Grace: Redefined ?

Is “Grace” a dirty word?

By its dictionary definition, grace means “beauty of form,” or “a pleasing or attractive quality.” Other definitions include “favor or good will,” “mercy,” and “pardon.”  In Christian theology, Grace usually adapts these definitions to become God’s Love, God’s favor, God’s pardon, God’s influence, or as the good folk(s) who posted it on Wikipedia word it [under Grace (Christianity)] “a spontaneous, unmerited gift of divine favor for his [God's] children- a favor most manifest in the salvation of sinners.” Overlooking the obvious lack of inclusive language which in a “dictionary” definition in 2010 borders on theistic silliness, the Wiki for this obviously comes down very specific on one (which isn’t the only) traditional interpretation of this “grace” concept.

As a religion student, I have experienced an overload of grace these past few weeks–in concept that is. Studying Medieval Theology in one course and  Reformation and Catholic Renewal Theology in another course, I’ve been pouring over the nuances various Christian intellectuals have devised in working out what this grace thing is all about and who it is truly for. In other areas, say in my study of Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, I’ve yet to find a strong parallel to the concept; is Grace in this manner unique wholly to Christian thought?

There’s a world of difference between “God’s Love, freely given” and “God’s favor, freely given.” Favor translates to preference, as in “chosen,” as in: God picking one person (or group) over another. This is an old concept, one that predates the towering thought of Augustine whose radical approach to the doctrine of grace shadowed over every version to emerge after in theological quandaries of grace; the idea of God “choosing” and having favor for one over another is actually found in scripture itself, notably “Jacob have I loved but Esau I hated.” Paul quotes that Genesis passage in his letter to the Romans, a letter that was pretty much the sum total of Martin Luther’s theology and arguably Calvin’s as well. The concept of election is one of the many threads that runs throughout the entire Old Testament and that concept was given a baptism and thus seen through a Christian lens in the letters and documents that became the New Testament.

Yet…election as expounded by Christian thinkers starting with Augustine in 4th century CE is something quite different than election as followed by most Jewish thinkers, believers, and expounders of the Hebrew scriptures. Election for the Israelites meant they were chosen by God to be a special people. That choseness resulted in responsibility; that election held those in Covenant with God to be keepers of Torah and to be the people through whom God would transform all of the world. As I understand it, the Israelites were elected to be held to a higher standard, to be set apart, to live and be the way that God’s love would be shown to all of the world. The status of being God’s elect for those descendants of Abraham and Moses came with an obligation to do justice for all–to be mindful of the stranger, the outsider of the clan and people, but not with the goal of bringing that outsider into the faith; typically in history Jews have not thought others must be Jewish to be in right standing with God.

So, as I mentioned earlier, as of yet I haven’t found a true parallel to the Christian concept of grace in other faiths. In Islam, the law can be held by any who submits to God–one isn’t expected to wait to be chosen, one simply must submit to the One true God and keep God’s commands and ultimately “salvation” comes through that submission. In Hinduism (though that’s somewhat of a misnomer since Hinduism is a wide range of beliefs and practices amongst its sects), karma isn’t based on anything arbitrary–you pay the price for your actions, you are not chosen to be born a certain way. In Buddhism, enlightenment is not a random outside placed benefit, it is something one must strive for. And as just discussed, Judaism sees election as a responsibility more than a reward.

Christian theology starting with Augustine did something quite different, however. Augustine wrote in favor of free will and one’s personal involvement in salvation early in his career, but claimed that grace simply wouldn’t allow him to hold to such false perceptions–in the end, Augustine submitted to what he felt was a rather hard doctrine but one that was true and reflected the Sovereignty of God–grace for some, but not all. For Augustine, Grace became the will of God. Grace is God’s favor for some–God’s act of placing a person in a particular time and place, that they might be born in a context in which they would hear the gospel, accept it as true, live it out, and persevere until the end. Grace became an all encompassing act, one reflecting God’s utmost sovereignty; God has such complete control and acts in such particular attention to the details that no one will attain salvation without God arranging every detail in a way that they will hear and accept the one exclusive and particular truth. Furthermore, no one can know who is truly given that gift of grace because for it to be real it must “persevere” until the end of that persons life; one might be dying in a hospital bed yet be undergoing a transformation born of grace and the rest of the world would not know it; one might lead a perfectly moral life until the day they die yet “slip into sin” that very day, hours before dying and thus ruining the whole run. Yet all the while, these events are ultimately through the actions of God. No one can choose to do the good in Augustinian thought–one can, in their human sinfulness inherited with birth, only opt for evil. The act of doing good, the act of accepting truth and persevering is a gift of God–it is Grace–and it is given freely by God with no personal merit earning it . One cannot even prepare for God’s grace–it comes when it does and it is irresistible. A person can neither reject nor pursue it. This works out to justice for Augustine because only God is good and due to Augustine’s conception of original sin, we are all born deserving hell and damnation so the very fact that God opts to “elect” even a few is merciful.

Now, Augustine’s view of Grace, though radical at the time of it’s introduction, became the norm in most aspects; it was from that perception that all later Christian thinkers worked, either in favor or in opposition to it. Prosper of Aquitaine worked tirelessly in defending and spreading this view at the beginning of the medieval period before developing his own unique view which separated Grace into 4 categories (running the gamut of general grace which is love for all to the real saving grace which is only for a few). Eventually near the end of the Medieval period, those like Julian of Norwich hinted at a universal grace which would result in the love and salvation of all in the end (though Universal Salvation had already been teased at and worked on by, to name one person, the brilliant early Christian theologian Origen who was later declared a heretic). Then came the time of the Reformation and grace became a key concept in the division between the Catholic Renewal and the formation of Protestant churches. When the dust settled, protestants like Luther and Calvin held tightly to a freely given, unmerited grace that is irresistable and for some, not all; this grace is saving and a person cannot work towards or even prepare themselves for it. Grace works to make our sinful self appear righteous to God since Christ “stands in” for us through his living sacrifice (which opens the whole can of atonement since it assumes substitution atonement is the correct view from the start, an issue there isn’t space for here). For Luther, you can never be good enough so the idea that Grace is random and free and not contingent on any good works was very freeing; his anxiousness and certainty of burning in hell could be abated and he could relax in the knowledge of his own justification and head to the pub for beers. Calvin held to the same basic theory but rather than relaxing as a result of believing it instead began the process of Puritanically structuring Genevan society to reflect “proper” Christian piety to display the affect and proof of justification. Now for Catholic Renewal Theology, on the other hand, as expressed at The Council of Trent and in books like Teresa of Avila’s autobiography, a person must do a bit of work in their own justification. Those like Teresa wrote of “preparing” one’s self for spiritual depth by praying no matter how difficult it might seem. The Catholic Church came down on the side of salvation coming through both faith and works, that a person must prepare themselves for receiving Grace. Even though that preparation is aided by God it still involves the choice and active participation of the individual.

Okay…so wading through and contemplating these various looks at Grace and salvation, trying my best to understand them, I began pondering how odd it is that a word that sounds so compassionate can mean so many things that are exclusive, cold, and even distant.  I’ve written on this site before about things like salvation and even posted my own reformulation of the main articles typically contained in a statement of faith, and I realize my ideas and opinions take on a much more pluralistic view of things so much of traditionally exclusivity I reject out of hand. I also realize that in the past, even in earlier articles on this site, I’ve rejected positions without attempting to fully understand them. When I first jumped back into studying religion and theology, I came down fast and hard on disproving or discrediting a lot of traditional views in favor of the “correct” ones I had discovered; a lot of that came from my own hang-ups, of seeing the drastic difference between the type of theology and church I had found after years of not having one and the type I thought I had known and rejected. To be honest, my raking over the coals of a figure like John Piper occurred when I didn’t fully understand the basis of the theology he was trying to reclaim, specifically that of Augustinian Grace.  So looking now at Augustine and trying to be objective, I will say that there is beauty and care in it; the idea that God moved every molecule to choose you as an individual must seem like pure awesomeness to one who accepts it. It pictures a detailed and fully involved God who is concerned with every detail and the belief that you are one of God’s chosen must give an incredible since of “somebodyness” to a person, especially someone who has and is facing terrible situations. Furthermore, this theory can fit nicely together in a package with scripture, church, and service. The idea that this concept can be found in scripture is not false; it links together nicely and it is certainly a thread there to see and hold to. I think a view of inerrancy in conjunction with a theology that holds biblical authority at the highest works well with this theory.

But…I don’t think this theory is a must, certainly not in the way that Augustine did. He felt it caught him and forced him to declare it even though he personally felt it to be a cold and hard doctrine. I see many other threads that run through scripture–the care for the stranger, the struggle for liberation, the radical inclusiveness of God’s love, the importance of good works, the here and now ever present yet needed-to-be-worked for Kingdom of God, the healing ministry of Jesus, etc. Everyone has a canon-within-a-canon, that set of passages and books that highlight a persons theology and if the Predestination and Original Sin crowd have Genesis and Romans, I hold even stronger to James, Luke, Exodus, sayings of the prophets and particular Psalms, etc. Furthermore, since I feel Scripture is holy more because it has become so through communal history and I believe that it is only in instances where the Spirit moves through a reading of it that it truly becomes the word of God, I certainly don’t put it at the top of my list of authority nor do I hold to a theory of inerrancy. I reject original sin for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that I don’t hold to a literal Adam and Eve story (and yes, I’ve heard more post-modern views that attempt to keep it even in recognizing that story as Mythic). I don’t doubt humankind’s ability to do tremendous evil, and I certainly see that being born into systems of oppression and injustice assuredly start us off in a world of sin, but I do not start at Augustine’s starting point which assumes we all deserve damnation (well, I don’t hold to a traditional hell view either).

So I’m seeking a redefinition of the word Grace; where too often in the past it has come to signify exclusiveness, particularity, and the damned, I see it better defined by its other definitions- “beauty of form,” and “God’s love.” Grace is an inherent goodness of God; God by God’s very essence is the quality we perceive as love in the purest sense. God runs through all of creation and God is creation and all of creation came from that first spark of creation when God divided out and God continues to divide and spread and move outward, creating galaxies. Grace emenates from God and is there all the while, waiting for us as humans to recognize it, open ourselves to it, be filled with it and thus be filled with the Spirit; Grace is the beauty and goodness of God and God’s creation that not even the vileness of injustice, opression and sin can truly destroy. Grace is there for all of us if we choose to let it take us over. Once it does, we are free from the shackles of misguided goals and systems and our ultimate goal is then salvation of self (peace, contenment, love) and the work for justice so that all might receive that same gift. Grace is here and now and also afterwards in whatever truly awaits those it fills.

Peace.

Guns, God, Government

In America, especially in the south, if you want to anger someone those above 3 topics pretty much are a way to do so. Perhaps in many areas, guns most of all.

A startling piece on Sunday nights “60 Minutes” profiled the brother of a girl who was shot and killed at VA Tech. The brother, to make a point, attended a Virginia gun show and within an hour had purchased a dozen guns, many of them assault weapons, without having to provide an ID or go through a background check. Virginia is a state with few gun sell restrictions, and the gun show loop even allows people in the parking lot of gun shows to sell weapons directly from the trunk of their cars. The brother of the VA Tech victim was asked if he was even once asked to show identification. He responded that it happened a few times, but each time he refused and was told that for 50 dollars more (or a trip to the parking lot to purchase the gun outside) they would go ahead with the sell.

The sells of guns have shot up dramatically this year. Due to the recession say some, and to the Obama presidency say others. In past recessions, people have stocked up on canned goods and blankets. This time around it’s guns. Gun lobbyists have stated that people are right in thinking that were there a complete economic meltdown, there would be nothing better than guns to get them prepared to survive and gather food (quite a bit of Doomsday Prophecy). As to the Obama presidency, conservatives fear he will bring back the Clinton ban on assault weapons and seek to close the gun-show loophole.

The gun lobby fiercely argues against  bringing back the ban on assault weapons that was in place under Clinton and repealed under Bush. As for waiting periods, that gun show loophole that allowed the VA tech brother to purchase multiple weapons without waiting was responded to by a NRA spokesman in VA with “the second amendment doesn’t say anything about a waiting period before your right to bear arms.” No, the second amendment doesn’t mention waiting periods, or the right to bear assault weapons, nuclear bombs or hazardous material for firebombing either.

A great book on this subject is “Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t Win the Battle Over Guns”  by Mark V. Tushnet.  It’s really quite a balanced book, written by a Law Professor at Harvard who claims to be rather disinterested in the debate on personal levels, feeling it’s not a priority on his list of national concerns. He debates both sides and ultimately concludes that each has winning and losing arguments and that the debate must be resolved outside of the constitution, with information and decisions based on further sources because the constitution  doesn’t fully answer this question for us in this day and age. We thus have to look at court precedents, modern interpretations, changing atmospheres as well as original intent.

What truly seems like common sense though, is that regardless of whether the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms with a well armed militia for personal, state and national protection to extend to a personal, private ownership of any citizen at any time or if the original intent is currently fulfilled by having an established national guard and technological advances that negate the necessity, there are a few factors that fall outside of the second amendment when it comes to guns.

No matter what, common sense should tell us that had the forefathers predicted AK47’s in inner cities being used by street gangs or in drug cartels moving throughout the world, there may have been some warning and restriction. There should be no argument against bringing back the ban on assault weapons—at least no logical, sensible, compassionate argument. Military grade weapons have no place in the hands of a private citizen. They exist only to destroy large numbers of people in short spans of time. As for increased background checks, extended waiting periods and closing the gun show loop? Yet again there is no decent argument against these things. Someone going to a gun show should have to provide ID and undergo a background check, the same as they would if they were to go to a gun shop. As for folks to be able to legally sell weapons out of the trunk of their car in the parking lot at such gun shows, it’s almost enough to make one feel lawgivers in Virginia simply aren‘t thinking clearly.

The problem is, as Tushnet points out, for many people this issue is bigger than just guns. Many feel it is a part of the “culture wars,” liberals vs. conservatives, cities vs. rural areas and so on. We need to get past that and make solid judgments in regards to issues that affect the health and safety of everyone living in this country.

Oddly many of those in the south who want no gun restrictions and pride themselves on carrying concealed weapons also are deeply religious, or at least historically so. I understand hunting, especially to provide food. I understand target practicing as a sportsman. Beyond that, carrying weapons with the intent to use them if necessary on another human being is however a form of violence. I’m sure that’s a comment liable to make many angry, yet I have to stress I don’t feel that such an action makes someone a violent person. I completely understand the feelings, emotions and drives that cause many to carry a weapon or keep one in their home solely for “home protection” and to, in theory, keep their loved ones safe (the stats show that simply keeping a gun in your home increases your chances of dying by gunshot dramatically, but that‘s another story). I also know that many jobs require people to carry weapons strictly for the protection of self and others with the intention to shoot to kill if necessary. Yet to invoke the God aspect from the title of this article, carrying, buying or owning a weapon for any reason other than to hunt for food or target practice for sport is a, albeit possibly subtle in some cases, form of violence. Christianity is rooted in nonviolence, so it’s simply odd that many Christians are so vocally pro-gun. Regardless of the actions of the church in low-points in history and the attitudes of many who call themselves Christians, Jesus spoke of complete non-violence yet many of those that praise his name today follow it with “pass the ammunition,” at least metaphorically. I understand self-preservation, defense and a desire to be prepared. Yet can’t those that want guns for that reason view them almost as a necessary evil and not be so enthusiastic about them? Can’t we all agree that restrictions on the sell of and type of guns can be imposed to help curb needless violence? Yes there are many factors that lead to the violence that permeates society, American society in particular. Yes, there are other avenues that must be explored. Yet a step in the direction of moving guns to the area of hunting, emergency and sensibility only is direly needed.

Many notable advocates for non-violence have addressed the issue of the limits of pacifism. A future article on this site will be concerned with how various leaders in the field, Gandhi, MLK and the Dalai Lama have dealt with this issue. That’s it for now.

Marcus Borg, The Q Gospel, Evangelical Nation and Disconnect

I’ve been reading a lot about the historical Jesus, and I’ve plowed through classical and traditional views by eminent and overwhelmingly intelligent scholars like N.T. Wright as well as liberal and revisionist Christian thinkers like Marcus Borg. I’ve read overviews by non-religious philosophy and history professors who’ve attempted evaluate without bias what can be known historically in regards to Jesus. I’ve got a long way to go but right now what is sticking out for me and resonating in ways that such things haven’t in years is that Jesus was a social prophet (as Borg excellently writes in one of his chapters in his and Wright’s co-authored “Jesus: Two Visions”). He was in fact a revolutionary, in the highest and most honorable sense of the word. He spoke out against oppressive government and corrupt hierarchy. The wealthiest in the city controlled the economy and the law not to mention the church. Jesus condemned any practice that took advantage of the poor within the Roman empire as well as all practices of military expansion that wrought havoc on those outside of the Roman empire. His act of over-turning the money changing tables in the temple likely put him on watch by the Roman authorities and his teachings like those just mentioned led to his execution.

This is what I feel much of my church history left me out on, this respect for and awe of the life of Jesus. So much emphasis is paid on his death, his crucifixion, the “passion play.” Jesus’ short life and even shorter public ministry is what reverberates today…his message was what “sin and the grave” could not hold. His teachings were “resurrected,” they lived on and will live on regardless of what churches and societies may do intentionally or unintentionally to miss out on the truth and impact of their message. Much of my study into the historical Jesus made mention of the “Q” source, an author and his scrolls labeled “Q” which many intelligent scholars and historians believe to be the earliest and most accurate teachings, parables, sayings and words of Jesus. The writers of the earliest gospels were believed to have had “Q” scrolls as a primary source to base their work on. I found a copy of “The Lost Gospel Q” by Marcus Borg in my local library and in it he gives a brief overview of the long history of the Q documents and then reprints the words of Jesus, directly translated from Aramaic into English. So we’re able to read the sayings of Christ, before they were filtered through Hebrew and Greek into Old English and before they were incorporated into Gospel writers who likely lived many decades after Christ died. So hopefully, these words are as close to what Jesus actually taught that we today can see. It’s astounding, and it’s evident that the teachings centered primarily on looking out for the poor, hungry and downtrodden. These were calls to social justice, a rally cry for helping those that society overlooks. Of course the most “revolutionary” stance Jesus took and instructed others to follow suit in is that of complete and total forgiveness. To always forgive those that trespass against us. To settle things peacefully between our brothers and sisters and ourselves without resorting to war, courts or rulers. To give what we have to those that have not, to love unconditionally and to strive to make this world better than it is. I think such simply stated yet often difficult to follow instructions are far too often “lost in translation” when many pastors speak, many Christians act and many people pray.

See, I keep thinking about the disconnect. I’ve also been reading a book a religion journalist wrote, “The Fall of the Evangelical Nation.” The author, Christine Whicker, speaks of the large gap between what the public thinks evangelical Christians believe and what they actually believe. The same gap appears between what many of their leaders say the groups believe and what the actual members of the group believe. The gap is also often present between what members of the congregation say (or sometimes even think) they believe and what they actually believe (and do). Whicker has spent a career covering religious issues for many papers and grew up in the Evangelical church. Her grandfather was a southern Baptist preacher, and she seeks to point out the good and kind-hearted nature of the types of evangelicals she grew up around, the type of aspects that get overlooked in the media perceptions of evangelicals. As such, it’s a fair and even handed book. Much of it deals with her prediction of the coming “collapse” of the conservative mega churches as well as explorations of what it really means to be an evangelical. Anyway, the points I want to bring up here from that book are the times that “gap” becomes present in the subjects she interviews. The fundamentalist Christian women in abortion clinics awaiting their own procedure who subscribe to the beliefs of and attend a church that wishes to repeal the right to choose that they are currently taking advantage of. The traveling evangelical pastor who is caught having sex with another man while representing a church body that accuses all homosexuals as partaking of a “lifestyle of sin.” I recently read an article about the California Prop 8 debacle and it was mentioned that the San Francisco Catholic Bishop that helped craft PR ads accusing gay marriage of being “dangerous to children” was the same Bishop who initially called reports of sexual abuse in one of his congregations “mere horseplay.” Many have made the point that the large-funding by the Mormons that wanted so desperately to define marriage as being “between one man and one woman” belonged to a church founded by a man with dozens of wives. This disconnect is infuriating to me. So many “Christians” lose sight of the real important messages. So many “Christians” seek to alienate, disparage and judge others and that is the very opposite of Christ’s teachings. I saw on the news this morning of a woman who’s young infant son almost died from “water intoxication” because she was watering down her baby formula to stretch it until WIC would allow her to get more of it. (Apparently infants under 1 can only have so much water in their diets or it can kill them, unknown to me as a childless twenty something). The recession hit’s the health of children the hardest, one expert mentioned in regards to this story. So once again, as mentioned in my “A New Definition for Pro-Life” article, I ask: are those that are “pro-life” interested in supporting policies that seek to usher in universal health care or at least expanded programs to help the less fortunate? WIC was cut back drastically during the Bush administration, did those that are pro-life wince?

I have a confession to make. It’s obvious that the most important and revolutionary concept of Christ’s teaching is still far out of my reach. I rant at pro life and homophobic people but if I were really like Christ I would be out doing too much and loving those I disagreed with too much to waste my space here condemning them. Such is the paradox I can’t best at this point in my life I suppose. The disconnect I speak of is present everywhere, and I often see it in myself as well. As a liberal and an embracer of progressive politics I believe in equality and helping all others, but after close to a decade of working in jobs dealing with the public sector from the service side (retail, restaurant, etc.) I’m the first to admit people are hard to like and hard to love with alarming frequency.

That’s all for now, I apologize for the very disjointed and wandering article….more on target with more focus next time, I assure you.

Midrash, Resurrection and John Shelby Spong

Recently, I became very interested in some of the books by the Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong. Moderate Christian friends of mine that study theology have told me Spong is a bit too out there and that while he starts his writing career pushing the envelope yet still offering different ways of interpreting things within the context of Christianity, that by now it’s hard to classify his philosophy as even being Christian. Apparently he’s apt to simply label any that disagree on his points as being a fundamentalist and he’s accused of being arrogant. It’s also worth noting that he holds no degrees– no doctorates in theology, history or philosophy, he was simply a practicing minister (now retired) and writer. Regardless of all of these points, the few books of his I’ve read have been very thought provoking. He may not have a PhD, but it’s clear that he’s spent a lifetime reading, studying, interviewing and debating in his search for the roots of Christianity, the state of Christianity and it’s future. He maintains the viewpoint that Christianity must evolve–it must change or it will die, taking its place alongside of the ancient religions of Olympus. He began making such claims years ago, believing that in light of modern science literalistic interpretations of scripture would completely die off. Well, as Raymond Martin stated in his overview of the conflicting views on such issues in “The Elusive Messiah, “it has not worked out that way and things do not seem to even be moving in that direction.”

I enjoyed Spong’s “Resurrection: Myth or Reality,” because it explores different ways of looking at the Gospels and the Easter Promise. Spong approaches each gospel individually at first; he looks at what historical time it was written, who the writer may have been and when the writer was alive. Did the writer ever meet Jesus or anyone that had known Jesus? If not, how long after the historical Jesus was present did the writer craft his gospel? Then Spong looks at the version of the Resurrection each writer portrays and how each version differs. Spong makes the claim that the Gospel writers engaged in the Jewish writing and scripture reading practice of Midrash.

Spong seeks to explore what the historical Jesus did that caused those writers to place him firmly in the tradition. He seeks to discover what happened that caused the disciples of Jesus to go from being scared and scattering in the event of his arrest and execution- -many going so far as to deny even knowing him- – to being faithful and wiling to die to spread his message.  Spong explores “discrepancies” in the gospel narratives and in the translations made of them throughout history., as well as possibly different meanings  the text may have had in its previous language incarnations–events that were spoken of in Aramaic, written about in Hebrew and Greek, and eventually “officially” transcribed in Old English.

But what is Midrash?  In a way, Midrash is the concept of timelessness. When events and people are written about in the Midrash style, they are placed in a past, present and future dialogue. Spong claims that much of what is written about Jesus is  a Midrash placement and reinterpretation of Hebrew scripture and history.  Words spoken by Hebrew leaders such as Abraham, Moses and Elijah are re-spoken by Jesus. Similarly, events that occur in the Jesus narratives are re-told events of those same Hebrew leaders. Location often plays a big part in the Midrash tradition. Events occur on Mt. Sinai, in Galilee and in Jerusalem in reference to earlier events that also occurred in those locations. According to Spong these stories are re-worked from the Hebrew traditions to place Jesus in the context of a timeless Holy journey. For Spong, each gospel writer was not merely recording a literal account of Jesus’ life- – they were instead “canonizing” him and elevating his story to a Holy, mythic level. Since each gospel was written years apart and none were written while Jesus was alive, each gospel writer reworks events from previous gospels as well as the Hebrew scriptures.  Spong doesn’t state these claims to attack the Gospel authors. He doesn’t accuse them of twisting the truth or spreading lies. He feels that they were aware that there was more to Jesus than mere humanity and that they felt his life was important enough to elevate its story into the realm of timeless and Holy myth. Myth in this sense does not mean “untrue.” In many ways, myth becomes an ultimate truth because it communicates an undying and important message that is “more true” than factual based historical records. It becomes irrelevant for the events of the Gospels to be clung to as literal fact. Spong disputes that Jesus literally rose from the dead in a bodily manner, and he uses variations among the gospel narratives as supporting evidence for such a claim. He dismisses the idea that the “red letter” words spoken by Jesus in favor of the belief that such words were merely the author of each gospel attempting to capture the essence of Jesus’ message concisely.  So ultimately for Spong the truth of Jesus becomes that of a man who God chose to pervade and express the God-presence through so that those who heeded his work, words and teachings could know God and spread the message to the world. The disciples realized Jesus’ importance fully in the aftermath of his death and began to speak of it, becoming willing to die for it to be heard. The authors of the Gospels sought to express the importance of the life of Jesus by recounting his story in the ancient Hebrew tradition of Midrash, elevating his story in the miraculous wording of the Torah. Church founders developed their churches to spread the message of love, forgiveness and service.

Thus, the “Easter Promise” for Spong (and those that agree with his viewpoint) does not rely on a literal and physical resurrection of Jesus, but rather the statement that “death cannot hold him” is fulfilled in his spirit being raised by and back to God and his teachings live on in his followers. Spong feels that we as Christians use Christ as our “entry” to God- – our way to love more selflessly, serve more strongly and live more fully.

I don’t fully accept all of Spong’s theories and claims. I did find “Resurrection” to be a scholarly and interesting work. I agree that even the Gospels can be approached with a non-literal interpretation. As for the resurrection being a physical fact or a symbolic myth? I think that Christians can take either viewpoint and still be Christians.

Unfortunately, Spong’s later work follows such claims in a chain of links to more outrageous suppositions that do indeed place him outside of what can comfortably be classified as “Christian” philosophy. His post millennial work “The Sins of Scripture,” is not only his least scholarly and intelligently written work but it also makes claims that push his theology too far– in this work, Spong rejects any possible view of a Theistic God. He states that event after event, including 9/11, have proven that a view of a God who lives apart and outside of the natural world and who cares about the details of our own personal lives, who is there to comfort us and watch over us, is illogical and unrealistic. Spong lists sporadic excerpts of scripture that describe God as a “breath that is in all of us,” and a presence that abides in all natural creations as “realistic” descriptions of God. It’s at this point that Spong loses me. His early work had admirable goals–to “rescue the Bible from fundamentalism,” by exploring alternative ways of looking at it and by gleaning the ultimate essence and message that is sometimes “lost in translation” and strangled by legalism and claims of “inerrancy.” He proceeded to dispel the ways scripture is often misused to oppress women, non-white races and ethnic groups and homosexuals. He wrote works that urged the Church to grow, evolve and reach out to all people because he felt the message and goals of Christianity were possible and positive for all people. All of this was good and fine, and I can respect different approaches and interpretations as being valid. I can’t follow his thoughts that lead to complete rejection of any type of theistic God, at least not in a way that allows him to still consider himself a Christian theologian. He did wait until retiring from his lifetime of service with the church to make this last bold statement, so maybe he was aware of that.

So that’s just my take. I’ve barely skimmed the surface in this article, really. If this interested you I suggest that you give “Resurrection” a read. Even if you completely reject a non-literal approach to the Easter story, which is understandable, you still may learn quite a bit about the Gospels and the history of the time, place and events that occurred within them. I also should make note that if you, like me, are relatively a novice in deep theological study, that an “extreme” theory like that espoused by Spong should be followed up by other scholarly and intelligent approaches that fall more to the center of things. Completely accepting the far radically liberal views of Religion without question is just as misguided as completely accepting the fundamentalist views without question.

Next up on this site, I have a short and simple article. It will be the first of possibly ten articles that will appear over the next few months in which I take a look at “under-rated” classic albums. It’ll be a way for me to ease into my year-end recap of the best new music and an excuse for me to revisit and re-listen to favorite albums of mine that don’t usually make the top cut. Thanks for reading.

We Like Our Icons Clearly Defined

It seems that what a person stands for and is recognized as being is out of their hands, especially after they’ve passed  on. If you move into the spotlight at all and as such are remembered by more than just your circle of friends and family, the public will classify you, label you and “box you in” in some form or another.

I recently read “The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley.” It’s one of those books that has set on my shelf for years, and although I’ve watched the film several times I’ve never actually read the source material until now. If you’ve never read it, I highly suggest you do. The film version is excellent, but the book itself allows you to spend much more time with the person’s own words and delve much deeper.  I could write an entire article about it just quoting some of X’s great lines. His story allows you to see what he as a person was actually like and how he differs from the way he’s been publicly perceived. He comes through as a man willing to “accept the truth wherever I see it,“ to grow and change based on the facts as he discovers them. A man who with his whole heart wanted the best for his entire race, his people and ultimately all people. He was unafraid to speak his mind, wherever he was and to anyone that was present. In his own time he was labeled many things, and public opinion of him following his death has changed several times as the decades have passed. It took 30 years for a general support and celebration of his life and accomplishments to be acknowledged by the mainstream press and public, resulting in a USPS stamp bearing his image and an Oscar nominated and successful film which depicted his life story. I think that at this point the reality of the man himself has grown to become two opposing archetypes- – his detractors label him as an angry black man who espoused racial prejudices. His supporters depict him as a civil rights warrior who was the flip side of the coin to Dr. Martin Luther King. Both sides have truth in them- – he was angry, he was strongly and proudly black, and for a time he did espouse racial prejudices. There was a lengthy time in his public life in which he called all white people “devils.” Certainly he had personal reasons and motives for doing so, and arguably this time in his life was also very important and good things occurred as a result of his words and actions (such as a strengthening of “his” communities in inner cities, rehabilitation and sobering up of many drug addicts who became involved with NOI through Malcolm and an establishing of a new surge of “Black Pride”). But Malcolm would later come to regret all racist and separatist sentiments he had espoused. So both archetypes miss the full and better description of Malcolm-he represents the willingness to change opinions when presented with new information, he represents inner strength and the ability to fully transform yourself for the better (in his case 2 times). He represents total commitment to a cause and the struggle for equality and fairness. In short, he was so much that it’s impossible to “box him in.”

So as I thought about this I began to think about how most important cultural figures, especially those that die violently, became an icon, an archetype or a symbol after they die. Often there’s a split opinion as to what that symbol represents. This is the case with President Kennedy as well as Malcolm X. Kennedy died violently, early in his presidency. Decades after his death he is remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history by some, while others regard him as a womanizing young playboy who would would not be much remembered if not for his assassination. Once again, both views capture a portion of the truth but miss out on the full picture. He was young and charismatic, had extra-marital affairs and was beloved more for his image than his policies while he was alive. But to write him off is to overlook the things he did and the potential he had. He told the public America would land on the moon at a time when such things were outlandish, even setting a timeframe for such an accomplishment and it happened. He was beginning to actively address the civil rights movement. He was quite possibly in the process of withdrawing the US from Vietnam, a motive that may have played a part in his untimely death. Rather than being “the greatest President ever,” or an inconsequential president he should more accurately be remembered for the ideals he represented and the potential he had– a very wasted potential; a life cut off before his true worth and work could come to fruition, cut down by the meaningless violence that takes away far too many potentially great leaders in their prime.

These two-sided symbols aren’t exclusive to cultural figures from the ‘60s either. In more recent years we’ve seen Reagan’s image take on whole new levels in the years following his presidency and death. On the right, conservatives view him as the tough-talking and strong willed model to strive to be like while on the left he’s remembered most for much less inspiring qualities. Outside of politics and in more recent years, certain musicians become icons following young deaths. Kurt Cobain became a sort-of “voice of his generation” and Nirvana were heralded as being extremely important and relevant following his suicide; Tupac Shakur became the ultimate “thug messiah” figure in hip hop and fans literally considered he may have faked his death and would return, listening to his music for clues. Such events have long been a part of popular music, and as in the above two cases most of the time the core music is very good, but it takes on an entirely new level once the public fixes these artists into a certain role and place.
Quite often the image and symbol the person becomes grows much larger than the person themselves.  The face of Che Guevara has graced T-shirts for years as a symbol of revolution in and of itself. Che was a historical figure I knew little about, but based on his image and how he’s expressed today I assumed he did a lot of positive social work and aided in third-world progress. After viewing a documentary and reading a little about him I had to revise my opinion. Che may have came from wealth to aid the poor and live without his wealth; he fought to overthrow a corrupt system but became part of another corrupt system, one which eventually killed him. He too had potential, he cared for the poor and felt the urge to fight and risk death to advance them, but ultimately became just another cog in the machine. Today, teenagers everywhere sport his face as a support of revolution, a concept that for most of them is fairly vague and undirected.

Then of course there are those cultural figures most of us wish to keep in our minds as shining examples of their best qualities. Dr. King as a strong, peaceful civil rights leader. Gandhi as the ultimate pacifist and activist who led the people of India to topple the British stranglehold on them without lifting a single weapon. Mother Theresa as the ultimate humble, selfless service to the poor for the glory of God. People like these three have earned a place in modern sainthood so high that most of us wish to ever hear anything negative about them. In fact, their critics sound spiteful, petty and ignorant when they attempt to point out negative qualities of them. Critics of Gandhi have accused him of breaking his abstinence with teenage followers and using derogatory terms for the people of Africa. I’ve heard critics deride Mother Theresa for either doing all of the service to the sick and poor as a matter of religious conversion or for having crisis’ of faith. Those who refuse to give Dr. King his dues accuse him of extra-marital affairs. I discredit many such attacks of the above mentioned people, but I also think sanctifying them loses the point sometimes. Did Gandhi ever use a racial slur or sleep with a teenager? I don’t know; furthermore, I don’t care. His teachings, writing and actions speak volumes  in themselves and can’t be erased by any human faults. Did Dr. King have an affair? If so, that was a matter between he and his wife and it doesn’t take away from the great work he did and it doesn’t keep him from being one of the single greatest workers for human rights in all of history. Whatever motivated Mother Theresa, she did some of the most selfless and inspiring work with the poor this world has ever seen.

The point of all of this is that human beings are human beings- no matter how great or how terrible their actions are, they are still human and thus capable of excellence or failures, pertaining inspiring qualities and human error. People are so may things that it does their memory a disservice to try to lock them down in the history books or in public perception as one specific thing. Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mother Theresa (to name a few of the figures I spoke of) were amazing, inspiring strong human beings who lived lives and did works that go well above what most of us ever think we can aim for. Yet they were human beings, people who had many sides and qualities and as such they can never be fully comprehended or briefly described by those of us that never knew them. We shouldn’t try to sum up an entire life with a single image.