Something Bad Jesus Did

[Ben Masada]

Something Bad Jesus Did


Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. I thought for
a while and the following came to my mind:

Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it
does not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to
be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn about her. His disciples told him to do
something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy
with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of
Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he could not take any longer, he stopped and told her something like: Hey,
listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter Master. No way, I cannot
take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only
after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that
the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children,
Jesus saw that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and
cured her daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being
forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong
faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor woman went through till she
got what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben

[Jonah]

kay,

Yes, of course you allude to the standard seminary explanation of NT anti-Judaism. But, Rosemary Radford Reuther took it a step further in her book "Faith and Fratricide"...putting the moral dimension on the historical reality of the divorce. The title of the book compells us to consider just not the reality of the first century argument, but how it was acted upon...and therein lies the historical tragedy leading to the Holocaust.

Back to my idea that Christianity doesn't really exist yet. I would ask...honestly...as a human being, as fomer Christian clergy person...are we REALLY happy with the current state of Christianity? I mean, really. If you've ever been to seminary, you know the facade a seminary and a seminary education is designed to present the world....and then, you know that actually goes on in the bowells of the seminary/Church/congregations. At our seminary, the Dean had a Secretary who was kind of the main secretary for the whole seminary...a person that students dealt with a lot. She was Jewish. And her gallows humor statement to students was (because of her knowledge of the inner workings of the seminary): "You don't want to know what I know". And a lot of students would respond: "I was afraid of that."

Another version of my idea of Christianity not really existing yet is a Lutheran professor I was blessed to know who teaches at Texas Lutheran University, Norman Beck. Norm wrote a book that was guaranteed to make sure he would never get a seminary appointment. The title: "Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic in the New Testament." Well, the title says it all. It's a scholarly technical book that lays out the case for the title's agenda in very matter of fact fashion. The book never saw much light of day in the Christian scholarly community, but I do see it quoted from time to time in Jewish circles.

So. If my idea of a not-yet Christianity is too over the top, perhaps Norm Beck's idea of a "Mature Christianity" will do. In either case, it's a moral case for Christian evolution.

As for the Hellenized universal Christ divorced from the historical Jewish Jesus, yes. That is what I was taught in the Lutheran seminary. I was always disturbed that the post WWII German Christian theological community (Bultmann et al) found it so easy THEN to dispense with the Jewish Jesus.

So, Kay. What is your take on the work of Amy-Jill Levine at Vanderbilt on the Jewish Jesus?

[kayky]

kay,

Yes, of course you allude to the standard seminary explanation of NT anti-Judaism. But, Rosemary Radford Reuther took it a step further in her book "Faith and Fratricide"...putting the moral dimension on the historical reality of the divorce. The title of the book compells us to consider just not the reality of the first century argument, but how it was acted upon...and therein lies the historical tragedy leading to the Holocaust.

I do agree that the Gospels were used as an excuse for hating Jews for centuries.

Back to my idea that Christianity doesn't really exist yet. I would ask...honestly...as a human being, as fomer Christian clergy person...are we REALLY happy with the current state of Christianity? I mean, really. If you've ever been to seminary, you know the facade a seminary and a seminary education is designed to present the world....and then, you know that actually goes on in the bowells of the seminary/Church/congregations. At our seminary, the Dean had a Secretary who was kind of the main secretary for the whole seminary...a person that students dealt with a lot. She was Jewish. And her gallows humor statement to students was (because of her knowledge of the inner workings of the seminary): "You don't want to know what I know". And a lot of students would respond: "I was afraid of that."

I've never been to seminary, so I really can't answer to that. I'm sure there's corruption everywhere. But I think it's different to say that we are dissatisfied with the present state of Christianity than to say that Christianity does not exist. Perhaps it might be better to say that our vision of what Christianity could be does not currently exist. Once again I'd like to invite you to weigh in on my "New Christian Reformation" thread on C&A, where we are discussing this very issue.

Another version of my idea of Christianity not really existing yet is a Lutheran professor I was blessed to know who teaches at Texas Lutheran University, Norman Beck. Norm wrote a book that was guaranteed to make sure he would never get a seminary appointment. The title: "Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic in the New Testament." Well, the title says it all. It's a scholarly technical book that lays out the case for the title's agenda in very matter of fact fashion. The book never saw much light of day in the Christian scholarly community, but I do see it quoted from time to time in Jewish circles.

It sounds interesting. I'm Episcopalian, by the way.

So. If my idea of a not-yet Christianity is too over the top, perhaps Norm Beck's idea of a "Mature Christianity" will do. In either case, it's a moral case for Christian evolution.

Are you familiar with the books of the Episcopalian bishop, John Shelby Spong?

As for the Hellenized universal Christ divorced from the historical Jewish Jesus, yes. That is what I was taught in the Lutheran seminary. I was always disturbed that the post WWII German Christian theological community (Bultmann et al) found it so easy THEN to dispense with the Jewish Jesus.

I'm sure it is a legitimate criticism to make of nineteenth and early twentieth century German Biblical criticism. But I will have to be frank and say that, as a gentile Christian, I find the fact that Jesus was a Jew interesting but irrelevant.

So, Kay. What is your take on the work of Amy-Jill Levine at Vanderbilt on the Jewish Jesus?

I'm not familiar with her work, but I'll add it to my reading list.

[Jonah]

kay,

As far as the reformational hopes for Christianity, I don't think we're too far apart. Shades of semantics, I suppose. Of course in the Lutheran Church, they are fond of calling Lutheranism a "reformational movement". It would be nice if they really meant it in terms of a call to Christian self-criticism. Unfortunately, I fear that what Lutheranism really means by "reformational movement" is that...well, you DO understand that NO ONE can out theologize Lutherans, and thus they are your appointed theological teacher by which YOU shall be reformed. LOL. In the Lutheran-Episcopal agreement, one of your bishops joked that when he was young, Episcopalians looked at Lutherans as just one big catechism class. (One of my seminary theology professors was one of the movers and shakers that put the Lutheran-Episcopal deal together.

So. We may have different degrees of unhappiness as to the current state of Christianity. Personally, formerly as a Christian, and now as a Jew, I am really jacked up over the low degree of revulsion within the Church per anti-Judaism & the Holocaust. When I was in college, it was much more in vogue to discuss the Holocaust in theological circles. Now, people are tired of it. But, I went to a conference as a college student held at our Lutheran seminary across the street. Both Lutherans and Jews presented. The main Lutheran presenter was Finish professor who relayed his theological and personal psychological outrage over the Holocaust. He traveled to the camps after the war. As a student he discovered the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther that he had never heard of before in Finland. And he was absolutely devastated. As a presenter, he was almost an old man...kind of broken down in Christian faith, but nonetheless bellowing for whoever would hear. And it was his major complaint that no one heard. He wept. His wife called out during his speech in a loud voice, "They will not listen to you...You break all their idols!" The professor had his own impassioned proclamation: "The Holocaust! You cannot locate it in theology. It breaks all the disciplines!" And, he yelled this at the top of his lungs, and still, he wondered if anyone heard. Years later I ran onto a memorial the professor's brother had written after the professor had passed. Apparently, the professor rather gave up on pastoral/theological pursuits and went into psychology late in life.

As for your position that a Jewish Jesus is irrelevant. I am very very sorry to hear this, although I have often heard it. It causes me despair at times. My hope is that all of the historical Jesus scholarship will cause folks to re-evaluate the Bultmann kyrygma Jesus. When I was in scholarship, this Jesus ideal was the fashion because it was existentialist. Well, maybe in some ways. But there are other existentialisms, including Martin Buber's relational existentialism. Within that, if you as a Christian truly feel that God has "addressed" humanity in or through Jesus, it begs the question of the content of God's total corpus of "address". Would it not include Jesus the Jew who reads from Isaiah in the synagogue and declares the prophecy is staring them in the face?

In my old Lutheran world, they taught us that you have Law & Gospel...they're different, but you can't have one without the other.

Martin Buber taught that existence plays out in two modes: I-it & I-thou. The it has to do with the particularism of needful hard facts in day to day existence. The thou has to do with the transcendent address of God to us. I think both modes are at work in both Judaism and Christianity. But Judaism might be a bit better at the particular, and Christianity...wasn't it supposed to specialize in the transcendent of the relational?.....yet, Christians have a bloody history since the first century. Jews could have warned about that...from early Hebrew history. But, the angst of the unholy irony here is that so much of the bloodletting was turned on Jews who progressively tried to rid themselves of blood. I would want Christians to be deeply disturbed about that...and that alone, can be reason enough to care that Jesus was a Jew.

Amy-Jill Levine deserves a hearing. She is professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt, and a Conservative Jew. Alternatively, there is Anglican professor Bruce Chilton who teaches at Bard College who handles the Jewish Jesus from his side of the track. His book is "Rabbi Jesus".

[kayky]

So. We may have different degrees of unhappiness as to the current state of Christianity. Personally, formerly as a Christian, and now as a Jew, I am really jacked up over the low degree of revulsion within the Church per anti-Judaism & the Holocaust. When I was in college, it was much more in vogue to discuss the Holocaust in theological circles. Now, people are tired of it. But, I went to a conference as a college student held at our Lutheran seminary across the street. Both Lutherans and Jews presented. The main Lutheran presenter was Finish professor who relayed his theological and personal psychological outrage over the Holocaust. He traveled to the camps after the war. As a student he discovered the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther that he had never heard of before in Finland. And he was absolutely devastated. As a presenter, he was almost an old man...kind of broken down in Christian faith, but nonetheless bellowing for whoever would hear. And it was his major complaint that no one heard. He wept. His wife called out during his speech in a loud voice, "They will not listen to you...You break all their idols!" The professor had his own impassioned proclamation: "The Holocaust! You cannot locate it in theology. It breaks all the disciplines!" And, he yelled this at the top of his lungs, and still, he wondered if anyone heard. Years later I ran onto a memorial the professor's brother had written after the professor had passed. Apparently, the professor rather gave up on pastoral/theological pursuits and went into psychology late in life.

Yes, I am aware of Martin Luther's antisemitism. The whole world needs to do more to make sure that the lessons of the Holocaust are not forgotten.

As for your position that a Jewish Jesus is irrelevant. I am very very sorry to hear this, although I have often heard it. It causes me despair at times. My hope is that all of the historical Jesus scholarship will cause folks to re-evaluate the Bultmann kyrygma Jesus. When I was in scholarship, this Jesus ideal was the fashion because it was existentialist. Well, maybe in some ways. But there are other existentialisms, including Martin Buber's relational existentialism. Within that, if you as a Christian truly feel that God has "addressed" humanity in or through Jesus, it begs the question of the content of God's total corpus of "address". Would it not include Jesus the Jew who reads from Isaiah in the synagogue and declares the prophecy is staring them in the face?

To be perfectly honest, Jonah, I'm not totally convinced that Jesus was an actual person. I think Paul was greatly influenced by both pagan and Jewish gnosticism; and to a great degree, the Gospels are gnostic myths.

In my old Lutheran world, they taught us that you have Law & Gospel...they're different, but you can't have one without the other.

It's not a concept that I am familiar with.

Martin Buber taught that existence plays out in two modes: I-it & I-thou. The it has to do with the particularism of needful hard facts in day to day existence. The thou has to do with the transcendent address of God to us. I think both modes are at work in both Judaism and Christianity. But Judaism might be a bit better at the particular, and Christianity...wasn't it supposed to specialize in the transcendent of the relational?.....yet, Christians have a bloody history since the first century. Jews could have warned about that...from early Hebrew history. But, the angst of the unholy irony here is that so much of the bloodletting was turned on Jews who progressively tried to rid themselves of blood. I would want Christians to be deeply disturbed about that...and that alone, can be reason enough to care that Jesus was a Jew.

I would like to think that most Christians are disturbed by it. But as a student of Spong, I am a panentheist: God manifests as creation (the only part we can encounter) and is also transcendent to creation (the eternal mystery.)

Amy-Jill Levine deserves a hearing. She is professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt, and a Conservative Jew. Alternatively, there is Anglican professor Bruce Chilton who teaches at Bard College who handles the Jewish Jesus from his side of the track. His book is "Rabbi Jesus".

I was serious about my reading list!

[Jonah]

kay,

That's good you know about Luther's horrible writings. You're ahead of many Lutherans. But, in truth, there was not one time at seminary where we read through "The Jews and their Lies". It wasn't discussed. Then, many years later I found out that there is a worse tract by Luther entitled "Von Shem Hamphoras". It is so bad, it was never translated into English until a Jewish scholar Gerhard Falk published it in 1992. It is in the original German version of Luther's Works, but the Lutherans just couldn't bring themselves to put it in English. So, I had rather a similar reaction as the Finnish theologian to the now more familiar of Luther's antisemitic writing. Now, of course the ELCA, my old denomination, published an official repudiation of Luther's anti-semitic writings. But very few Lutherans in the pew know about the repudiation or the writings they repudiate. Which begs the question as to why such a repudiation is not very very high on the agenda of Lutheran clergy. Why should it not be given status as a Lutheran Confession. Why should not seminarians be required to affirm that they will teach the Repudiation from the pulpit and Sunday School room? In truth, it isn't even discussed....except at theological conferences where the ELCA wants credit for being progressive. I've watched this act many times...have a conference where Jews attend...say nice things that Jews want to hear...the Jews go home...and then it's back to business as usual bashing the Law and the Pharisees from the pulpit.

Jesus as not an actual person. Interesting roots to that. Of course it is suspected that was Bultmann's position...but, like many highbrow Lutheran theologians, they never come out and say anything in plain blue collar English...so, I dunno for sure. But another interesting character is dead sea scholar Robert Eisenman, who is rather a champion of the early Jewish Christians and particularly their leader James. In reading Eisenman, one is led to believe that he agrees with other similarly minded scholars that Jesus was a Jewish religious purist who had zealot/Essene connections, if not commitments, and did entertain at least for some period the possibility of armed insurrection against Rome. But, Eisenman talks more about James in this regard than Jesus. So I read this story of a guy who kept writing Eisenman about why he didn't ever say much about Jesus and zealotry. The guy kept pestering Eisenman's office and finally an assistant called hims and told him the reason why Eisenman wouldn't answer and that is because Eisenman doesn't think there really was a Jesus...the real leader of the first Christian movement being James. While I think there certainly was a Jesus, I think the greater point is that the Pauline tradition that you ascribe to wants to, at all costs, forget the Jewish Christian movement under James. What do you think about that? Just because we know that winners always write the history, does that mean we should let that stand?

Law & Gospel is a Lutheran existentialist interpretation of the problem of what to do about Torah...and how to view human existence. So. The Law is necessary to compel souls to the Gospel...it creates the need for the Gospel. Existentially...perhaps even gnostically, the Law represents the cruel facts of life....sin, death over against the Gospel of eternal (qualitatively eternal) life. Lutherans always teach you don't get to Gospel before going thought the Law. The crucifixion comes first. Then the Resurrection. And there ain't no Resurrection without crucifixion. So, the theology goes. A Jew would just rather skip the crucifixion part.

Help me out. I didn't get how Spong's theology becomes a "but" to being disturbed about the Holocaust...and let's have Holocaust bleed out to all holocausts from Hiroshima to My Lai to Bosnia to Darfur.

Yes. I am sure you do well with your reading list. I was just highlighting one of the more accessible Jewish scholars for a Christian audience.

[kayky]

kay,

That's good you know about Luther's horrible writings. You're ahead of many Lutherans. But, in truth, there was not one time at seminary where we read through "The Jews and their Lies". It wasn't discussed. Then, many years later I found out that there is a worse tract by Luther entitled "Von Shem Hamphoras". It is so bad, it was never translated into English until a Jewish scholar Gerhard Falk published it in 1992. It is in the original German version of Luther's Works, but the Lutherans just couldn't bring themselves to put it in English. So, I had rather a similar reaction as the Finnish theologian to the now more familiar of Luther's antisemitic writing. Now, of course the ELCA, my old denomination, published an official repudiation of Luther's anti-semitic writings. But very few Lutherans in the pew know about the repudiation or the writings they repudiate. Which begs the question as to why such a repudiation is not very very high on the agenda of Lutheran clergy. Why should it not be given status as a Lutheran Confession. Why should not seminarians be required to affirm that they will teach the Repudiation from the pulpit and Sunday School room? In truth, it isn't even discussed....except at theological conferences where the ELCA wants credit for being progressive. I've watched this act many times...have a conference where Jews attend...say nice things that Jews want to hear...the Jews go home...and then it's back to business as usual bashing the Law and the Pharisees from the pulpit.

Your background and experience as a former Lutheran is very different from mine. I grew up a fundamentalist Christian in tiny obscure denominations in the hills of southeastern Kentucky. After a decade-long "bout" of atheism, I became an Episcopalian. So perhaps I don't feel these things as deeply as you do.

Jesus as not an actual person. Interesting roots to that. Of course it is suspected that was Bultmann's position...but, like many highbrow Lutheran theologians, they never come out and say anything in plain blue collar English...so, I dunno for sure. But another interesting character is dead sea scholar Robert Eisenman, who is rather a champion of the early Jewish Christians and particularly their leader James. In reading Eisenman, one is led to believe that he agrees with other similarly minded scholars that Jesus was a Jewish religious purist who had zealot/Essene connections, if not commitments, and did entertain at least for some period the possibility of armed insurrection against Rome. But, Eisenman talks more about James in this regard than Jesus. So I read this story of a guy who kept writing Eisenman about why he didn't ever say much about Jesus and zealotry. The guy kept pestering Eisenman's office and finally an assistant called hims and told him the reason why Eisenman wouldn't answer and that is because Eisenman doesn't think there really was a Jesus...the real leader of the first Christian movement being James. While I think there certainly was a Jesus, I think the greater point is that the Pauline tradition that you ascribe to wants to, at all costs, forget the Jewish Christian movement under James. What do you think about that? Just because we know that winners always write the history, does that mean we should let that stand?

I am a gentile, Jonah. The Hellenistic undercurrent in Paul speaks to me. I feel no historical obligation to James and no affinity to Judaism. Whatever Christianity's history, I can only contend with what it is today.

Law & Gospel is a Lutheran existentialist interpretation of the problem of what to do about Torah...and how to view human existence. So. The Law is necessary to compel souls to the Gospel...it creates the need for the Gospel. Existentially...perhaps even gnostically, the Law represents the cruel facts of life....sin, death over against the Gospel of eternal (qualitatively eternal) life. Lutherans always teach you don't get to Gospel before going thought the Law. The crucifixion comes first. Then the Resurrection. And there ain't no Resurrection without crucifixion. So, the theology goes. A Jew would just rather skip the crucifixion part.

I cannot "skip the crucifixion part" since I see it as essential to the spiritual path. One cannot resurrect to what is true unless one first dies to what is false.

Help me out. I didn't get how Spong's theology becomes a "but" to being disturbed about the Holocaust...and let's have Holocaust bleed out to all holocausts from Hiroshima to My Lai to Bosnia to Darfur.

I would love to help you out, Jonah, because I sense honest suffering in your posts. I just don't understand what you are saying here.

[Jonah]

kay,

I can relate to southeastern ky. I grew up in an applachian blue collar neighborhood. The local economy went okay under union jobs until the mid 70's and then the union busting. Anyway, when times were good in the early 60's, our family wasn't engaged at all with religion. I played with my friends, rode my bike, and went to the zoo with my family on the weekends. We had enough for a normal peaceful life.

And it went away. Vietnam and all the rest. Economic and political strife. In fifth grade I found a book on Hiroshima in my classroom. I took it home and read it. I learned something I didn't want to learn. Things were wrong. The world was sick. And I didn't want that. I didn't want children to burn. Call me weak or simple or naive or pathetic. I didn't want it.

I had only been to a couple neighbor's churches at a younger age as an invited guest. And it just didn't mean anything to me, so there was no impact. But after my childhood innocence was terminated, I had a scoutmaster invite me to his Lutheran church. Because my mother was Lutheran by background, we plugged in.

So. The appalachian whose neighborhood and family were in decline, sat, and listend to the sales pitch of Jesus and grace, and bought. But a weird thing happens when people buy...they buy according to in-built predispositions from their experiences and what's handed to them by their parents. People translate what they buy into....into their own language. For me, that would be my father's family heritage of being crypto-Jewish/Catholic...and having a strong interest in seeing underdogs survive...and live. Hence, the Hiroshima thing hit me hard because of my father's personality about those kinds of things. I didn't find out about the Holocaust until later...and My Lal...and Pol Pot, etc. My father taught me to hate this stuff. And so I do. And so, like I said, people translate stuff into their own internal languages. I saw this when I was a fifth grade teacher (it was no coincidence that I taught 5th grade...in my old neighborhood even). When I taught my kids proper English on the blackboard and had them copy it down, I was amazed that they would subconciously translate proper English back into Appalachian. It was automatic. "Wash" became "warshed".

I don't know what you see as Christianity being today. From my own perspective, weight of history has impact...not for fact collection and trivia games...or even debate, but most importantly for questions as to what we do now...in view of what we have learned or not learned.

So. For me, religion has no value whatsoever if it's not about tikkun olam (repair of the world). I can own that as just my thing, but that's the plainest way I can say it. I'm not interested in transcendence or enlightenment or narrow ways or secret truth, personal fulfillment. I would just rather the killing stopped, and I could go back to riding a bike...now, with my child and her children without the knowledge that another child has been raped and butchered in Darfur. In the end, I'm not very deep, and would rather not feel compelled to be. But, the killing goes on.

So. To be completely truthful, I have no ide what Spong's affect on the killing might be. I have no idea what dying and rising spiritually affects the killing. The Lutherans tried to teach me about dying and rising, but I never got it. I think...because my Dad was enrooted in a Jewish idea...l'chaim....just simply:

To live.

The concept of Resurrection emerged in the Jewish context. And, it wasn't out a spiritual need for a dying and rising cylce in the psyche. It was concrete, particular, and bodily. It was a matter of justice, not superior spiritual planes. It was just plain unjust that empires oppressed and slaughtered those who simply wanted to live...robbing life. It was unjust. God is just. Thus, God would restore...and resurrect, bodily...particularly...concretely...what had been unjustly taken.

It is my hope that the original Jewish (Pharisaic) concept of a concrete physical resurrection will be revisited and re-evaluated...not on western individualist terms...as in "my resurrection"...but the corporate. The Jewish dead on the Mount of Olives are waiting for their resurrection together. As I live now, I take that as a lesson as to how to think about resurrection now...how can the dead children of Darfur be raised? By just imagining a just heaven or afterlife that we have not experienced, but hope is there for the soothing of our present imperiled existence as a whole creation? Or, can I in some sense physically raise the dead by concretely attending to those still living...it's a stretch, but's all I got. I'm not very deep. In the end, my Judaism is a plain vanilla religion. Do mitzvot. Keep doing it. No, it doesn't save me. But, I don't need saved. I just want to go back to normal bike riding.

[kayky]

I can relate to southeastern ky. I grew up in an applachian blue collar neighborhood. The local economy went okay under union jobs until the mid 70's and then the union busting. Anyway, when times were good in the early 60's, our family wasn't engaged at all with religion. I played with my friends, rode my bike, and went to the zoo with my family on the weekends. We had enough for a normal peaceful life.

My father was a tobacco farmer. I inherited generational poverty from both sides of the family. We didn't have indoor plumbing until I was a sophomore in high school. My parents were very religious and involved in small churches--obscure Baptist sects--my mother wrote and sang gospel music. I was very devout from an early age and was bapized in a creek at the age of sixteen. For me, however, true salvation was found in school. I was able to go to college on scholarship and government aid, and I chose a conservative Christian college.

And it went away. Vietnam and all the rest. Economic and political strife. In fifth grade I found a book on Hiroshima in my classroom. I took it home and read it. I learned something I didn't want to learn. Things were wrong. The world was sick. And I didn't want that. I didn't want children to burn. Call me weak or simple or naive or pathetic. I didn't want it.

I can imagine that at such a young age it was quite a shock.

I had only been to a couple neighbor's churches at a younger age as an invited guest. And it just didn't mean anything to me, so there was no impact. But after my childhood innocence was terminated, I had a scoutmaster invite me to his Lutheran church. Because my mother was Lutheran by background, we plugged in.

I don't think there was a Lutheran church in the area where I grew up. Most people were either Baptist or Pentecostal. After graduating from college, I went back to the hills to teach and just recently retired after thirty years. My education led me away from the fundamentalism of my youth, and I was quite the atheist for about ten years. The discovery of Spong brought me to the Episcopalian church.

So. The appalachian whose neighborhood and family were in decline, sat, and listend to the sales pitch of Jesus and grace, and bought. But a weird thing happens when people buy...they buy according to in-built predispositions from their experiences and what's handed to them by their parents. People translate what they buy into....into their own language. For me, that would be my father's family heritage of being crypto-Jewish/Catholic...and having a strong interest in seeing underdogs survive...and live. Hence, the Hiroshima thing hit me hard because of my father's personality about those kinds of things. I didn't find out about the Holocaust until later...and My Lal...and Pol Pot, etc. My father taught me to hate this stuff. And so I do. And so, like I said, people translate stuff into their own internal languages. I saw this when I was a fifth grade teacher (it was no coincidence that I taught 5th grade...in my old neighborhood even). When I taught my kids proper English on the blackboard and had them copy it down, I was amazed that they would subconciously translate proper English back into Appalachian. It was automatic. "Wash" became "warshed".

That's really funny...I became a high school English teacher! I had to learn to say "washed" instead of "warshed"! But I ended up with a Masters in linguistics where I learned that every dialect has its own rules--rules that are just as logical as the standard version. My father only had an eighth grade education--also he was born in Canada--so he never had much to say about our history.

I don't know what you see as Christianity being today. From my own perspective, weight of history has impact...not for fact collection and trivia games...or even debate, but most importantly for questions as to what we do now...in view of what we have learned or not learned.

I see a very mixed bag. Fundamentalism is a very real threat. I see the mainline denominations being more concerned with social justice, while other denominations emphasize evangelism (an empty pursuit, in my opinion). History is important, and I think in many instances the Church has tried to take accountability for past sins. Some things cannot be undone no matter what you do or say. At some point, though, you must move forward.

So. For me, religion has no value whatsoever if it's not about tikkun olam (repair of the world). I can own that as just my thing, but that's the plainest way I can say it. I'm not interested in transcendence or enlightenment or narrow ways or secret truth, personal fulfillment. I would just rather the killing stopped, and I could go back to riding a bike...now, with my child and her children without the knowledge that another child has been raped and butchered in Darfur. In the end, I'm not very deep, and would rather not feel compelled to be. But, the killing goes on.

I really like the idea of tikkun olam, as I have mentioned before, and plan to incorporate into my worldview as much as I am able.

So. To be completely truthful, I have no ide what Spong's affect on the killing might be. I have no idea what dying and rising spiritually affects the killing. The Lutherans tried to teach me about dying and rising, but I never got it. I think...because my Dad was enrooted in a Jewish idea...l'chaim....just simply:

To live.

I think Episcopalians in general tend to be very concerned with social justice issues. It's difficult to say how Spong's ideas will affect that--though Spong himself has been very involved in gay rights and women's rights.

The concept of Resurrection emerged in the Jewish context. And, it wasn't out a spiritual need for a dying and rising cylce in the psyche. It was concrete, particular, and bodily. It was a matter of justice, not superior spiritual planes. It was just plain unjust that empires oppressed and slaughtered those who simply wanted to live...robbing life. It was unjust. God is just. Thus, God would restore...and resurrect, bodily...particularly...concretely...what had been unjustly taken.

I can see how that line of thinking would result from the Jewish experience.

It is my hope that the original Jewish (Pharisaic) concept of a concrete physical resurrection will be revisited and re-evaluated...not on western individualist terms...as in "my resurrection"...but the corporate. The Jewish dead on the Mount of Olives are waiting for their resurrection together. As I live now, I take that as a lesson as to how to think about resurrection now...how can the dead children of Darfur be raised? By just imagining a just heaven or afterlife that we have not experienced, but hope is there for the soothing of our present imperiled existence as a whole creation? Or, can I in some sense physically raise the dead by concretely attending to those still living...it's a stretch, but's all I got. I'm not very deep. In the end, my Judaism is a plain vanilla religion. Do mitzvot. Keep doing it. No, it doesn't save me. But, I don't need saved. I just want to go back to normal bike riding.

That's an interesting and beneficial view of the resurrection idea. I think you are quite "deep" enough. I think there are two religious "types" among those who take religion seriously: the mystic and the prophet. The mystic emphasizes personal spiritual transformation while the prophet emphasizes social justice. I see myself more of the mystic; and, from what you've posted, I see you more of the prophet. I think it important for the individual practioner not to ignore either aspect since one feeds the other. At the same time, you cannot ignore the guidance of your own temperament.

[Jonah]

I really like your last statement on temperment.

I am a mystic in a Jewish sense. Jewish mysticism is different than Christian. Martin Buber tried to put a modern spin on his Hasidic mystical background. The strands of Jewish mysticism can be pretty deep or balanced with the prohphetic which I think Buber and his mate Franz Rosensweig did. And perhaps more contemporary Heschel. The Sephardic/Kabalist tradition is certainly rich in mysticism. My reading of my father's geneaology is that his crypto-Jewish roots were Sephardic. It is interesting to me that when I first went to Israel when I was 18...and knew nothing about the place other than what our college prof prepped us on, I found the place that most captured me emotionally was a little synagogue in Sefat, the center of Jewish mystical Sephardic Kabalism. There was just something about the place...well, I could spin a lot of words here to describe, but it's really a tangent. Anyway, several years ago I returned to Sefat and stumbled into that synagogue, and only then discovered it to be the Yosef Karo synagogue...who I had been reading much about and identifying with...but when I was 18, it was all gut.

Yeah, my dad was a bookeeper who got canned by a corporation that bought the little company he worked for. He tried running his own business for awhile, but it didn't work. So, he ended his years as a manual laborer in a warehouse working for minimum wage. My mother was a reference librarian in a scientific research tank. She had ambitions for me to be a scientist like her bosses. But. I sucked at math and science. I started my public school teaching years as an English teacher in a gang infested inner city school. They thought I did well with the gang kids, so oh boy, they made me the in-school suspension teacher. I was happy to move on to fifth grade in my old neighborhood. But, the decline there after decades was sobering.

Yes, even when I was a kid, it was a shock. My scoutmaster was a decent community minded salt of earth guy...a Korean war vet...the guy literally looked like the famous Norman Rockwell painting of the scoutmaster. He and his friends had good union jobs at the area Westinghouse plant. We also had a GM and International Harvester plant. Then it all busted. I will never forget how my scoutmaster came to my mom asking her for help in finding a job...because she worked for a white collar employer and had office world skills. He was totally beaten down like my Dad. He was trying to hold his family together by cleaning carpets in some kind of semi self-employed deal that was probably a total rip off. He was physically a wreck. Like my Dad. So. Even though I have a mystic capacity, I had reason to think prophetically.

Yes, the Episcopal church does aspire to the prophetic. We were quasi-Episcopal for a year. When I left the Lutheran ministry, we soon discovered that other Lutheran clergy don't want ex Lutheran clergy in their churches. So, a new Episcopal mission started up in our neighborhood with a sales pitch that it would be centered around children...and we had a toddler. Well, long story short. It was a boogered up deal. The church was led by an alcoholic priest who was embezzling money from the mission fund, and a woman assistant who was trying to cover over his erratic behavior. She would sometimes have me preach and concelbrate with her when he wasn't around. He didn't seem to like me very much. But, as it turned out, the guy tried to kill himself by hanging himself from his chandelier in his home. So, after he got out of the hospital, the bishop right away lets him hit the supply preaching road....and I'm like: WTF??? So, we kind of just tip toed out the door...especially when we found out that what the real agenda of the diocese was...not to have a local neighborhood family church....oh no, they had secretly gone out and bought a big chunk of land in an affluent suburb nearby...and had been pressuring the priest to plan to build a mega church...and all he had coming on Sunday was 30 people....so he availed himself of some rope. Now, I know that's just crazy church...not necessarily Episcopal...it goes on all over...even in Jewish congregations. Don't get me started.

[Jonah]

Oh, on the moving forward thing.

Since my brother Ben Masada started this, and it's a Jewish thread in terms of his perspective....

a short comment on moving on.

People want Jews to move on from the Holocaust. Well, that ain't gonna happen the way gentiles mean it, but there will be natural changes in how Jews deal with the Holocaust as time moves on.

Anyway. Fact is. Christians haven't moved on from the Pharisee bashing. Christians don't realize it, but every sermon, scripture reading, comment against the Pharisees goes straight to current day Jewish guts. We Jews today are in the Pharisaic tradition which we will tell you is unjustly maligned by the NT. So, that goes to the point of my old prof Norm Beck's book about repudiating the NT anti-Judaism...because it's all alive and kicking today.