To prove a miracle

It's hard for us modern thinkers, even theologians, to resolve the mystery inherent in "miracle" stories. Actually, the word "miracle" does not appear in the NRSV translation of the Gospels.

Many believers don't give it much thought. The stories say what they say, but deep down, the ways in which Jesus cures "the lame, the maimed, the blind, the mute" (Mat 15:30) are simply vague. From a practical standpoint, the Gospels were written decades after the crucifixion and the eyewitnesses available to the authors may have forgotten a few details.

To the determined unbeliever, the stories are scientific impossibilities, or fabrications. Even John 9's story of the man known to be blind from birth, with corroborating parents and a clearly witnessed cure, is denied. Unbelievers want proof.

The Gospels are the proof. Although we don't have the original, handwritten, first-century texts, we have copies believed to be legitimate copies from the next couple of centuries. The Gospels are largely eyewitness accounts, written some decades after the formation of the first Christian communities. Scholars debate the sources available to the Gospel authors. For example, consider how the authors knew details of the private interrogation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Well, Romans were good recorders of history, and there may have been a housekeeper who overheard the events. If my hypothesis is that John 9 is true, my evidence is the Gospel, an eyewitness account of the blindness and the cure.

The non-believer can't deny the Gospels out of hand. No matter how unscientific the texts may be, there is evidence of the events copied from to the first century CE accounts, and little or no comparable evidence to the contrary. Even presuming inaccuracies due to the passage of time before the Gospels were written and due to the messiness of oral accounts, the stories aren't complicated. A blind guy encountered Jesus and was cured. There are dozens of examples and verses claiming that hundreds more occurred.

It is not the responsibility of the believer to provide more proof beyond the eyewitness accounts. Canonical miracles do not need to be explained, although they are mysterious. It's OK that miracles are mysterious, but the stories say what they say. The man was blind and his blindness was cured.

Evolution from Judaism to Christianity

I am in my second year of a four-year program studying the Bible, its underlying history and theological reflection ("think theologically"). Recently, we have discussed the historical, Biblical, philosophical and theological events surrounding the emergence of Christianity, including a discussion around the differences between Judaism and Christianity. The Old Testament contains the various Hebrew texts that are canonical for us Christians. The O.T. is foundational for Christians, so, what was it that needed to change in a way that required a new religion? The Torah already tells us to help the poor, so what's the big deal about Jesus? Seems like we need more than just another prophet, so I will poke at a few notions here.

Did Jesus believe all people are equal? Is justice the same as equality? I don't think so. Paul's analogy in 1 Cor 12 is that we are all different parts of a body, all necessary, but with different abilities (gifts) with which we can fulfill different purposes. For the moment, I am assuming 1 Cor 12 is consistent with Jesus' teachings. In a few weeks I will dig deeper into Paul's epistles and may have more to say.

Mosaic Law (Lev 23:22) states, "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien: I am the Lord your God." But, I claim, followers of the Law would typically distance themselves from the poor and aliens at "the edges". A follower of Torahic purity guidelines would likely consider those poor people to be shameful (see "Introducing the New Testament" by Mark Allan Powell). Jesus, on the other hand, says we must love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31, etc.); Jesus pushes Lev 23:22 beyond the generosity a subsistence community would normally practice. Jesus was born into the poorest of the poor and knew (as stated by Powell and Hillary Clinton), that survival in first century Galilee "took a village", but the village of Mary and Joseph was an extension of individual self-preservation (not the same as universal salvation). Judaism does not preclude Jesus' teachings, but Jesus' dedication to service and humility radically ignores the notions of honor and shame that were important to first century peasants under Roman rule. Today, we are not shocked at the idea of service and humility, but it was indeed radical at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Jews widely believed in resurrection (except for the Sadducees), although the canonical evidence in the Old Testament seems more abstract than in the New Testament. Jesus seems to have broadly developed the theology of resurrection in terms of whether one deserves resurrection or what salvation means to us during our earthly lives. Hebrew philosophers interacted with the Greeks and Persians and Romans and Egyptians and others; see especially the O.T. book of Daniel. However, it's not clear to me that any first century synagogue focused on eternity. One imagines Jesus' frustration with a holiday like Purim, which outwardly celebrates the cancelation of an edict to kill all Jews (Esther), but cannot be disassociated from the slaughter of tens of thousands of gentiles for almost no reason.

Jesus didn't invent any theology; resurrection and aid to the poor were well understood. Previous leaders claimed to be the son of one god or another, but the sacrifice of the divine Jesus (in fulfillment of the non-sacrifice of Isaac) provides the theology of a god who physically understands humans.

The church as a "system"

We church people can learn from Andreea Danielescu's essay, "The Many Shapes of a Computer Science Career", published in Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (CACM), November, 2022. Andreea writes:

The Key things I learned as a computer scientist were how to break down problems into smaller chunks, how to think at the systems level and how systems work - whether they be software systems or systems of people. People are never boxes; they are puzzle pieces that can fit together in more than one way.

My career has taught me it's BETTER not to try to fit in a box. Throw it out. Be a cloud, or a polyhedron, if you like corners and edges. Embrace breadth AND depth as they are not mutually exclusive. Learning how things fit together is a skill that can make you successful - no matter which puzzles you find yourself in along the way.

My (this blog's author) response is to ask, what is a Christian system? I suggest that a mainline denomination, such as "Episcopalian", is a system. The parts are the Bible, the liturgy, the music, and of course, the faithful people including lay and clergy. (And more, but you get my point.) Some of it is hardware: churches, organs, coffee, bread and wine. Some of it is software: Bibles, prayer books (and prayer), budgets, theology.

Maybe my priest/minister is a cloud (Danielescu's term), leading her flock and infiltrating all the goings-on. But I should watch my system for the polyhedron, like the guy who never brings food to a potluck but stays late to do the dishes.

Consider the breadth: Christianity as a whole, outreach to the larger community. Consider the depth: the early service versus the late service, the annual garage sale, the weekday Bible study.

My general point is to apply academic notions to your church life. Many smart people have spent centuries thinking about how to run organizations. We church people just need to squeeze in God. 😊

The wind over the waters REVISITED

Back in my first blog post I noted that my NRSV translation of Genesis 1:2 provides an alternative translation for "wind from God" which is, "spirit of God". I then went on to describe how this spirit in Genesis is the same spirit that comes upon Mary in Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you...".

But recently I have been using "The CEB Study Bible", that is, the Common English Bible, an annotated translation. CEB states that the alternate translation for "God's wind" is "God's breath". Then, CEB's note on Gen 1:2 says the author of Genesis is not referring to "the third member of the Trinity."

Is CEB saying that that the spirit (or breath) that swept over the waters is something different than what came over Mary to enable her to conceive the child? I don't think so.

In John 20:22, NRSV and CEB both provide the translation that Jesus "breathed" on the disciples so they would receive the Holy Spirit. I still believe it's the same spirit in all three spots.

CEB's note on Gen 1:2 reminds us that the author of Genesis would not have had a notion of a triadic unity that is a monotheistic God in three persons. For now, I am sticking to my story that there is no contradiction between "wind", "spirit" and "breath".

Educational settings, plus the hedgehog and the fox

In this article, I will adapt scholarly items from outside theological contexts.

----------

My first item is adapted from adapted from "Exploring Questions and Answers in Computer Science Education" by Sally Fincher & Kathi Fisler, published in Communications of the ACM, July, 2022.

No matter where you worship, or what your role is, education is important; important not only in WHAT is taught, but also HOW it is taught and WHO is taught. For example, what is known about how different groups of people learn Christianity? How does learning in a house of worship differ from formal education settings? What techniques have been shown effective for teaching or probing learners' knowledge about Christianity? What traditional approaches fail for modern Americans? Depending on different contexts, these questions will have different answers. Investigating those answers requires us to think (as individuals and as a community) about the methods that are appropriate for studying educational questions and, crucially, what problems do we most need to think about so that our education and training keeps pace with developments in Christian practice?

----------

Next, I will apply ideas from "The Hedgehog and the Fox" by Isaiah Berlin. This book expounds on the ancient Greek proverb, "A fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing". The fox uses many tactics to catch the hedgehog, but the hedgehog finally escapes by using its simple, prickly defenses. That's not to say that a simple approach always wins, just that we should be prepared to utilize the right tactic at the right time.

Consider a talent show in which the contestants are songwriters. A person trying to predict the winner might listen to the songs and pick the song that "sounds the best". That person is the hedgehog; it all boils down to one variable, catchiness. But another person might do some research: is any songwriter of the same ethnicity of any of the judges? Has any songwriter competed before? Do bagpipe songs always lose?

In other words, the fox looks at a range of objective variables instead of one abstract variable.

With respect to Christianity, are you a hedgehog or a fox? Do you attend your church because it focuses on the Immaculate Conception, feeling like that's the most important thing? Or, do you enjoy trying to figure out how Jesus fulfills the parting of the sea while also typing the weekly bulletin and also repairing the church boiler?

Neither the hedgehog or fox is "right" or "wrong", at church. Your God given purpose is not the same as mine. My example is simplistic, so it's safe to suggest you hedgehogs should not be too focused. I at least feel that I should always be on the lookout for new ways to mature, spiritually.

gocekBlogGary: In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece

gocekBlogGary: In the footsteps of Paul in Corinth, Greece: Thursday, June 6 - CORINTH!  Today provided me with a meaningful historical and spiritual experience. Susan and I visited Corinth, just west...

Please see my personal blog in which I recount a visit to ancient Corinth, where I stepped on the bema used by Roman tribunals. Paul came before the tribunal in Acts 18:12.

My letter to the Wall Street Journal

My letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal was published today, 16 May 2024. This was in response to an opinion essay entitled, "Methodists Keep Up With the Times". In that essay, the author's opinion was that Protestant churches give too much credit to current cultural trends and not enough to Christian tradition. For copyright reasons, I cannot post the original essay, but here is a link:

May 10 essay about Methodist church policy changes

My letter disagreed with the essay, and was published with another letter that was in general agreement.

May 16 letters to the WSJ

Here is my letter as published. Since I wrote it, I am taking the liberty of reposting it here. The WSJ wrote the headline of the letters. I do not repost the other letter here, see the link above for that.

__________

As published:
TRADITION AND CHANGE: A CHRISTIAN QUARREL

In “Methodists Keep Up With the Times” (Houses of Worship, May 10), Carl Trueman risks implying that theology is immutable and any deviation from tradition and orthodoxy is secular and wrong. He encourages us to “hold to a historic form of Christian faith that doesn’t affirm the predilections of the surrounding culture,” as if today’s Christians could somehow separate themselves from that culture.

Mr. Trueman suggests that “sacred” has no meaning outside traditional theology and fixates on the issue of nontraditional couples. My salvation, however, isn’t dependent on my national church’s budget, or what my church says about my gender identity or the sexual preferences of the couple in the pew behind me.

__________

My original submission to the WSJ was slightly edited. Here is my original letter:

The op-ed "Methodists Keep Up With the Times" (May 10) implies that theology is immutable and that any deviation from tradition and orthodoxy is secular and wrong. The essay encourages us to "hold to a historic form of Christian faith that doesn't affirm the predilections of the surrounding culture," as if today's Christians could somehow separate themselves from that culture. The essay quotes a reference that groups non-traditional couples with criminals, and suggests "sacred" has no meaning outside traditional theology. However, the likelihood and quality of my salvation is not dependent on my national church's budget, or what my church says about my gender identity or the sexual preferences of the couple in the pew behind me.

__________

My commentary:

There were some slight modifications by the Journal. My submission did not mention the essay's author's name, but the WSJ inserted that. The WSJ changed "implies" to "risks implying", which seems stupid; I used the passive "implies", and the WSJ made it even more passive. There is no doubt the essay states that the author's theology is the only correct theology; I could have been more insistent (see below). The essay equates same-sex couples with (criminal) pederasts, but I am OK with the modifications. The WSJ strengthened my comment about my salvation.

In my opinion now, the original essay and the Journal's headline in capital letters above are not part of a polite quarrel. The essay believes I need to get in line with Christian orthodoxy and tradition because the writer believes I will otherwise go to hell (whatever that is), and the Journal published the essay because the editor believes it is hell that we Christians argue about. It's a stupid, offensive argument, but I would not have had the letter published if I been that scathing.

Theology changes because we change. I could believe "God" (not defined here) does not change, but I change, and my relationship with God changes. My salvation is safe, and the essay's author is stuck in the 18th century. The author's salvation is up to the author and God, and the essay did not help anyone else.

Bottom line?

There is no hope for Christian unification between the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant denominations and Eastern (orthodox) denominations because the RC Church believes the others are not actually Christian. As far as the RCs are concerned, only RCs can call themselves Christian. Everyone else is not simply "non-Christian" (who might actually receive some mercy from God in the end), they (the non-RC Christians) are liars who must either repent (become RC) or be damned for eternity for committing the sin of falsely claiming to be Christian. Yes, that's what it's like when discussing Christianity with an RC.

As a result, an RC won't discuss Scripture with a Protestant because the Protestant is not Christian, which is the basis for how the original essay was written. The essay author wants everyone to accept traditional Christian theology because that would make us all RC.