Strong versus weak, tactics and strategy

Most of us, including me, are not experts at playing chess. We see a game in progress as a bunch of pieces positioned around the board. The beginner looks at the various moves each piece can make, and guesses at the ways the opponent will respond. The beginner looks a few moves ahead, but usually can't see as far as the end. I refer to this as a tactical approach. The beginner pokes away until the opponent can't hurt the beginner any more.

An expert at playing chess uses a strategic approach. An expert sees the positions of the pieces on the board in a high-level, abstract way. The expert's goal is to nudge the board into different states, eventually resulting in a state in which the opponent realizes the end is near. Physically, the beginner and the expert move one piece at a time, but the expert doesn't focus on the individual pieces. When one or the other expert loses a piece, a new high-level view results.

Hold on to these thoughts about short term tactics and long term strategies...

In 1956, Elie Wiesel wrote a memoir, "Un di Velt Hot Geshvign" (Yiddish for "And the World Remained Silent"), eventually resulting in an English translation entitled "Night". The memoir contains a passage that begins, "Never Shall I Forget". Wiesel would focus on this "never forget" theme for decades, and the phrase is now (2024) practically synonymous with activism against anti-Semitism.

There are pros and cons to the use of this phrase. It certainly is straightforward, and I agree we need to remember history when addressing new problems, especially broad issues such as genocide. The exhortation to "never forget" is easy to implement. Just do it. However, it is a tactic, rather than a strategy. Wiesel is moving a chess piece, but there is no high-level view of an end game.

Remembering the Holocaust does not proactively avoid future bad things. Also, there is no reason to interpret "Night" as a general treatise against bad behavior. It is a treatise about one bad behavior inflicted on Wiesel and Jews. For reasons that Wiesel could not have predicted, the phrase went viral, but "Night" is a memoir; it's all about Wiesel. It's OK to write a memoir, but memoirs have their limitations.

Consider Howard Thurman's 1949 book, "Jesus and the Disinherited". Thurman wrote as an African American living during a time when lynchings still occurred and Jim Crow laws were still on the books. Thurman explains that victims of extreme persecution (the disinherited) usually fear their situation, but also that the oppressors fear what would happen if they lost their power. The strong pretend that the weak need to be helped even while the strong abuse the weak, and the disinherited struggle within their own communities with domestic violence and substance abuse and more. The persecuted learn to hate their oppressors, and the oppressors develop a hatred for their victims because anything else would make them seem weak.

Thurman does not ask us never to forget what the strong did to the weak. Jesus and his followers were undoubtedly persecuted by the Romans, but the Gospels don't mention it. Jesus only talked about love and humility. Thurman asks the weak and strong to reset their relationship and end their segregation in order to build trust. Have faith that even the weak and the strong, the disinherited and the privileged, the good and the bad, can love each other and accept love from the other.

To prove a dogmatic miracle

In my previous post, I justified belief in "miracles", but what I meant are the "ministry miracles" found in the Gospels prior to the passion stories. A person is afflicted, the person meets Jesus, and the person is cured or healed. This is a historical, eyewitness account of a public event.

There is another sort of miracle in the Gospels, which I will refer to as the "dogmatic miracles". Here are three examples from Mark.

* "And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Mk 1:11)
* "Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them," (Mk 9:2)
* "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mk 16:19)

Compare this to a typical ministry miracle passage, also from Mark:

* "When Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'You spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!' After crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, 'He is dead.' But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he was able to stand." (Mk 9:25-27)

All miracles are divinely enacted, but in my opinion, there are two notable differences between dogmatic miracles and ministry miracles. First, the two types of miracles have different beneficiaries. The dogmatic miracles are for God or for Jesus; Jesus is beloved, Jesus was transfigured, Jesus ascended. That's all well and good, but it is a mystery how my life would be affected by such miracles. Ministry miracles, on the other hand, were for humans. A boy was cleansed, a blind man's site was restored, and I can be healed through repentance and faith.

Second, the two types of Gospel miracles were witnessed differently. The dogmatic miracles were witnessed by people already known to be faithful, such as people being baptized or the closest followers of Jesus. The ministry miracles, on the other hand , were witnessed by crowds of everyday people, usually poor and oppressed, going about their everyday drudgery. The Gospel stories of ministry miracles are the first century version of a viral cell-phone video, in public and for all to see.

The dogmatic witnesses are more like the witnesses of UFO abductions or Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni. There are just a few people, probably drinking buddies, who are biased toward believing the vision. Just like the smelly fishermen from Galilee,

I am not saying the dogmatic miracles didn't happen or that the ministry miracles are more believable. But I would say, if you are hoping for a miracles in your own life, it won't help you much that Jesus was transfigured on some hill. But, for the sake of your own afflictions, you'd better believe that Lazarus was actually dead and actually walked out of that tomb.

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.

UPDATE 18 November 2024 - it has occurred to me that there are two kinds of miracles. Above, I reflected on the ministry miracles; Jesus heals a person in front of a crowd. But there are also the dogmatic miracles; Jesus is transfigured, or Jesus ascends to heaven and takes a seat at the right hand of God. We recite creeds regularly to show our belief in this dogma. Typically, there is no crowd, just the close followers of Jesus. I am working on a new post on the topic of dogmatic miracles.

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.