Nose in a book, and hands dancing on the keyboard
Making notes, hoping to discover a connection
The intern decides it is time to make a major contribution
She sits, says “meow” and the notes vanish into asegasgdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
Reflection on “The Ballot and the Bible”
While there is a truism that there is a separation between faith and politics; especially in a nation that has a separation of church and state, it seems that it is a false truism. Politicians are intensely interested in the vote of faith communities — and those who value faith are influenced by it when they go to the ballot box.
Those who speak of scripture as being non-political miss that the Hebrew scriptures are dominated by politics. The law is political — it tells how to order a society. The prophets are political, as they usually speak to national leaders on how to run the nation. Even when Jeremiah speaks to the exiles, there is a deep political element. Even the New Testament (which was written to people who had no political power) is political and has political implications.
In The Ballot and the Bible Kaitlyn Schiess walks the reader through American history seen through the lens of Biblical interpretation. She explains how loyalists and revolutionaries read their Bibles during the revolutionary war period. She explained how Slaveholders, Abolitionists, and enslaved Blacks understood scripture. She explained the social gospel, and how it fell from favor. She also explained the current culture war, and how lines were drawn.
This explanation was helpful to me, because, like all other students of scripture, there is a temptation for me to feel my own interpretation is the correct one, and that interpretations that are radically different than my own are dishonest. Walking through the logic of various interpretive methods was a helpful exercise.
That being said, Schiess clearly recognizes that not all interpretative methods, nor methods of communicating what was interpreted are honest. The full title is: “The Ballot and the Bible: How Scripture Has Been Used and Abused in American Politics and Where We Go from Here”
Two specific types of abuses Schiess mentioned stood out to me: First was the abuse of using scripture to assign God’s authority to our ideas. Perhaps this stood out because I have some connection to a church culture where contextually irrelevant Bible quotes get attached to all sorts of statements to lend authority to that statement. A weak argument seems much stronger when implying arguing against it is arguing against scripture; even though the fragment of scripture quoted is most often irrelevant when examining the entire passage.
The second is a related abuse of only reading what the Bible says against our opponent, and never what it says against us. If we read scripture in that way, we are like a man who looks into a mirror and forgets what we look like. (James 1:23-24)
Schiess encouraged readers to hear the narratives of scripture, to listen to interpretations outside of our own biases, and to apply scripture to our lives rather than only to winning arguments. She explained honest disagreements in interpretation, and by doing so she invited us to understand the conversation. I highly recommend reading this book for a better understanding of how Christian Faith and politics function — and for a reminder that none of us are unbiased observers.
Holy Week
Passion week was unfair. Rules should protect the most vulnerable members of society. Unfortunately, when rules are weaponized and applied unfairly, things happen very differently.
First, Jesus’ opponents decided to look for dirt on him. They searched the rules for anything they could use against him. They created legal traps to trip him up. They did what they could to harass him with any tool they could find in the rulebook.
Jesus was constantly being called to account for minor, defensible sabbath violations. It really became obvious when he was confronted because his disciples ate something that required “work” to eat. Can you imagine getting yelled at for shelling peanuts you were eating because it wasn’t a work day? When searching for dirt on Jesus and applying the letter of the law unfairly and in violation of the spirit didn’t work, Jesus’ enemies realized they had to move from mere injustice to straight up fraudulent prosecution. Because they couldn’t find any dirt that would stick, they had to make things up. They hired a disciple to identify Jesus to the authorities, and they hired false witnesses to testify.
When they arrested Jesus, they took him straight to trial. This trial was held by the legally correct people in the appropriate place, but it was held in secret at the wrong time. Those who judged Jesus were the ones who hired the false witnesses. The outcome was decided before the trial began. The system of injustice applied to Jesus shocks me. Here is a man falsely arrested, prosecuted by someone who knew he was innocent, falsely convicted by a court that knew he was innocent, and sent to execution by a governor who knew he was innocent but knew it would be politically disastrous to commute the sentence.
Sometimes I see unfair things happening in our own time. I see people selected for harassment based on minor rules. I see people digging up or making up dirt. I’ve even heard news of prosecutors, knowing a person was innocent, seeking a plea bargain to make their numbers look good (though, it looks bad when it makes the news).
Jesus didn’t make life fair, nor did he make the system just, though he encouraged his followers to work toward justice and treat one another fairly. Jesus suffered injustice all the way to death, compassionately suffering with the marginalized, through the same system. Jesus once said, “As you did to one of these, you did to me.” When we see how the poor and prisoners are treated, we know exactly how Jesus would be treated if he were here today.
Note: Expected to be published in the Summer 2023 Illuminate study on Mark’s gospel.
Book of the 12
Book of the 12
We are starting a study of what are known as the Minor Prophets by Christian commentators, and the Book of the twelve by Jewish commentators. These twelve prophecies are short. Scholars date the individual oracles from late in the kingdom of Judah to after the second temple was built. Many of the prophecies are brief and vague enough that there is no consensus opinion of their date.
Our Sunday School lesson invited us to consider this as a single work rather than 12 separate works. If we look at this as it’s own work, then we have to consider why these specific prophecies were chosen, and why they were in this order. It would also be useful to know when the editor chose what would be in this anthology, though all we know is that it was assembled after the last oracle was written, and before 190 BC. This is a long enough period that it could include the end of the period depicted by Nehemiah, the period that Judah was under Greek Rule, or the brief period of independence under priestly kings. Basically, we know it was put together in the period of the Second Temple, but before Herod the Great made an alliance with Julius Caesar.
Hosea condemns the Idolatry of Israel and prophecies the destruction of Israel. Israel was destroyed by the Assyrian empire, and the Remanent of Israel would later be called Samaritans.
Joel uses a loss of crops due to locust as an allegory of future judgment. He calls on Judah to repent, and promises a time of prosperity and the judgment of Judah’s enemies.
Amos condemns Israel, as well as other nations for failing to offer justice to the powerless. Amos lets us know that God will judge the nation based on whether there is justice for the marginalized.
Obadiah predicts the destruction of Edom. Edom is the descendants of Esau and was a client-kingdom of Judah. Edom sided with Babylon when Jerusalem fell.
Jonah is different from the others in that it is a narrative. We all know the story of Jonah’s call, and Jonah and the whale from our childhoods; but the conclusion of the story is that Jonah is angry that he prophesied to Assyrians, they repented, and God gave them another chance. The book ends by God telling Jonah that the city is full of innocents – i.e. most people who live in an enemy nation are not enemies, just people.
Micah condemns exploiting the poor, calls for land reform, says God will judge the nation for it’s injustice and then they will be restored and prosperous.
Nahum predicts the destruction of Assyrian empire
Habakkuk complains about injustice, and God promises the captivity in order to bring justice. The prophet rightly complains that the enemy has not interest in justice. God points out that Babylon, and all unjust kingdoms will face judgement.
Zephaniah prophecies the punishment of Israel and other nations
Haggai offers a judgment against Zerububul and possibly Joshua the high priest, who are treated more neutrally in Ezra. It condemns the leaders for living in ‘richly paneled houses’ while the temple still needs built (cedar panels were among the building supplies for the Temple).
Zachariah also calls for the temple to be rebuilt
Malachi is from the same time period as Haggai and Zachariah. Malachi condemns divorce – which was forced by the nation, along with the exile of children with their single mothers. Malachi also condemns the misappropriation/embezzlement of tithes, which was described Nehemiah 13:4-13.
Taken as a whole, the book of 12 tells us that God cares about social justice. God judges nations for offering a different standard of justice based on how wealthy a person is. God is opposed to systems which keep the marginalized on the margins. The first 9 books can be understood to take place before the fall of Judah. They point out sins of social injustice and idolatry as what makes harsh judgment necessary.
The last 3 books are set in the period covered by Ezra and Nehemiah. How one interprets Ezra and Nehemiah change greatly based on whether one also reads Haggai Zachariah and Malachi; Ezra and Nehemiah alone paints a positive view of this period – and it makes sense, this period marked a return home with relative autonomy as a client state to the Persian empire. The prophets Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi painted a picture where the leaders who brought them into the new country were corrupt, that they embezzled, that they didn’t practice justice any more than the leaders before leaving Judah just as deserving of punishment. These prophets told us that even though the leaders spoke for God, God might not have said the things the leaders say. Is the mixing of races so wrong that God wants wives who fully participate in the community and worship God sent away? Does God want innocent children sent away because they are of mixed race? Ezra says yes… Malachi says: “God hates divorce” and rants at length about this mass sin that Judah committed.
When I read this as a whole, what I see is a reminder to those who returned to Judah that they are not yet living up to the promise God gave them, because they are not living according to the Law God gave them. I read an anthology that tells them that they are still living in the same sin as before the captivity, and they practice the same sin that other nations practice and that the same options remain as before: Repent and change or face disastrous judgment.
Personal update
I’ve not been updating my blog as often as before due to not having time to consider what I want to share with this specific audience. Recently, most of my sermons have been for the people inside the room. Like many people, I’ve found the world I live in confusing and I’m seeking answers. My attempts to explore these have not been something I have found a way to put into words.
A big piece of news is that I have been accepted, and have started research for a Ph.D. in religious studies. Specifically I’m studying how public Testimonies have changed in my own denominational group in context of the social changes that are happening in American culture. It is too early to predict what I’ll find, right now I’m only reading. If anybody is interested in what I’ve produced in the first couple months I have a new “blog” titled Book of extracts. This is a collection of position statements and policy decisions made in business meetings — publication date matches date of decision.
If anybody looks at this outside the context of the Society of Friends within the United States, they might find the collection confusing. Some knowledge of Friends history in the US would be helpful to ease that confusion.
During colonial times, Friends who settled in the New World formed Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly meetings. The monthly meeting would conduct the common business of places of worship in a municipal area, the quarterly meeting all the shared business of member monthly meetings, and the yearly meeting the shared business of the Quarters. If we compare it to something familiar, it was an analogue to municipal, county, and state governments. Yearly Meetings handled things like amending the book of discipline and discipline of public ministers.
18th Century Yearly meetings were entirely independent of one another. Philadelphia YM, New England YM, Virginia YM, Baltimore YM, North Carolina YM, and New York YM all had their own ministers and structures and disciplines and a decision made in one Yearly meeting had no direct bearing on the others; though, as all the Yearly meetings except New York had very similar books of Discipline there was obvious cross influence. One thing missing from 18th and early 19th century books of discipline was a clear doctrinal statement; these books were largely about the proper way to handle common situations and informing members of how they are expected to behave.
Elias Hicks, New York YM minister who was active in the late 18th and early 19th century, became popular to the point that wherever he preached, the meetinghouse was full. People who had nothing to do with Friends came to listen to him. This became controversial when he preached outside the bounds of New York Yearly Meeting, and leaders in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting felt there was something off about the way he talked about Jesus.
Philadelphia yearly Meeting responded by publishing a book of doctrine which was extracted from 17th century Quaker writings, and passing minutes condemning Hicks. Other Yearly meetings followed suit. As Hicks was popular, not everybody agreed and suddenly there were nearly twice as many Yearly meetings, split on the lines of whether they thought Elias Hicks was treated poorly or appropriately. Those who supported Philadelphia Yearly Meeting formed a joint statement of faith in 1830, which was the first step in becoming a national organization.
About a decade after these splits, a minister, Joseph J. Gurney, visited from London Yearly Meeting, explicitly supporting the “Orthodox” Yearly Meetings. Just as Elias Hicks rubbed people in Philadelphia the wrong way when he talked about Jesus, some members of New England Yearly meeting were uncomfortable with Gurney’s treatment of the Holy Spirit; though it is likely that discomfort with Gurney’s political activism and ecumenicism had as great a role as the assertion that he devalued the Holy Spirit. American Friends of the time tended to be isolationists, and discouraged political activity. This resulted in another set of splits…. meaning even more Yearly meetings which are independent and overlapping; however not every Yearly meeting split, and there was a strong tendency for those meetings that did not split to have leadership with ‘conservative’ views.
Conservative in the context of the 1840’s means isolationist. An example is Indiana Yearly meeting where about 10% of their membership were disowned for joining activist groups that sought to end slavery and working with other religious bodies to speak against slavery from a faith context. Indiana Yearly meeting opposed owning slaves, and buying goods produced by slavery — but they also opposed joining with outside groups and ecumenical cooperation. Those who were kicked out formed a yearly meeting which did not work with other Friends, but instead worked with the Anti-Slavery factions of other denominations. The two groups were reconciled before the civil war, but not before showing the difference between the viewpoint that ‘there should be a law’, and the viewpoint that something should be a community norm, but not enforced outside the community.
Following the Civil war, something unexpected happened; everywhere Friends Ministers traveled, the meetinghouses were overfilled. There was something in the message of Friends that spoke to the needs of people who just went through the civil war. Historically, American Friends learned how to be part of a Friends community from their parents; while some joined because they were convinced, it generally wasn’t in large groups. Pastoral care and Christian education became urgent, and finding ways to address this new set of needs occupied Friends for the rest of the 19th century.
This national growth led to an interest in forming a national denominational body. Yearly Meetings that shared this interest met 3 times in the last quarter of the 19th century, and in 1902 agreed on a common book of discipline, with a common understanding of a pastoral system (something that led to further splits — as not everybody wanted to become what this defined), and a common understanding of pubic testimonies. They chose their political issues: Opposing War, Lynching, and liquor. They chose their personal public testimonies: Honesty, avoiding gossip and slander, not holding grudges or acting out of spite, treating others equally and fairly irregardless of race, gender, or economic class. And they formed structures for overseeing those active in Missions, Evangelism, and Education, along with special boards for those who worked to address the needs of black and indigenous peoples.
My research is to see how the public testimonies and political issues have changed in light of recent changes in American culture. The 1902 unity no longer exists, and there is no longer a single national body that can claim to represent American Orthodox Quakerism the way Five Years meeting once did, but there are about a dozen Yearly meetings that are from that line, and where one can see enough of a family resemblance to compare their divergent paths.
Asbury
There is so much talk about the Asbury revival. Some people say it isn’t ‘real’ if there is not general repentance of systemic sin throughout the United States, and it leads to a measurable decrease in violence. Others expect it to reduce abortion. While people look for different outcomes, they look for national outcomes.
I grew up evangelical, and I am old enough to remember dedicated worship services that were intended to spark a revival. Some who planned them were even bold enough to call them revivals before they happened, hoping that one would lead to another. Evangelical faith has its roots in remembering revivals. I might not have gone to this event, but I’ve been to similar events with meaningful results.
Asbury college has chapels 3 times a week. As a Free Methodist school that is proud of it’s history of student revivals; not every cohort has experienced one, but there are five within living memory. At Asbury, these revivals are times of prayer and repentance that go beyond what the school planned for; times when students don’t leave the chapel because they are repenting, and praying for God to direct their life.
This sort of revivalism is about personal repentance and personal devotion to God. While there are a group who will look back on a shared experience, it is about the student’s repentance — not the transformation of the student’s parents. When we look for systemic change, we expect a lot out of one room of 18-22 year olds who are repenting of pettiness, holding grudges, and not minding their tongues when speaking of others. Today, they have little influence over anyone other than themselves. 10 years from now, some of them might have others who listen to them, 20 years from now, some might have broad influence; but, by the time any of them in in a place to bring recognizable change the Asbury revival will be a personal memory.
Evangelical faith is personal. It is about personal repentance, a personal relationship with Jesus, and personal interpretation of scriptures. Evangelicals value personal faith and faithfulness more than than the faithful community. Revival in such a context is also personal. It is about a time and place where a group of individuals repent of their own sins, and renew their own path with Jesus. There was some sort of call to repentance or commitment that rang true with many individuals — but their response is their own.
The right way to judge such a revival isn’t how effective people who cannot legally buy cigarettes or alcohol are at changing the world before the next revival event comes; it is whether the experience is something that shapes the future of these young men and women. The true test is whether they continue to remember their commitments and truly turn away from the sin they repented from.
Mourning
Reading: Jeremiah 7, Lamentations 1
Last week we talked about Jeremiah in terms of a prophet who was calling out the sin of the entire community; and today’s Sunday School lesson really continued in that theme — it continued to the point where you see Jeremiah’s message against the temple.
One remarkable thing is that when Babylon comes, carries away what they find of value and destroy what they leave behind is that Jeremiah doesn’t say: “Told you so”; no, Jeremiah mourns the loss Jerusalem with those who have to endured the loss and were left behind where they can see the ruins daily.
Though few kings were obedient, the fall of the kingdom was something to mourn. Though the temple did not make the people, nor in some cases even the priests obedient to God, the loss of the temple was something to mourn.
Last week, I told you that God is with us when we lose our footing. Jeremiah told the people of Judah that God would be with them when institutions failed; and of course God was with them — God does not abandon us. This week, I want to remind you that even though God is with us, we still mourn. There is no amount of knowing that God is with us that makes grief go away.
The truth is, no matter how poorly the temple lived up to being the Temple of the Lord, it’s loss was heartbreaking. Though the symbol was imperfect the loss of both the temple and the Ark of the Covenant was a symbolic loss of God’s presence. While Jeremiah told the people the day would come when they wouldn’t even think about the loss anymore — that day doesn’t come quickly.
Scripture does not remember David’s dynasty kindly; it was one bad king after another. Samuel’s prophetic words warning the people of Israel that they would regret asking for a king were descriptive of David’s rule, and did not come close to what the people suffered as kings became more selfish and less concerned with the general population.
Even with a bad king, the loss of the kingdom was something to mourn. I’m sure we understand this emotionally; All of us have lived long enough to have a period when our government did things we thought were wrong, or harmful; but, even in the worst times, none of us would want our nation and government to be destroyed. Even when we are angry about the way our nation is being governed — it is our nation. We would be devastated if Washington were reduced to ruins, and a foreign power claimed ownership of the lane we lived on — and, there has never been a government bad enough to change this fact.
Mourning and feeling loss is part of being human. We mourn all of the wonderful people who shaped our lives when they pass. We mourn parents, grandparents, and sometimes great grandparents. We mourn friends and family of all sorts. We mourn our own phases of life. I believe often nostalgia comes from mourning adolescence.
We even mourn the loss of things we hated. We mourn the end of jobs we never loved. We mourn unreliable and rough automobiles that we only had because we couldn’t afford better back then. We mourn the loss of relationships with people who were cruel. One does not speak ill of the dead, no matter how nasty they were in life, because it is cruel to those who mourn. We basically mourn everything that marks a change so profound things can not be the same as they were before.
Every one of us has faced mourning in our own life. None of us can go back to 2019. We have buried friends and family. The way we work and face daily life has changed. There have been profound cultural shifts which I don’t pretend to understand; but I still sometimes feel a sense of loss.
I appreciate that the same prophet who denounced the behavior of the people, the nation, and even those associated with the temple mourned the loss of Jerusalem, the government, the temple and any other corrupt institutions of the time. It is possible to criticize something you love, and it is possible to mourn something or someone you knew was deeply flawed. We can love those who hurt us while still feeling hurt. We can lose faith in institutions, yet be devastated when they fail because we were right.
The hardest thing about mourning is that often when we are mourning, we can’t hear good news. We search for meaning, and even if we find some it does not help us feel better. Jeremiah knew that God’s people would find something better than the flawed institutions, and they would learn that God’s presence was not dependent upon those who had access to the box the kept God in. He also knew to mourn the loss of that box.
Whether we can hear it or not, the Good News is God remains with us. We read the prophets every year, because the prophets remind us that God’s promise and God’s presence is with us in the darkest of times. We read the prophets, so we can remember Jesus came when things seemed hopeless, and when promises was all anybody really had. Most of all, we read the prophets to remember that faith gives us permission to mourn even when what we mourn is far from perfect.
Michael's 'Deep Thoughts' 