Advent – proof of the truth of Christianity

 

 

I posted on the social media platform Facebook a statement along the lines of the title of this essay, hoping it would stimulate some interest, which it did. Understandably, the statement called for some explanation, which I now offer.

 

When I was a child, growing up in a rather conservatively religious setting, I don’t recall hearing the word ‘advent.’ At least not in reference to a specific season, namely the four weeks leading up to Christmas, which is how we know it now. I probably first got acquainted with the term for the season when we moved to the city where one was exposed to more varieties of Christianity, including the broader Mennonite church, which was my background. I became acquainted somewhere along the line with Advent being part of what is referred to as the Church Calendar. 

 

Advent refers to the arrival or the beginning of something. The Christmas Advent season is the time of anticipation of the celebration of the birth of Christ. According to Wikipedia, this Advent appears to have begun in the 5^th century, long after the birth of Jesus. 

 

Actually, in the Judeao-Christian traditions, one can speak of three seasons of advent. To begin with, Judaism, at least in its more orthodox forms, is in a season of advent of the coming of the Messiah. This is a state that has lasted at least 2,500 – 2,800 years. That takes us back to the time of the exile of Israel and then Judah, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of the Jews in what had been Canaan, and subsequently became known as Palestine. This is when Jewish prophets really began to put forward the vision of the coming of the Messiah who would liberate the Children of Israel, restore them to their homeland in Canaan and to their former glory under kings such as David and his son Solomon. Those were the glory days, when the kingdoms, still united, were at their zenith.

 

Secondly, we have the pre-Christmas season of Advent, which we have already described briefly. If the above date is correct, this has been celebrated for about 1500 years. It is really an anticipation of a commemoration of a past event though, not a real event still to come. For Christians, this past event was the actual coming of the Messiah of which the Jewish prophets spoke, although Judaism staunchly refuses to accept this.

 

Thirdly, in Christianity we have what is sometimes referred to as the Second Advent. This is the anticipation of the promised return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. It is sometimes referred to as his Second Coming. This is another millennial time of waiting, also approaching 2,000 years.

 

There have been skeptics of the veracity of Christianity’s claims since this faith began. Most who really give the religion serious attention will acknowledge that there was this Jesus who was a great moral teacher. Others, interestingly often lawyers, who are experts at uncovering facts, but also some philosophers, concede when they really dig into things, that Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee of Palestine also did miracles and was who he claimed to be – God become man, that he was indeed killed on a Roman cross, but was resurrected to life and then returned to where he came from, generally described as ‘heaven.’. Others, such as Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx and Freud, dismiss all religions as creations of the human imagination to serve a certain purpose, perhaps provide some semblance of reasonably satisfactory answers to life’s questions, or a means of control of the masses. 

 

However, these thinkers and writers have all died and Christianity is still here, actually coming out of the period of Christendom, which began in the 5^th century CE, when the Roman Emperor Constantine took control of the Church. This lead to a harmful church-state union, which in some quarters, especially since a pivotal reform movement some 500 years ago now already, is now rejected, resulting in a renewed and revitalized Way that more closely resembles the Church prior to Constantine.

 

Christian ‘believers’ will testify that the chief reason for their affirmation of this faith is their experience of meeting this risen Christ through his Spirit, which is given them upon their belief. However, many also provide many other more objective (?) proofs of the truth of Christianity. In the statement which led to this writing I stated that advent is one of these proofs. I say this simply because, in the face of all that has been thrown against Christianity, or Judaism for that matter, what is historically more persistent than the tenacious belief in advent. Who promulgates a so-far unfulfilled hope for 2000 years, and which sees no sign of stopping? If there was nothing to Christianity, these beliefs, among others, would have long ago been abandoned, and all we would have been left with is a moral corpus of teachings, exemplified by the life of their founding teacher, like Confucianism or Buddhism. However, the Judeo-Christian religion, and to some extent Islam, remain grounded in a history that looks forward to a conclusion. Advent has never been given up on. That seems to prove something to me.

Lessons from the Story of Abraham & Isaac

 

This enigmatic story, from Genesis 22:1-19, has puzzled more than a few thinkers. I referred to this story where God ostensibly asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. Over the centuries, millennia even, readers have wondered, Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son? Of course, those of us who know the story, know it has a ‘happy ending.’ Well, happy for Abraham and his only son, but not for the ram that God pointed out to Abraham at the last minute to offer instead of his son.

 

I titled this essay, “Lessons…”, not singular, indicating there has been more than one understanding drawn from this tale. So, what might they be?

 

There are at least two common meanings that have been derived from the story since it first entered Hebrew consciousness. Actually, I should more accurately say, not having studied Judaism to any extent, these are lessons Christianity has taken from this saga. 

 

The first is concerning religion of the time in a general sense. Apparently, many of the peoples surrounding Abraham at the time, and perhaps even more so when his descendants came on the scene after that 400-year sojourn in Egypt, offered infant and child sacrifices in an effort to appease their gods, to gain their gods’ ear in their accompanying supplications. The line I was thinking here goes that God was testing Abraham. God wanted to see if Abraham would indeed offer his son as a sacrifice as his contemporaries were want to do. We understand that Abraham was one of the original monotheists, i.e. believing in only one God ultimately, and perhaps God was testing him here to see if he still also would continue to worship other gods in the way his contemporaries and perhaps ancestors had done

 

In the first place, with regards to this interpretation, we should first of all note that Abraham was obedient to his God. He followed the instructions he apparently received and took several days journey with his son, servants and firewood, to the mountain where God had indicated this sacrifice was to take place. This is just another example of where Abraham obeyed God. That was one of Abraham's strong points, and something we can learn from in itself. 

 

As we have already mentioned, ultimately, Abraham was not required to sacrifice his son. This leads us to a second understanding of this story. Some see it as a ‘type’ or an example of something that was to come, namely the sacrifice of Jesus. Some might say that the sacrifice of another human would be ineffective to the extent to which what has been viewed as another sacrifice some 2000 years later was viewed. I refer, of course, to Christ's death on the cross. There is a degree to which the traditional and generally accepted understanding of Jesus' death is that it was a sacrifice, a sacrifice to end all sacrifices, as is described, at least in first reading, in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament.

 

There are many though, who still are uncomfortable with this story, and at the same time are uncomfortable with the traditional understanding of Jesus' death. Increasingly, over the last half-century and more, theologians have begun to seriously challenge the long-standing understanding of Jesus' death as a ransom, paid to free us, a substitute for us. In that understanding, humanity was viewed as under a curse ever since "the fall", the story in Genesis 3, and only Jesus' death could remove that curse, not a human, such as Abraham's son, because only Jesus, as both all-powerfully divine and all-human, was capable of accomplishing that.

 

Even if we stopped to think about the word ransom, to whom was this ransom owed? To whom was it paid? If we contend that the human race had fallen into the domain of Satan ever since our ancestors' disobedience to God, was this a ransom paid to Satan to obtain our freedom? This is absurd. Our all-powerful God owes nothing to Satan. Why would he sacrifice - his son - to Satan?

 

Others understand it slightly different, seeing Jesus' death as taking on our penalty for disobedience and giving his life to atone for that, as we, imperfect as we are, could never achieve that. Again, the question is asked, would the God of love, grace, light, truth and mercy scheme to send his only son to earth to die for us in such a horrible way?

 

Some of those who question these understandings maintain that holding to those beliefs is what has led over the centuries to what they would see as a distorted belief in the value of suffering and ultimately even in suffering abuse, such as a spouse from her husband. How often have we not heard of clerics telling their female parishioners to go home and stay with their abusive husbands, as that is their duty, or by so doing they may witness to their husbands and stop the abuse. With this really be what the God we described in the last sentence of the last paragraph would want? Those who have really been oppressed and suffered, over the centuries, such as women and Blacks, who are now writing their own theologies, cannot accept this. This is entirely understandable.

 

Then there are those of us who have long had difficulty reconciling what appears to be a judgmental God who even orders genocide, as might appear to be described in the Old Testament, with a God who is otherwise described as Love, with a God who was exemplified by the life that Jesus lived. The life that Jesus lived, the picture he gave us of God, seems so different from what many have understood as representing "the God of the Old Testament." 

 

This understanding is something that has increasingly come under the scrutiny of my co-religionists, anabaptists, who firmly believe that Jesus taught us away of peace and nonviolence. They, plus those thinkers and writers described in the second to last paragraph above, are leading us in a new understanding of the nature of Jesus' death that does not require us to accept all those other views of God and explanations of Jesus' death that have become unacceptable.

 

I am not going to flesh out what these new understandings are. That would be the subject of further writing. However, I think it can point back to our original subject story and give it a third even more important meaning. If we can accept that God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice, a ransom, a substitute, with all the negative connotations those interpretations bring, we can see that this story of Abraham and Isaac is indeed typology, but in a different way than I mentioned above.

 

According to what I am introducing here, this story points not to the belief that the death of Jesus was required as a sacrifice over and against a human sacrifice. It points to the even more fulfilling understanding that such a death, a sacrifice, is not necessary at all. Again, the full understanding of this point would only be gained by further reading of the texts of those anabaptist, black and female writers I referred to above (One good place to start though, as far as that is concerned, would be J. Danny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement, particularly as he critically summarizes any of the writings of those other camps).

 

Just a footnote here: Some might still ask, what about the ram? To that, my simple comeback would be, as Jesus and the subsequent New Testament writers themselves made clear, animal sacrifices are no longer required either. Indeed, there are some hints in the Old Testament, Jeremiah 6:20 and 7:21-23 come to mind, that they might never really have been demanded by God. Again, that is another subject.

Late to the Game

If we have been paying attention to the media, or – radical idea! – listening to young people, we will have heard that many are pessimistic, even anxious and depressed about the future of the world. First it was the bomb. Why plan for the future when the whole world might be blown to smithereens in a matter of minutes. Now, for years already, it’s climate change. Our young have been brought up in a world of science, so they may tend to believe the scientists more so. Too many of us older folk were not as sure. Maybe we were in denial, having lived through two world wars, with a major depression in between. Maybe we thought, since we’ve lived through that and the bombs have not gone off again, and we seemed to be able to ‘fix’ everything till now, we can fix this.

 

Were we that blind? Were we in denial? Now those scientists, Christians even, are telling us we have less than ten years to turn things around or the fires burning around the world now will be burning everywhere. With that prospect, one might well ask – about practically every human endeavour not focused on that – what’s the point?

 

As some of you know, those few good friends – thank you so much - who purchased my book on Mary & Jesus, I did get one book published last year – but at my own expense. I have three or four stories I’ve begun to write but I really can’t afford to keep self-publishing. Besides, that doesn’t get you the publicity that might really help sales. Unless maybe you go into promotion full time for a while. 

 

Earlier this year we had a small lending library in the lobby of our building. I picked up a Louise Penny novel there and found I really enjoyed it (She’s Canadian too). This week I read a story on her and found it had taken her fifty submissions to publishers before she got somewhere! Now that’s determination. Now she is internationally known and has sold over ten million books! 

 

That gave me hope and I thought, I should get to work on those stories of mine. This morning even my wife encouraged me. On the other hand, I’ve just finished reading Thomas King’s Indians on Vacation. The protagonist is a retired writer who bemoans the fact that what he wrote does not seemed to have changed the world or made it a better place. He questions what was the point of it all. His partner thinks he’s depressed.

 

I retired nearly six years ago and there were issues around my retirement and since that have not always made things easy.  Sometimes I wondered if I was depressed. I even convinced – I’m the (retired) psychiatrist after all – my family Physician to give me a trial of antidepressants. After six weeks and no difference I had to face the fact that it’s just me. Buck up my friend!

 

So, after breakfast I sat down at my desk, thinking I would get at the story that had most captured my imagination. I had even figured out that it could be more than 'just' an enteataining story. It could carry a strong and still needed message in our world (Hint, Jesus was a ‘feminist’, which might not be quite the right descriptor but you get the point).  

 

But then those other messages I’ve been hearing, especially within the past week, echoed in my mind. Less than ten years? All else fails in the face of that. Is this a time to write novels? Is that like the old trope of the Roman Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned? Or is it a time to try and wake up enough of my fellow human beings who are not already ‘woke’ to the looming disaster? 

 

I am not and have never been a pessimist. Unless I don’t know myself. Some might have even seen me as too far to the opposite at times. Especially as a Christian. As long as we know and believe that the Lord we serve – or claim to – is the Creator and Sustainer of this world, there is hope. We believe God’s plan will culminate in renewal of the world he made and once pronounced good, repeatedly. It’s up to us to listen to the voices around and inside of ourselves, to The Spirit, to see what our Lord would have us do in our present world situation. We understand God created us to be co-regents with him in ‘ruling’ this world. What does that mean for us today, here and now? Stay tuned – to the world and your inner voice, which, if you are a Believer, should be God’s voice. As long as God lends you breath, it’s never too late to get in the game.

Three Strikes and You're Out… No, Seven and Counting

 

Most of us are familiar with the first part of this line from the popular North American sport of baseball. But seven? What does that mean? How far out can you be? 

 

Our current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, likes to say that the most important item on the Canadian political agenda is reconciliation with our indigenous citizens. I am not sure how he can in all honesty continue to say that. By his actions, he still belongs to that group of umpires, a.k.a. Canadian politicians, who continue to call "Strike out" against our indigenous neighbors, long after we have reached the proverbial three.

 

Let me just list some of those strikes. This is for those of you who still like to think that First Nations are getting more than their share in the Canadian economy. It is also for those of you who still continue to say in reference to these people and their stories of what Canada has done to them, "Get over it" or "Move on."

 

Now, this is a blog and not a formal paper, so I am going to be listing some of the strikes, but not always giving the sources, and certainly not footnotes. Much of this is common knowledge to those who pay any attention to history and current affairs. But are we learning from history?

 

I had known about a number of these strikes for years and was still sometimes shocked when I actually heard them, or heard of ones I had not known about before. Sometimes it is hard to believe how hard our government, which ostensibly represents us and our indigenous citizens, has tried to "strike out" the Indians (and not the Cleveland Indians either; I think they got permanently “struck out"), to use an older term which is still in use, even by indigenous people themselves at times.

 

1.     Breaking treaties. European settlers began to make treaties with First Nations going back to the 17th century at least. However, they have practically all been broken in more ways than one. In my books, that

is called dishonesty, lying, maybe even cheating. Going back on your promises certainly does not encourage trust. Do we wonder, after nearly 300 years of this and what follows, why are indigenous citizens still do not trust us?

 

2.     Shrinking reserves. We won’t even get into the discussion of how wrong it was to create reserves and force the natives on to them in the first place. When this happened years later in South Africa, the Western

nations eventually saw this as apartheid and took severe steps to essentially force South Africa to change their ways. In all fairness though, sometimes the first Nations, sensing the inevitable with the onslaught of Europeans settlers, were in favor of this so that they could have some land where they could still carry out the ways of life they were used to at the time. However, who were not prepared, in most cases, for how stingy our government was in giving them reserve allotments in comparison to the freedom with which they had lived across the land previously. To make matters worse, the government continued to take steps subsequently to shrink reserve lands to allow more lands for settlers and sometimes to render reserves null and void completely. Where do you go when your home property gets smaller and smaller, and maybe even disappears?

 

3.      Not buying crops. By the middle of the 19th century it was evident that the indigenous people could no longer really carry on their way of life of gathering, hunting and trapping. The government sought to

encourage them to move into agriculture and so promised in the treaties that they would provide them agricultural equipment to help facilitate this change, having already provided them reserve land on which to begin this way of living. However, this was one of those moves that first shocked me when I read about it in the history of Manitoba some years ago. I am not an easily shocked person. Some indigenous people, in spite of the odds, began farming with some good success. However, what did our governments and their representatives do? In too many cases, across the prairies, they refused to buy their crops, to give settlers more of a chance to sell their crops, or maybe paid them less than what settlers were getting paid. The outcome, which the government and Canadian citizens of the time did not really mind, was that many were literally forced into starvation. After all, they were just "the Indian problem."

 

 

4.     Spreading disease. Not surprisingly, the Europeans brought with them many vectors of infectious illness

that the indigenous people of Canada, not having encountered these illnesses, had no defense against. It 

wasn't until years after the arrival of the colonists, that steps began to be taken to combat diseases like tuberculosis, which ran rampant among the indigenous people. That was bad enough. However, many of us know that there were also examples of where diseases were spread among First Nations, if not purposely, at least knowingly. I refer here to the infamous "smallpox blankets." The Indians were becoming needy and blankets were given to them, sometimes as a part of ceremonial protocol, sometimes, ostensibly, to help them out. However, some of them were no one to carry the smallpox virus. In fact, once this deadly virus, who most of us don't even know about anymore, was let loose on the indigenous population, it spread across the continent way in advance of the settlers. Thousands of indigenous people in British Columbia died from this long before settlers reached the province.

 

5.     No lawyers. Our indigenous neighbors do not lack intelligence. It did not take them long to understand that the colonists and their settlers were not to be trusted, as referred to above. When the government 

sensed that the indigenous citizens were beginning to look at the use of lawyers to help them fight against the injustices perpetrated upon them using the settlers' own laws, what did the government do? They pass another law forbidding indigenous people from using lawyers! So much for equality.

 

6.     No vote. As if number five did not already indicate significant inequality, not being enfranchised was another mark against the Canadian government. Provisions were made early on for indigenous people to

Become enfranchised, to get the vote, if they wished. But why do they have to show desire to do so? Why was the right to vote not just granted to them like every other citizen of the land? To make matters worse, in the early years particularly, if indigenous people wished to be enfranchised, they practically had to give up all of their other rights! Again I ask, how is that equality?

 

7.     Court battles. This is one area that continues to be a sore spot and which we Canadians should stop engaging in. This is one of the reasons why I essentially referred to Trudeau as a hypocrite, because his

government, while mouthing good wishes towards indigenous people on the one hand, continue to spend millions of dollars that could be better spent for all in the country, on fighting them in the court, on many fronts. We know that some of this occurs with things like land and resource rights, and one could argue that there is some merit in spouting that out clearly, which sometimes involves court cases. However, we also know that where justice has already decreed that indigenous people were entitled to certain compensations, the government spends exorbitant sums fighting that, such as money that was to be paid for residential school survivors and survivors of the so-called "60s scoop" of adoptions of indigenous people by non-indigenous citizens, not only in Canada, but sent across the border into the US.

 

I could go on, but I think I have given the reader enough of a taste of the uneven playing field with which we settler-colonists "play" with our indigenous neighbors. I will stop at the perfect number of seven, although what we have been writing about here is anything but perfect.

 

I hope some of you reading this are asking the question, what are we to do about it? I have three answers to that. First of all, reassess your attitude toward our indigenous neighbors. Perhaps you have been judging them unfairly, given what you have just read. Secondly, look further into these and other areas yourselves to see how badly we as a nation and citizens have behaved towards our indigenous neighbors. Thirdly, advocate against all of these injustices by communicating with your government representatives at all levels, to change the rules of the game so that they are fair to all, and no one any longer gets more than three strikes called against them.

 

 

Jesus and the LGBTQ

 

What? Some of you will say? What does this mean? Jesus never said anything about the LGBTQ (Quickly, before some of you say, it’s no longer LGBTQ, it’s _____. I know that, but it’s so hard to keep up with the other letters and even numbers that get included that I am just going to stick with the most familiar acronym for now).  Well, those of you who are my Facebook friends and who have read my blogs will know that I like to come up with titles that catch your attention. How else do you get people to read what you say? Unless you’re already famous as a writer.

 

Yes, reader, you are right when you said Jesus never said anything about the LGBTQ. How could he have? That set of letters, that acronym, did not exist in his time. All right, now I might be sounding a bit facetious. Others will say, but there were homosexuals in Jesus’ day and he never said anything about them. That is partly true. The word homosexual had not yet been invented either, so, again, Jesus could not have taught on that. But, you might protest, homosexual behavior was known. Indeed, that was. There is a famous statement on that in Leviticus and some of Paul’s writings are interpreted or translated as referring to homosexuals or their behavior. 

 

Indeed, many discussions have been held on these subjects and many sermons and lectures have dealt with it, not to mention all the ink spilled on it. Of course, nowadays you can google the internet and you will find enough material to keep you reading, enough Youtube videos, to keep you occupied for a lifetime. You will find a variety of approaches and conclusions in all of these. Some are based on traditional views still held by many Christians. Others delve into scripture to try to explain what the passages referred to might mean as opposed to what they are generally understood as saying when taken quite literally. The first party generally still believes all LGBTQ behavior is wrong, even ‘sinful’, essentially judging and condemning them all at once. The second group tries to explain how scripture can be understood in ways that can lead to different, more positive outcomes for the LGBTQ.

 

So, what did Jesus say? Jesus had a lot to say about The Law that his contemporaries, the Jews of Galilee, Judea and the Diaspora followed still. The key in understanding what Jesus’ view on the LGBTQ subject might have been, since he did not address it directly, would, I contend, lie in how he interpreted this Law. We know he often said, “The Law says, but I say to you,” or words to that effect. And what were his ultimate words on the Law? This is recorded in more than one place and sounded like this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” Period. That’s it.

 

How are we to understand this? Some call it the law of love. It has also been called the royal law, as we Believers acknowledge Christ Jesus as our king. If we understand what love is, or does, I think our attitude to the LGBTQ should be quite plain. We can find biblical material on love, especially in the writings of John (or the Johns, if you think all those John books were not written by the same guy), and that famous poetry of Paul’s from I Corinthians 13.

 

Let's just look a little at I Corinthians. The key section of this poem is numbered as verses 4-7: 

"Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. 

It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 

it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 

It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

 

It is not difficult to see that we have, as The Church, failed our LGBTQ type neighbors in many ways when we read that. Are we patient with them or do we jump to judge them and their lifestyle as being sinful, and therefore condemned, unless they repent. Are we really kind to them? In believing that we, who hold the traditional view, are right, have we been arrogant and perhaps even rude about that? We have certainly insisted on our own way, what we believe is right, in this regard. Have we rejoiced with them in the truth? Do we really know for sure that the pronouncements we make in this regard are the truth? We, as Christians, should know that for us, truth is more than a word. It is embodied in Jesus, the Word. If we believe that Jesus was the Son of God, one of the three elements of The Trinity, then we must also accept those passages that say that God is love as applying to Jesus. And what did we say a couple of paragraphs back? Jesus some of the practical part of the law which pertains to how we behave towards others, as loving our neighbors as ourselves. Surprise! This includes people of the LGBTQ type.

 

Many Christians believe they have made significant progress when they come to the point where they accept that there are individuals who fit into this LGBTQ category. However, many say that, although they may be born in which ever way they are expressing their gender, to fully act out their love as humans, they must refrain from the kinds of affection and intimate love that we believe we as heterosexual persons can enjoy. What kind of logic is that? 

 

I have just finished reading a book titled Misguided Love by   Denham. You might think that title refers to what LGBTQ individuals want to do in expressing their deepest and even sexual love for one another, that this is misguided. You would be wrong. The author goes to great lengths, from pre-Christian times to the present day, to show that it is The Church’s ‘love’ that has been misguided. 

 

I won’t go into details. You can read the book. The writer’s ultimate conclusion is that The Church, thinking over the ages that it was showing love in various ways, including torturing and burning homosexuals to save their souls – or the rest of The Church from this ‘evil’ has caused untold harm. It has certainly not been heeding Christ’s words about The Law of Love. Families and friendships are torn by the Church’s actions. Too many who have tried to be accepted in The Church and failed have committed suicide. Is it showing love when we drive people to that extreme?

 

In fact, the author also suggests that the current broader society’s homophobia and other ill-willed actions against the LGBTQ community stems from The Church’s teachings down through the ages. One might raise one’s eyebrows at that, but don’t forget, until the 19^th century, it was The Church that pretty much set the entire moral tone of western society. The Church’s teachings led to hatred of this segment of the population because it was believed they were contributing to the moral breakdown of society. They were seen as an evil blot that had to be removed. The Church, in effect, granted permission to those who fear and hate this group to commit hate crimes and worse against them. 

 

We also read in scripture, “perfect love casts out fear.” Why is there so much fear of this community? Their efforts to gain equal respect and rights as the rest of us are interpreted in fear as that they have an ‘agenda’ to destroy society. Schools that allow teaching about this area are accused of contributing to the breakdown of marriage, the family and society. The LGBTQ are trying to turn the rest of us into them. Really?!

 

There are people in this group in society who are committed Christians. You could not find fault with their faith story, their testimony; even their lifestyle might be equal to that of many of their fellow Christians. They are in committed relationships with one another, the nature and characteristics of which are no different than heterosexual’s marriages. Yet we deny them from fully expressing love.  We deny them complete personhood. 

 

We believe love does no harm. What harm are these Christian couples – and I don’t speak for non-Christians, ; we have no jurisdiction over them - doing to us? If their lives, including their love for one another, is every bit as exemplar as many of the rest of us, how and whom are they hurting? 

 

It’s time we stopped obeying old laws, biblical and societal, and obey The Law of Love taught by Christ. It’s time we repent of the harm we, not the LGBTQ, have done to society and to countless individuals and begin to move forward. We have a lot of reconciliation and reparation to do to. Let’s start on this journey and show the world what true and full, complete love is. We’ve done the opposite long enough.

Beware the cosmic supernatural “dog in the manger”!

 

Some of you might have seen my blog https://reflect-lulu-isle.blogspot.com/2014/07/halloween-about-death-devil.htmlfrom July 28, 2014. Recently some of the thoughts I had there were furthered by an Easter message,  “A Resurrection-shaped Life” I heard – by Brian Houston of Hillsong, no less! I don’t particularly support Hillsong, and I only heard the message because we were checking out Hillsong (It’s at the 1 hr. 8 min. mark here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ImXZ5_gsSk if you want to check it out for yourself). But I digress.

 

Houston made reference here to Hebrews 2:14-15: “Since therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he (Christ, that is) himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.”

 

In our society today, many fear death and do all they can to prolong life and prevent it. Others have lost their fear of death and welcome it as an escape by choosing suicide or euthanasia. Now, in all fairness, some in these last categories really are suffering and, unfortunately, have not got the help or support to see any other way out. Actually, this is not new. The ancient Greeks who had come to espouse the philosophies of Socrates and others, also looked upon death positively as an escape from this life. This was because they regarded the body as a cursed mortal evil in which their real selves, their soul, was trapped and only in death could they escape this body. 

 

The problem is, in all of this, the devil has won. Again, I would not include all cases of suicide and euthanasia in this. But when the devil has us afraid, he is attacking our sense of security and wellbeing. And when he has us not afraid, well, then are have surrendered entirely to his death wish. 

 

You see, according to most faith traditions, but particularly the three monotheistic traditions, life was created by means of supernatural powers. In Judeo-Christian terms, everything, all life, was created by Jahweh, or God. Indeed, God alone was the Creator of all things. God is the source of life.

 

However, as we know from the book of Genesis narrative, chapter 3, something happened. Another being interposed itself between God and humanity. This being has become known by a variety of names, including devil and Satan, which is Hebrew for “The Accuser.” Way back in time, the story goes, this being rebelled against God. He wanted to be like God. However, God, being God, is all-powerful and Satan did not succeed. Meanwhile, God had poured his creativity and love into the making of the universe and ultimately humanity, with whom he wanted to be in relationship with. Put simply, Satan was jealous. He could see that humans were vulnerable, so he made his move.

 

Satan apparently influenced humanity in such a way that they too decided they did not need to regard God and his instructions as necessarily needing to be fully obeyed. In other words, they also began to rebel. What Satan knew, and the humans did not, was that as soon as they took this step, they were doomed, just as Satan was. The Bible teaches that Satan is going to be defeated once and for all at the end of time. This is where he displays his ‘dog-in-the-manger’ nature. He forfeited his position of eternal bliss with God and he is doing his utmost to make sure we, God’s creatures end up with him. It’s his way of getting back at God. It is why God so hates Satan, because Satan is doing his best to thwart the good plans God has for us.  

 

If we reject God, the only alternative is that we are following Satan. As the Hebrews text quoted above says so plainly, this places us in Satan’s grasp, subject to death with him. As I wrote seven years ago, the road with Satan leads to only one place, death. However, what the Hebrews passage is part of, is an explanation of how Jesus, the Christ, through his death and resurrection, defeated Satan. If we believe this, turn our back on Satan and admit (‘confess our sin’, in biblical terms) we were wrong and want to follow God once again (in biblical language this is called ‘repentance’) Jesus can free us from our slavery to Satan and put us back into the loving relationship with God we were created for, and on the road to a glorious eternity. 

 

Beware the cosmic ‘dog-in-the manger’!  The consequences of not doing so are terrible.

 

 

Thoughts on Worship Today

Many of us who are a part of an active congregation, or maybe not even, as we can now watch things without actually attending, have now watched or, at some level, possibly even taken part, in online worship since the coronavirus restrictions came into place almost a year ago. We probably all have some dislikes and likes about what we see. Actually, what I have to say can largely apply to in-person worship just as well.

 

Let me begin at the beginning, with what one sees when one looks at a video screen with worship leaders or a worship team beginning a worship service. In the first place, I think we need to see more smiling and joyful faces up there than we often do. I know it is difficult nowadays as there is so much concentration and focus required to do this well on-line especially, not to mention the practice required, but still…. After all, if we really believe what we say we do and understand why we are there together, it is to praise our God and to encourage us in our lives. At least to begin the worship, we should have some good positive, enthusiastic praise. A smiling face probably makes the music sound more genuine and appealing, and could certainly help lift the spirits of those watching. We need all the help we can get in that area nowadays, with the increasingly drawn out restrictions because with a virus. 

 

Then, when it comes to taking part, we need to have songs so that we can readily learn or sing along with. Some of us find nowadays that so-called contemporary Christian music often seems to be slow and reflective, perhaps aimed at creating a mood or a certain direction of thinking about what one is singing. Sometimes these are songs that have been lifted from a soloist or more competent music ensemble, which those leading the worship have come to appreciate. However, that does not mean they are readily transferable to being sung by the congregation.

 

Then let me make a remark about what some might refer to as the stage presence, as that is where most worship leaders or teams are seen from nowadays. I think we need to keep the stage and background somewhat uncluttered so that we maintain our focus on worship. I think we also need to take care to see that whatever is on stage or behind it is of some use in reflecting the fact that this is a church congregation at worship, and not just any stage show. Therefore, I think it would be good to have some symbols of our faith evident, be it as simple as a cross.

 

Given that this is being written in the context of where we have largely been reduced to worshiping online when it comes to the corporate element of that, let me make some remarks about the technology. Most of us probably have no idea of what a learning curve our worship leaders have had to undergo to present what we see on YouTube, Facebook Live, or wherever we are finding our favorite worship service. Our congregations have had to learn what equipment was necessary, how to assemble it together, and learn how to use it effectively. When the worship leaders or team are not simply walking on stage and doing things live, there is a lot of practicing and recording and sometimes piecing things together that needs to be done. This has added a whole another element of time-consuming strain and stress to leading congregational worship that we need to appreciate and give our congregational worship leaders credit and thanks for. Some might have a lot more to say about this then what I have written so far. However, for me, these are some of the main elements that continue to present themselves.

 

Some might want to ask, what gives me the right to make such comments or suggestions. In the first place, I think we could readily agree that all of us in the congregation or even non-adherent watchers are free to respond as we see fit. However, I do have more than a bit of musical background, from singing in family groups and quartets to a madrigal group and touring and oratorio choirs, as well as conducting and worship leading, but that would be subject for another time.

 

Meanwhile, let us continue to abide by the biblical injunction that asks us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, even if it is only online nowadays. We can thank God that we have this technology that allows us to worship together in new ways, and be thankful for those who put so much effort into creating our worship experiences, in spite of the current pandemic.

 

 

Woodstock, Gardens, Easter - and Creation Care?

I venture to say that almost everyone who was coming-of-age in the late 1960s has heard this song by our own Canadian Joni Mitchell:

 

I came upon a child of God

He was walking along the road

And I asked him where are you going

And this he told me

I'm going on down to Yasgur's farm 

I'm going to join in a rock 'n' roll band

I'm going to camp out on the land

I'm going to try an' get my soul free 

 

We are stardust

We are golden

And we've got to get ourselves

Back to the garden

 

For a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lx86B6a3kc

 

Interestingly, even though Joni Mitchell did not perform at Woodstock, this song, so-titled, became the first song on the LPs and then movies that were put out subsequent to the big festival of 1969. Coincidentally, one of the vocalists on that famous recording is none other than another Canadian, Neil Young. And even though we might not agree with everything in the lyrics in terms of our theology as Christians, there is more than a kernel of truth here.

 

These connections really struck me anew this week. It is Lent, so it was appropriate that in my reading through the Bible this year, I came to Matthew 26:36, which reads "Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray.""  That verse stood out to me because in the version of the Bible I am reading, The Green Bible, the text (New Revised Standard Version) is in green. Some of you will be familiar with the so-called red-letter Bibles, where all the text that Jesus spoke is in red.  Those who worked on That Green Bible selected some 1500 versus to highlight with green text because, in their minds, these verses related to Creation Care, as we have come to know this aspect of concern for our environment. The phrase in capital letters is descriptive of the movement in this regard that has grown up within the Christian church in the last half-century.

 

So, there you have it, Woodstock, Gardens, Easter and Creation Care. However, there is more to it than just stringing those words together. If we look at our Bibles, we readily see that almost the whole collection of books and letters we call The Bible, is ‘book-ended' by reference to and description of gardens. The first is what we know as the Garden of Eden, and the last is what is described as the garden of the future New Heaven and Earth.

 

But why would the editors of The Green Bible highlight this one verse about Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane on the evening before his crucifixion? Think about it. The way we understand the message of the Bible, in the first garden, God was in intimate relationship with humanity, which he had created. We read about him walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening. Everything was perfect. There was no sin, no death. Humanity was connected to its Creator, who had created the universe, the earth and all that covers and occupies it including humanity because of his inherent love and creativity. He created much before he created humanity, but he could not have a loving relationship with most of that creation. Thus, he created humanity in his own image, as we read. He created us to be in a reciprocal love relationship with him.

 

We also read that God had a purpose for placing humanity in this garden. They were to look after it. They were to be co-regents with God in terms of looking after the earth i.e. Creation Care. We know what happened next. Humanity, first, rejected the will of God, submission to him and made wrong choices, second, as a consequence of that first choice, they lost that relationship with God, third, were expelled from the garden, and, fourth, sentenced to death.

 

Are you beginning to see why what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane might have been highlighted in green? Everything that happened in the Garden of Eden was reversed in the chain of events set in motion by Jesus' going to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. At least, this is how we as Christians understand it. In the first place, Jesus submitted to God's will, driven by God's love for humanity and his desire that no one should be lost, and set his face for the cross. With his sacrificial death on the cross, the consequences of those early wrong choices were erased. Love won out. At least if we believe what Jesus' death and resurrection signify, even though we acknowledge that no one on earth has ever fully understood how that came about. Hence the number of so-called theories of atonement, but that's another story. Our relationship with God was restored and the sentence of death removed for those who believe. Christians claim all of that in the here and now. The only thing we still wait for is our resurrection to life eternal with God in the new garden.

 

Meanwhile, in this period between Christ's death and, what the Bible refers to as the end of the age, Christ enjoined us to work with him to begin bringing about the new Kingdom of God on earth already. As such, that very first command to humanity, to look after the garden, i.e. the earth, means we should be devoting efforts to do so. In various ways, humanity, including Christians, has looked after the earth reasonably well over most of human existence. It is largely since the dawn of the soul-called Industrial Age, that forces detrimental to the well-being of the earth have been unleashed. However, the call to look after the earth is there and we Christians should be at the forefront of such efforts.

 

Lorne Brandt, 2021-3-26 posted to “Reflections from Lulu Isle” blog.

 

 

 

 

 

An (In)famous Turn-off Line – Part II

 

We began Part I by referring to the old saying, “Ye must be born again.” We need to recognize here that for many who call themselves followers of Jesus, the Christ, this phrase is very important to them. I am certainly not intending to belittle that. To them this statement refers to a critical experience in their lives. Remember, I said there was still more to say about dating? These individuals can give you the precise date when this occurred. Their very faith seems to hang on to the ability to do this. They can point to the date, maybe even time when they made a conscious decision to follow Christ. From then on, they identified as Christians, even ‘born again’ Christians. Unfortunately, that has sometimes been accompanied by a bit of a holier-than-thou attitude to those who also claim to be Christians but don’t make the claim of being ‘born again’ in the same date-related experiential manner. 

 

Some comments are in order here then as to why I am then referring to this saying as an “infamous turn-off line.” It has caused some who can claim that ‘born again’ date to question those who cannot provide such information. Maybe they are not really a Christian. Such individuals are actually made to feel guilty for claiming to be Christin with no date and time proof of when they were ‘born again’ into the faith. They are made to feel they are lacking somehow, because they cannot make this ‘born again’ claim. Some have grown so tired of this challenge that they have become sick of the phrase. Sadly, some of these have gone on to lose their faith entirely. If you hear often enough that you can’t be a Christian without making that claim, well maybe I am not a Christian. Would you not agree that a saying that causes people to lose faith in Christ can also be infamous? To these erstwhile believers, it certainly is. 

 

Let’s a closer look at the origins of this saying. I know, some of you will say, well, that is what Jesus said to the night-visiting Pharisee Nicodemus as recorded in The Gospel According to St. John chapter 3. Indeed, verse 7 is the actual quote. However, Jesus has introduced the concept and begun to expand on it in verse 3. 

 

But what is Jesus talking about? He is certainly not talking about human birth. He makes that clear to Nicodemus when this guest asks (3:4) how anyone as an adult can be reborn. Jesus tells him he is talking about “being born of water and Spirit (3:5).” Elaborating on the last Jesus compares it to the wind, “you do not know where it comes form or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Doesn’t that sound a bit nebulous? Does it sound like something you could hang your hat on as to a date? Maybe there is even a bit of a caution here about being too specific about your Spirit birth. You can say with reason why you know it has happened, but much of it is humanly unexplainable. More of that later.

 

Jesus is obviously, it seems to me, using birth as a figure of speech. This opens the way to look further about how birth, being born, is used in such a way. We talk about something being ‘born out of a need.’ We talk about things ‘in the process of being born.’ We understand that in both of these expressions we are talking about something that took place over a period of time. It did not happen at once, a specific date and time. So, when Jesus talks of being born again, why do we think we need to pin that down to a date, place and time?

 

If this phrase and the related experience it describes was so important, why is it not emphasized in the other gospels or the rest of the New Testament? If the line was so important, why does it only surface in this book written decades after the other gospels and all the other New Testament writings? Why is it only John who talks as much as he does about this business of being born? 

 

If this phrase is so important, why does it not show up in conjunction with passages about how you know you are a Christian. Even Jesus, when speaking of the last judgment and who will be deemed eligible to enter his eternal kingdom, talks of those who do things like giving a cup of cold water, visiting those in prison, caring for the sick etc. he does not say anything about being able to point to when you were saved.’ Again, when the Bible speaks of evidence of what it means to be born again, it does not mention being able to point to a date, it talks about showing the fruits of the Spirit in one’s life. Even john writes (I John 2:29) “everyone who does right has been born of him.” In 3:9 he adds, “Those who have been born of God do not sin.” In 4:7 John writes, “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God.” If those who can point to a born again experience question the truth of another person’s confession of faith because they cannot make that claim, is that love? Or is that judgment? We know whom we are to leave such judgment to, only God can judge the heart. Our actions are the proof of a change in our lives. There many whose lives show such actions and who profess to believe in Jesus’ redeeming work. It is the repentance from past ways and confession of faith that saves and it is in our lives that we show proof of this.

 

And what of all those who came before Christ? Surely we do not believe Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and others are not going to be in heaven because they had not heard about being born again – well, you get the picture. 

If you can claim to have had a born again experience, good for you. But don’t judge everyone else on a couple of phrases from what is written in quite possibly the second last book of the Bible to be written. 

****

 

 

 

An (In)famous Turn-off Line Part I

Where the Line Comes from

It’s Valentine’s Day, I know. So, you think I’m referring to something to do with dating. Semantically, you are correct, but I’m sure you still have a different idea in your mind than what follows.

 

I’m referring to the old saying, “Ye must be born again.” I know, even the ‘ye’ is a turn-off for many. However, for many of us, that is how the line has been burned into our minds. That’s because, if we come from a ‘Christian home’ we were raised in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible – which is from 1611! You see, dating does enter the picture here.

 

This translation of the Bible, for that’s what it is, from Greek & Latin into English was not the first. John Wycliffe holds those honours from the 1380s and William Tyndale the first to translate and have printed an English translation from 1525. However, we should know that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, so how good could those Old Testament translations be? It was not until ten years later that Myles Coverdale and John Rogers (alias Thomas Matthew – you still had to be careful what you did with the word of God in those days or the religious authorities could even make you into a martyr) published an English translation that did use Hebrew manuscripts from which to work for the Old Testament. The New Testament was written in Aramaic and Greek, so such manuscripts were more readily accessible from which to translate.

 

Then we come to King Henry VIII and The Great Bible of 1540. This was the first ‘legal’ translation in Great Britain, as the king authorized it. However, it was only printed in large volumes (hence ‘Great’, for placing and usage in churches and training institutions. Henry VIII, you will remember, infamously broke away from the Roman Catholic Church so he could obtain a divorce. He then established the Church of England (Anglican in Canada, Episcopalian in the US), with himself as head. This was part of England’s church reformation story, with Anglicans being known as Protestants. Having a Bible in English was another way of thumbing his nose at the Roman Catholics and their Latin versions.

 

Then, religious freedom took a step backwards with thee assumption to the throne of the Catholic Queen Mary. She had John Rogers and Thomas Cranmer (responsible with Myles Coverdale for The Great Bible) burned at the stake in 1511! Myles Coverdale saved his life by fleeing to Switzerland, which was where the church reformation originated, so he was accepted there. 

 

Finally, when non-Catholic King James ascended to the English throne, religious authorities came to him to request a new English translation. This was largely because a Swiss Reformed supported translation from 1560, the Geneva Bible, had become popular everywhere. It, in turn, was based largely on Tyndale’s work, as well as a recent Catholic New Testament translation. The result in 1611 was the so-called King James Version. There is some real irony here. It was based in part on translations done by Catholics. Also, as for its being a Protestant Bible, which is for many of today’s evangelicals the only acceptable version, it was done under the auspices of authorities who were still persecuting the real reforming Protestants. Finally, the version read in homes all over North America and beyond today is not from 1611, but from the Revised Oxford Version of 1769, although you’d never learn that from most editions in print today.

 

So, had enough of dating? Let’s get back to that line with which we started… although there is still more dating to follow – but it’s not quite like what you’ve read so far.

Part II to follow.

For historical details I must give credit to:

https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/