts that were for kings. Back in the time and place of Jesus, a King was really the most powerful and important thing you could be, which is what this story is trying to tell us. But Jesus clearly isn’t an actual king.



The passage mentions King Herod, right?



But this baby, with a strange birth, born a very poor refugee, is important and powerful, but in a way wholly unlike what power looked like at that time, right? Powerful people are born in big, fancy places, not among farm animals to a scandalized woman. But these wise men give these super fancy gifts to Jesus.



It’s flipping ideas of power at the time on their heads. It’s royal offerings to a poor child. It’s setting the stage for someone who will challenge power and claim that true power is among the people, maybe even among the animals, and comes from something else.



It’s calling for a different way of looking at things, a different way of leading.



When I think about what’s going on in our world, I think I kind of feel like the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. I’m not super happy with all of our leaders right now-- I think some of them are pretty terrible.



The Gospel of Matthew was written during a time of struggling powers. In those early times in Christian history, the communities that followed Jesus were doing something pretty different.



And these communities tell stories of leadership that says “NO” to an ugly use of power and decides to share wealth with a poor family.



They celebrate weekly feasts at which ALL KINDS of people-- rich, poor, indentured, free, Roman citizens and occupied peoples, those healthy and sick-- all together… which was super taboo at the time.



And this kind of thinking starts from the very beginning of the story, right?



This story with the 3 magi is only in two gospels and we have very few stories from Jesus’ early life. I don’t know if this story happened this way-- it probably didn’t happen this way-- but I think it’s true.



These magi or astrologers find a different way. They don’t go back to King Herod. They choose the path of light and life and giving extravagantly. They know where the true power lies-- humility, respect, sharing-- using power for good and resisting power when it does things wrong. They give what they have of value to Jesus before they go back home.



When I think of this story, I always ask of myself, “What do I have to give?”



So I want to share a poem that helps me think about how I can best serve:



This is “Clearing” by Martha Postlewaite



Do not try to save

the whole world

or do anything grandiose.

Instead, create a clearing

in the dense forest of your life

and wait there

patiently,

until the song

that is your life

falls into your own cupped hands

and you recognize and greet it.

Only then will you know

how to give yourself

to this world

so worthy of rescue.



So my hope for this year is that we all find ways to best give of ourselves, whatever that means. Whether it’s to turn around your story and flip expectations, to give extravagantly and unexpectedly, or … or and/or… to continue trekking forward toward whatever light we’re following.



May it be so.



Amen.

Early Israelites Lived in Extended Households

Most of the Israelites in the Iron I and Iron II periods lived in extended households.  Families were composed of multiple generations (up to 3) and may have had multiple wives.  Sons would have stayed in the same household and daughters would have married out.  They would have lived together in one house.  Ancestors could also still be considered part of the extended family.

Catherine Keller

“You this moment come forth, a wave freshly breaking on the face of the deep. In an ocean of overlapping waves, all new, all different.

"Perhaps every creature in a creature’s own way is called. Persons personally, animals bestially, plants vegetably… Among persons, a tinge of consciousness of this lure lets us choose— to grasp a fresh possibility, or not…

"Here is the question, perhaps finally the only question that matters: In this moment, will you somehow materialize the possibility? Will you in traditional language heed God’s will? Like a way cresting, turning, might you sense the wisdom for this moment? Do you begin, however minutely, to embody the love that is possible— in this moment, this time, this place?”

Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 100.

Matthew 2:1-12 (NRSV)

Matthew 2:1-12
In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, ‘Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.’ When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:
“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
who is to shepherd my people Israel.” ’
Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ‘Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.’ When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure-chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

The Avatar by Kerry Hardie

"The Avatar" by Kerry Hardie



Listen, this is the trinity, he said, tramping the wet road
in the thin well-being of winter morning:
God the curlew, God the eider,
God the cheese-on-toast.
To his right a huddle of small blue mountains
squatted together discussing the recent storm.
To his left the sea washed.

I thought it was whimsical, what he said,
I condemned it as fey.
Then I saw that he meant it; that, unlike me,
he had no quarrel
with himself, could see his own glory
was young enough for faith still in flesh and in being.
He was not attracted by awe

or a high cold cleanness
but imagined a god as intimate
as the trickles of blood and juice that coursed about inside him,
a god he could eat or warm his hands on,
a low god for winter:
belly-weighted, with the unmistakable call
of the bog curlew or the sea-going eider.

Temptation

The Heart of a Child and the Mind of a Scholar

Religion is never about facts. Our ancestors knew this, despite their lack of knowledge about so much else. This is apparent in the ways they kept histories. True beauty is seldom derived from fact.

As much as Humanity has learned throughout history, one broad failure is the way we have treated religion. We, as a species, love to learn. (It’s a good thing.) Problems, however, come when we try to defend old “knowledge” in the face of new.

Take any creation myth. While centuries ago, believing a culture’s creation myth to be literally true my not have been so absurd and illogical, it certainly is today. Really, now— even the Pope believes in evolution. The problem arises when we try to make an old system fit into our new paradigm. Creationists who try to use science to defend their theories (which science clearly does not) or who posit that God is trying to fool us in a test of faith (really?) are making silly attempts at defending an illogical belief.

Perhaps what we should be asking ourselves is not how to defend our myths, but how to better understand them. After all, there is little reason to believe the point of any scripture is to establish facts. There is little reason to believe our ancestors took such care in preserving our tradition so that we can know how long it took to form our world. In all reality, knowing the specifics of creation is about as useful as me knowing the name of whoever built my desk— not very.

Why should we get our panties in a bunch about something that wasn’t the point of the story and in the grand scheme of things is rather peripheral? The point of scripture is its meaningful aspects; those aspects cannot be affected by science or history and needn’t be at odds with them. Perhaps we can derive from Genesis a story about how beautiful our natural world is. Perhaps we can see how the increasing diversity in our world is a great pleasure to God. Perhaps we can see that it is impossible to deceive God. Perhaps we can learn that the pursuit of knowledge can be horribly damaging if it’s in defiance of morality. Perhaps we can find that our actions are only ever our own and that placing blame on God or others cannot justify acts of betrayal. Not one of these lessons is derived from the “facts.” They’re from the story. The details of the story are not why it’s been repeated for thousands of years; it’s the lessons that we are supposed to remember. My belief in evolution doesn’t contradict any of these lessons. 

What the evolving human mind needs to do is not to suspend logic for fear of displeasing a puppet master god, but to embrace logic and use it to unpack scripture which has provided spiritual sustenance to our species for generations upon generations.

We should approach scripture with the hearts of children and the minds of scholars. We deserve no less.

I've started working on a book called "The Heretic's Bible."  I'm starting with the Torah.  I hope you'll join me on this journey.

If I Translated the First Line of Genesis

In one of my classes, we discussed the first line of Genesis and the words and letters in Hebrew that form it. Based on my understanding of Hebrew and the intentionalities of words and letters, if I were to translate the first line of Genesis, it would read as follows:

In a beginning of this thought, the Divine created mother earth and the beyonds and word to tell of this creation.

White Noise to Study or Meditate #1

I'm going to share some meditation sounds which can also be used for studying.  All are from the same place, but these are my selections from them.

Here's the first:  Rain Sounds

The night before preaching

seekinguncertainty:

The night before preaching

The Experience of Mexican Immigrants in the Early 20th Century

Because of laws restricting immigration from other countries, Mexicans were allowed to immigrate at rates that other immigrant groups were not. This led to a large amount of Mexican immigrants, comparatively. This concerned European Americans, many of whom desired racial homogeneity-- or at least dominance. A petition of educators in 1927 led to Mexico’s inclusion in the quota system and restricted their immigration going forward. Many feared that European Americans would lose their position of dominance in society and a more racially diverse America would emerge. The Great Depression also contributed to the level of racism among white Americans as job insecurity increased and, again, people in lower economic classes were pitted against each other in competition for work. Many Mexicans were “repatriated,” including many who were American citizens.

Today’s political atmosphere continues to demonize immigrant labor as “taking work from American citizens.” Such language seems to be thinly veiled racism, as Latin American immigrants face the brunt of this discrimination. While in the past, Mexican and other Latin American immigrants could easily cross over the American border, border security has increased to levels which make undocumented immigration very difficult. Walls and security fences have been erected, patrols of armed law enforcement are a dominant presence along the border, and civilian militia threaten immigrants in some areas. Similarly, in different times, immigrant labor has been encouraged as a way to industrialize America and complete government projects; in today’s world of financial insecurity and increasing divide between rich and poor, dialogue seems to parallel the scapegoating that existed during the Great Depression-- many Americans feel that undocumented labor threatens the financial well being of citizens (the subtext amounting to “white Americans”).

Call to Worship for Epiphany One

One: We follow the light in search of goodness

Many:  We follow the light in search of love

One:  May it illuminate what is good

Many:  May it teach us how to love

One:  We follow the light among the darkness

Many:  We know that God separates the light from darkness and shows us the Prince of Peace

All:  May we love the light, selflessly journeying to offer ourselves to Goodness and Love.

So I've Started a New Project

I'm writing a book.  I'm calling it "The Heretic's Bible" and it is a telling of Bible stories... or maybe a translation?  It's something.  I'm a few chapters into Genesis so far... 

I think it's like, "Bible stories for a modern mind" or something.

Trying to figure out how to publish and whether starting online might be good?  I dunno.  I need to think on that some more. 

Anyway, I am starting with the Torah and may do the Gospels after that...

Hey, I'm Preaching on Sunday

If you're around, I'm preaching January 6, Epiphany Sunday, at my spiritual community, Peace United Church of Christ.

It'll be an all-ages service, which means my sermon will be appropriate for children and not very long.

Word.

Early Mexican Experience in the U.S.

Anglo Americans viewed Mexicans as lazy and poor stewards of land, much like Anglo Americans viewed all cultures unlike their own. I hear similar forms of racism in today’s dialogue surrounding immigration, which is largely (whether explicitly or implicitly) focused on immigrants from South America.

Americans were treated fairly hospitably when they immigrated to Northern Mexico. Many of Mexico’s elite appreciated their presence. However, when numbers of Americans in Mexican territories began to vastly outnumber the Mexican presence, people sought to limit immigration of folks from the U.S. Despite that, Americans continued to immigrate illegally to Northern Mexico, a reality that seems paradoxical in light of current political realities.

As Mexican immigrants take the brunt of racist anti-immigrant rhetoric in the U.S. and many U.S. citizens seek to limit and deport undocumented immigrants, the reality that many are residing in land that used to belong to their people, speaking a language that used to be the language of the land, and disobeying laws similar to those that were disobeyed by the population that would ultimately violently take their land, speaks to the short memory and willful ignorance of many Americans, as well as the pervasiveness of the kinds of mentalities that led Americans to discriminate and wage war against people unlike them and to continue to devalue the lifestyles and cultures of those even nominally unlike them.

This undoubtedly creates strained relationships between the U.S. and our political and cultural neighbors. Not only does our history of violence and oppression color our current interactions, it continues the narrative of white colonialism and racist governing. Many of our laws and trade agreements (NAFTA comes to mind) continue to exacerbate our relationship with other countries as we leverage our national power in ways that continue to impoverish and oppress other communities, whether by forcing western models of industry on countries who have little desire for them, invading countries to plunder resources and gain advantageous trade agreements under the guise of good will, or gerrymandering political districts and pushing minority populations within our own country into ghettos where they lack the resources and agency afforded to those in dominant circles.