FPC Log: Tepid Revolution (viii)

The windmills of Lewis County, NY

It's been awhile since we have had an "FPC Log" entry, which series examines issues in church decline and renewal.  The last one (number 7) looked at some of the characteristics of a "high vitality church.  The question is, of course, how does a church become or continue to be a vital, lively community of faith esp. in the face of so many countervailing cultural crosscurrents?  David Brooks in a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, "How to Fight the Man," offers some interesting insights.

Brooks starts with a video posted on YouTube by Jefferson Bethke called “Why I Hate Religion," which has "gone viral" as they say with over 18 million viewings. In the video, Bethke criticizes Christianity as a religion for being a facade that does not reflect the true meaning of the Christian faith. Brooks observes that Bethke subsequently backed off of his critique after receiving counter-criticism from several quarters including theologians. All of this reflects, according to Brooks, deeper issues about why our institutions seem to never change and what might constitute a better approach.  His advice is that before someone wants to engage in reform, they had better do their homework, namely read up on the issues involved and draw on the work of great thinkers in the field in order to gain a vision for change. He observes, "rebellion without a rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm."

Brooks makes a valid point.  Whether it be revolution or reform, one does have to have a sense of direction and an ultimate destination.  But what if the ultimate destination is not that clear because it draws its inspiration from an ancient religious movement that cannot possibly be duplicated in its original form?  That is the situation the historic churches face today.  In their decline, they do not adequately reflect the spirit, drive, motivation, dynamic, and faith of the early church, which they take as their model for what it means to be "the church."  They have to be something like that church but in the 21st century and in a myriad of particular settings no two of which are exactly the same.  That is not to say that contemporary mainline churches can't discover (or rediscover) a dynamic congregational life.  In fact, it is not to say that even in the declining churches there remains much vitality.  It is to say that vision isn't enough and study isn't enough if they lack another vital ingredient, namely they need to be a shared vision and a shared study.  One key to change is that it is best done in dialogue.

Gospel Husk - Mark 2:23-28 (xxx)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice

This posting is the 30th in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

I'm fairly sure that this passage from Mark 2:23-28 never happened as Mark described it (but see below). First, the author gives no specific time frame and offers no specific details, such as would lead us to feel there was an actual event involved. Second, why were Pharisees out walking in wheat fields with Jesus and his disciples on the Sabbath? Seems unlikely. Third, the whole scene must have taken place close to where Jesus and the disciples were lodging. Sabbath travel laws were strict, but the Pharisees didn't criticize the disciples for traveling on the Sabbath. But, if they were close to home and it being the Sabbath, would they have been likely to eat the wheat? Why didn't they just return their lodgings and eat there? What they did couldn't have been done casually, in spite of Mark making it seem that way. They transgressed the Sabbath Laws in a serious manner. The author may have made the story up entirely as the context for Jesus' teaching about keeping the Sabbath, specifically the statements in verses 27-28. Or, he may have pieced the story together from scattered fragments of his sources' memories and writings. Fourth, the whole sequence of events in 2:13-28 is artificial. Mark doesn't disguise that fact in any way. He's clearly presenting a line of argumentation. The story fits too neatly to be taken as an actual event.
Now, of course, one can invent a logical set of reasons why this story could have happened as Mark tells it. But those reasons have to be fairly complicated and aren't the sort of thing likely to have survived a generation of failing memory to reach Mark's time. What I'm saying is that there are none of those little details that have given other Marcan stories a sense of specificity and probability.

Note: I haven since come across information that, in fact, Jesus himself rejected the idea that picking grain on the Sabbath was a violation of it. The matter, evidently, was in dispute in his time, and he took a less strict view. Thus, an actual historical dispute is reflected here, and it's quite possible that the disciples actually did pick and eat the grain quite casually, knowing Jesus approved.

---

2012 comment: If it is true that the author of Mark depended on memories gathered through oral history interviews, a third scenario for this story is that one or more of "his" sources remembered something like it. The details of being out in the fields with the Pharisees watching does seem a little complex, but not far-fetched. It could have been that perhaps a Pharisee happened to see the disciples eating the grain on the Sabbath or heard that they did. However the details worked out, the point is that historians can be reasonably certain that Jesus held a view of the Sabbath that conflicted with that of some Pharisees. And the disciples could well have done what this story reports them doing. That is, there is an evidentiary basis to the story—which is the point of this whole long series of postings on the Gospel of Mark.

The New Community - Mark 2:13-28 (xxix)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice

This posting is the 29th in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

There are three stories included in this long passage (Mark 2:13-28), and they all follow on one connected theme. Jesus, through his actions, was defining the rules of behavior for his disciples in distinction from the social and religious norms of their society. It's important to note that the disciples are a constant presence of some importance in each story. In 2:16 the Pharisees ask them why Jesus ate with sinners. In 2:18ff their own behavior (failure to fast) is subject to question, and again in 2:23ff the behavior of the disciples (picking wheat on the Sabbath) is criticized. What we have here, in a sense, is a charter for the very earliest church. The Jesus Circle, according to Mark, maintained close social contact with social marginals and even includes them in its numbers. It defies conventional expectations concerning pious behavior (2:18-22). And, it doesn't assign ultimate significance to keeping the Jewish Law (2:23-28). The author makes no attempt to link these events chronologically. They are, rather, linked by the common theme mentioned above.

It's not clear at all that any of these events actually happened as such. They represent, I think, remembered values, sayings, and stories about the sorts of things Jesus did. Most of the details in the stories are generic rather than specific, excepting the name of Levi, the tax collector, and the fact that Jesus ate in his house (2:14-15). My own feeling is that in these verses we're located as much or more in the author's own time than in Jesus' time. He's defining, if I'm correct, the nature of Christian community for the church itself. He's describing and defining the church's identity, both to explain why the church is different from other religious entities and how church members should behave. Mark 2:21-22 (new patches and new wine) highlight the theme that the life of the new community is different from the social and religious norms of society. The church contains new wine (Jesus? the Holy Spirit?) and it requires a new wineskin. What we have here, in sum, is quite possibly a second generation Christian saying, " This is who we are. This is how we became who we are."

---

2012 comment: However, it is important to understand that the earliest church built its identity on its historical experience with the actual person of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether or not the stories reflect particular events or the church's memory of "the way" Jesus did things more generically, they still originate in the church's memories of Jesus.

Taking Multiverse on Faith

According to Alan P. Lightman's article, "The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith," published in December 2011 in Harper's Magazine, theoretical physicists are experiencing what seems to be a crisis of faith.  Discoveries in physics in the last two or more decades have not led to the hoped-for "Theory of Everything," which would distill our understanding of all of reality into one simple, elegant principle.  Instead, discoveries in quantum physics and astronomy have taken physics in opposite directions and suggest that there may not be a unifying principle that explains everything.  Most disturbing, apparently, is the theory of multiverse, which holds that there seem to be a limitless number of universes besides the one that we live in, which can have an infinite variety of configurations.  The fact that our universe is uniquely constructed to permit life on Earth thus is not caused by anything in particular.  We live in an "accidental" universe.  That being the case, the search for a unifying first principle that explains everything is a waste of time because "everything" is always going to be accidental.

The problem is that the theory of multiverse can't be proven and may never admit to proof because we are locked away in just one of that infinite number of universes.  We can't observe the rest because they don't exist in our universe.  The configuration of our universe suggests that they exist without offering any way to validate that they do, which means that the physicists have to take them on faith.  Yes, on faith.  This is a crisis, of sorts, because science is not about taking things on faith.  It is about research leading to empirical conclusions that are demonstrably true irrespective of what one believes about the subject under investigation.  However, it just may be that at the end of it all, empirical scientific investigation cannot lift the veil on the true nature of ultimate reality because its tools and techniques are too limited to do so.

Welcome, dear friends, to our world—the world of faith!

Theoretical physicists also usually cite the theory of multiverse to demonstrate that there is no intelligent creator of the universe.  Their thinking is that since this universe is accidental, there necessarily could not have been a divine designer of it.  There seems to be a fallacy in the argument so simple that this non-scientist must be missing something.  The fallacy is that if there are an infinite number of universes, then the one we live in is not accidental.  It is inevitable.  It had to happen.  One could argue, logically, that an intelligent creator (God) chose this method of creation as a way to insure that our universe, solar system, planet, and race would eventually come into existence.  Now, we're not talking about the Grandaddy in the Sky, which is what theoretical physicists seem to mean by the word, "God."  We are talking here about a Beyond, which we cannot imagine (anymore than we can imagine an infinite number of universes) that stands outside of the totality of the multiverse and set the whole shebang going in the first place.

For people of faith, the origin of our faith is not in the speculations of theoretical physics but in personal and communal experiences, which we believe point to a Creator God.  So far as we are concerned, whether physicists can craft a theory of everything or they believe in multiverse is neither here nor there.  Our faith is non dependent on their findings one way or another.  We would observe that if God is indeed who we believe (and trust) God to be, we are not surprised that science does not have the tools necessary for dealing with ultimate reality—i.e. God—because we have been wrestling with these same human limitations for as long as we have believed.

There's another thing I don't understand.  Why do those who think that the idea of God is far-fetched latch onto ideas like multiverse, which so far as I can see is just as far-fetched if not more so.  Where we point to experiences, they point to some vaguely conceived, half-formed mathematical formulations, which they admit they can probably never prove.  But, then, what do I know?  I'm "just" a theist.

Getting Closer

British scientists at the Universities of York and Nottingham report having taken a step towards understanding the origins of life on Earth. At some point, obviously, life had to emerge from lifelessness, and how that happened has remained a mystery. The University of York reports (here) that, "Organic chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life."  The news posting states that,

All biological molecules have an ability to exist as left-handed forms or right-handed forms. All sugars in biology are made up of the right-handed form of molecules and yet all the amino acids that make up the peptides and proteins are made up of the left-handed form. 

The researchers found using simple left-handed amino acids to catalyse the formation of sugars resulted in the production of predominately right-handed form of sugars. It could explain how carbohydrates originated and why the right-handed form dominates in nature.

This doesn't mean that scientist can now explain precisely how non-life became life, but it does mean that they are on the track of that explanation and that it is likely to be only a matter of time until they solve the puzzle of life.  Then, of course, our militant atheist friends will trumpet the achievement as further proof that there is no God while the creationists retreat to a new hidey-hole of things science can't yet explain to take their stand against evolution.  The atheists still won't be able to explain why matter had the potential to become life, and the creationists will still be denying the actual nature of the universe in order to protect a totally unnecessary interpretation of Genesis 1-2.  Between rejection and denial stands another faith possibility, one that sees in the cumulative findings of science insights into the nature of God's creation and thus, dimly, some sense of how God is at work in a continuing act of creation superintended among us by the Spirit of God.  It is one of the ongoing themes of Rom Phra Khun that we can embrace the findings of science without fear because they reflect creation's Creator, again however dimly.  Amen.

Jesus & the Agents of the Over Class - Mark 2:13-17 (xxviii)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice

This posting is the 28th in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

For 20 centuries Christian preachers have been castigating the tax collectors of Jesus' time as bad people--really, really bad people. Evidently, we've had good reason. Tax collectors were the oppressive agents of the over class. They made large, entirely legal profits by taking more from the people than they paid into the government's coffers. OK, they were "sinners," but they were wealthy oppressors, They did the over classes' dirty work for it and, in that sense, made the whole rotten, corrupt Roman system possible. They collected the money that paid the bills of oppression.

Thus, the Pharisees' question in Mark 2:16 is a fair one. Jesus, the exorcist and wisdom teacher, was supposed to be on the side of the people. So, what was he doing making up to the likes of tax collectors? To do so was unpatriotic. It also made him ritually unclean. Now, why would a supposedly pious man do such a thing? They must have suspected that Jesus was finding a way to fund his operation and pay the expenses on his home. His approach and bad attitudes weren't going to get him any funds from the pious wealthy. The poor didn't have much, if any, money. That left the dirty tax collectors as a viable source of funding.

Assuming that Jesus' motivation wasn't pecuniary, as hardly seems likely given the kind of man he was, then we're thrown back on Mark's explanation. Jesus trafficked with these sinners out of a sense of compassion for them. This, in spite of the fact that they were the minions of the over class. Jesus' compassion for the tax collectors provides, possibly, an explanation as to why Jesus openly challenged the pious over class. He did it to try to communicate the gospel to them as well. He apparently thought that he could do that only through daring acts of public compassion and by challenging the Pharisees and others to learn new ways of thinking.

Second Challenge - Mark 2:13-17 (xxvii)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice

This posting is the 27th in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

In this story in Mark 2:13-17, Jesus called Levi, the tax collector, to be a disciple. In the course of events, he sat down to a meal in Levi's home with a large gathering of socially objectionable people (2:15).  He did this in a public way and was seen by a group of Pharisees, who questioned his disciples about why Jesus ate "with such people" (2:16 TEV). For the second episode in a row (cf. 2:1-12), Jesus chose to confront representatives of the over class rather than ignore them. They didn't voice their criticisms directly to him, and he could have ignored them if he'd wanted to avoid a direct confrontation.  Jesus chose to challenge them.

Failing to Compromise about Compromise

Wiktionary provides the following definition for "compromise": "Noun compromise (plural compromises) 1. The settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. 2. A committal to something derogatory or objectionable; a prejudicial concession; a surrender; as, a compromise of character or right."

There is a huge gap between the first and second definitions.  The first one suggests working out differences through a process of give and take.  In the world of politics, politicians generally can only get things done if they compromise, and we speak of "principled compromise" as being a good thing.  The second definition takes the opposite view of compromise: to compromise is to "sell out" one's values.  It is thus immoral and ultimately detrimental to the well-being of the body politic.

In times past, Democrats and Republicans largely operated in the political sphere on the basis of definition one.  They practiced the art of compromise.  Not always, of course, and not always wisely or well.  But, messy as it is, politics by compromise allowed the two parties to work together.  Today, however, an important segment of the American public assigns exclusively the second definition to the word "compromise."  The video clip below captures the spirit of our politics beautifully.  In it, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner refuses to label as "compromise," the necessary political process of reaching agreements through a process of given and take.  He calls is the process, "finding common ground."  That is definition one.  When pushed to admit that finding common ground is compromising, he becomes a bit angry.  The video goes on to an exchange between a Republican pundit  and Democratic pundit regarding the meaning of the word "compromise," in which they become dismissive of each other.  They can't compromise over the meaning of the word "compromise."  It's one of those things that would seem silly if it weren't so sad.

What has happened is that the tea party wing of the Republican Party rejects definition one out of hand even to the point of rejecting compromises that weigh heavily in their favor.  That's why Speaker Boehner has to reject the word "compromise."  To their credit, the tea party representatives genuinely want to change the give and take gamesmanship of politics, which sometimes really does not work in the best interests of the nation.  But, they are learning that they can't change the culture of Washington alone.  They need "establishment" Republicans, independents, and Democrats to do so, all with their own concerns and agendas.  Even if they don't call it compromise, eventually they will have to learn to "find common ground" with the rest of the country if they want to accomplish anything at all.

Slowly, Slowly, A More Peaceful World

Flag of the Karen National Union

Various commentators and studies note that slowly the world seems to be becoming a more peaceful place.  Especially since the end of the Cold War, the statistics of international violence have been declining, and in various parts of the world the guns of war are falling silent.  Not all commentators are convinced, of course, that the world really is becoming more peaceful, but recent events in Burma (a.k.a. Myanmar) suggest there is some hope.  Until recently, Burma had seethed with armed revolution and bloody repression for all of the long decades since its independence in 1948.  It is only very recently that Burma's newly elected civilian government has been pursuing a policy of political, social, and economic reform and reconciliation aimed at bringing Burma back into the family of nations.  These reforms have led the U.S. government to agree to reestablish full diplomatic relations with Burma.

Notable among the peaceful changes taking place in Burma is a recent ceasefire between the government and the Karen National Union, representing the Karen tribal people of Burma.  The KNU has fought the oldest and largest of the ethnic wars against the Burmese government, and the declaration of a ceasefire is potentially very good and important news.  Burma's Karen have paid a long, heavy price for war with tens of thousands of refugees living in camps inside Thailand.  The Burmese military's repression of the Karen people has been particularly bloody and brutal.

The war isn't over yet.  No final agreement has been signed.  Still, the prospect of an end to what is considered to be the longest running war on Earth is welcome news indeed.  All eyes turn now to the nations of  western Asia and the hope that the people's revolts of the Arab Spring will take us, eventually, still a little further down the road to a more peaceful, just world.  Peace, we are often reminded, is more than the mere absence of war, and while that is true we'd settle for awhile with a world "merely" absent of war, yes we would.  Amen.

Woe Is Us

A recent news item on the Huffington Post (here), reports on the views of Rep. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, namely that, "the greatest minority under assault today are Christians. No doubt about it."  The posting, unfortunately, doesn't give more details about Scott's statement, only associating it with claims made by Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich has accused "the media" of ignoring what he terms, "anti-Christian bigotry," which he claims is much worse in the U.S. today than is Christian bigotry against others.

While there is no question that militant "new atheism" and others have been grabbing headlines with their anti-religion campaigns, the massive presence of organized religion and especially organized Christianity in the U.S. makes it impossible to take Scott and Gingrich seriously on this matter.  The Christian Right's zealous anti-abortion and anti-gay movements dwarf the efforts of the atheist folks, as does the considerable political clout of the Christian Right.  Even though most denominations in the U.S., including evangelical ones, are seeing decline in their numbers and the number of "unchurched" continues to grow, it will be a long time before Christians can seriously consider themselves a minority by any meaningful definition of the term.  Scott's sentiments are especially hard to take seriously considering where he hails from, the heart of the heart of the Bible belt, where evangelicalism is an unofficial "established religion."

It's "nice" of Scott and Gingrich to be worried about us (Christians), but what would seem to be more expressive of Christ himself would be a greater concern for the growing numbers of displaced and poor Americans for whom low income is far more oppressive than anything we Christians are experiencing.  Gingrich's rhetoric about the poor ("take a bath, get a job") seems especially wide of the mark given the economic realities we're facing today.  And, finally, historically Christians have sometimes even welcomed persecution because it is in such times that for some reason the church has best been able to share its message.