Judgment Day?

This has been bugging me for quite a while.

Why would Jesus and the New Testament authors warn their 1st century audiences about impending judgment (the day has come, it is the last hour, these last days, etc.) and then... nothing happens?  Am I missing something?

Here we sit almost 2000 year later, and... still nothing.

St. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under law to redeem those under law" when "the fullness of time had come".  God sent his Son at just the right time.  Wouldn't the right time to send Jesus to warn of impending judgment be the time of the people who would actually experience this day of judgment? If Judgment Day is to come in our lifetime (or later), doesn't it make sense that God would send his Son in OUR lifetime (or later)??  Shouldn't God send his Son to the people on whom the final judgment would fall in order to warn them?  How long does "the fullness of time" last?

And here we sit.  Still waiting.

I know, I know-- "no one knows the day or the hour" and "with the Lord a thousand years are as a day" yada yada.  But certainly God wouldn't warn certain people at a certain time in history only to do... nothing! It makes no sense to me.

"Well, we do have the written Word of God to warn us," you might say.  But it employs images and metaphors that are not used today and are, quite frankly, foreign to us and audience specific.

"We have to translate and interpret it," you might further say.  But with an event as big as the destruction of our universe and billions upon billions of people being thrown into hell (if that's what it really is) why is it left to us to translate and interpret?  Why is it left to anyone to translate and interpret? Shouldn't the message be painfully clear without the mental gymnastics??  I'll bet it was to the original audiences!! Show me where it says, "Translate and interpret this book into English so that people in the United States in the 21st century can understand it."

It seems foolish to send a bunch of people on the other side of the planet 2000 years ago to their graves all riled up about the return of the Son of Man only to disappoint them.

As our churches continue to empty out and we are sitting around wondering why, we might want to pause and give people some credit.  Perhaps they already know what theologians (such as myself) are just starting to realize-- that there is a LARGE disconnect between the world of the Bible and the world of today. People are weary of people like me constantly trying to navigate and bridge that disconnect, looking silly in the process.  People are nice and won't say anything.  They just won't show up anymore.

Honestly, I'm also getting weary of people like me.

Do I Have This Right?

Yesterday the SCOTUS made a landmark decision in the so-called "Hobby Lobby" case.  There are a lot of opinions flying around and it's getting tough to keep the facts straight, so I'm going to lay out for my readers how I understand the ruling.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Corporations in which the ownership and the people who run the corporation are not differentiated have been exempted from adhering to provisions of the Affordable Care Act that conflict with their religious beliefs, citing freedom of religion.  In the case of the owners of Hobby Lobby et al., specifically, have been exempted from providing coverage for employees for abortifacients (not contraceptives, which are different).

The Green Family objects to having to provide insurance coverage for their female employees to use drugs or devices that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterine wall (abortifacients) because of their belief that life begins at conception.  To keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is tantamount to abortion, in their view.  The Court agreed in a 5-4 decision.

IUDs, RU486, and elle, if I understand correctly, are not contraceptives.  They do not prevent conception. These are what the Green family doesn't want to cover in employee insurance plans.

There's a lot of shouting going on about the Green family being exempted from providing coverage for contraceptives, but that's not what the ruling says.  Am I wrong?

Separation of Church and State

It can be argued that the Separation of Church and State cannot be found in the US Constitution.  At the same time, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is used by some as evidence that the founders wanted a line drawn in the sand between Church and State.

I'm not concerned whether this separation is in the Constitution or not, I still think it's a good idea and should be maintained for a couple reasons:

1) It keeps the State from dictating what a religion teaches and practices.
2) It prevents the State from becoming a Theocracy.

There are Christian Dominionist movements afoot to either establish fundamentalist Christianity as the state religion or to "prove" that this is a Christian nation.  If the latter can be done the former is inevitable.  If this truly is a Christian nation, then what is to stop legislation that reflects fundamentalist Christian teaching and belief?  And wouldn't that violate the 1st Amendment by establishing a theocracy?  An example will suffice.

There is a loud and powerful push to bring prayer back to public schools.  It's thought that children are not allowed to pray before a test or lunch or anytime.  Actually it's a civil rights violation to stop a child from praying if the child isn't distracting or interfering with teaching.  A child can pray or read a Bible anytime during the school day, but they are not forced to pray.  Would establishing school prayer force prayer upon children?  Would there be an opt-out for students who are atheist?  And from which religious tradition would the prayers come?  Christianity?  Judaism?  Islam?  Hinduism?  The majority religion of the school district? Would this then become an establishment of a religion by the State via public education?

Thoughts?

Receive, Give, Flourish

The Sea of Galilee has an inlet and an outlet, and it teems with life.  Contrast that with the Dead Sea.  It only has inlets.  If there is any life in it (and there probably isn't), it's life that has adapted to the heavy salinity of the water.  It really is a dead sea.

We receive God's very being into our being through the Spirit of Christ and we are made alive and enlightened.  It flows in us like an inlet.  But it isn't ours to keep.  It's meant to flow out of us in acts of kindness and mercy, in loving and faithful service to others.  We give what we have received.  We are meant to be like the Sea of Galilee.

Receive, give, flourish!

Live IN Love

Nobody lives ON their house.  People live IN their house because it makes more sense.  What’s the use of having a house, with all of the furnishings and things that make it a home, if you are not going to live IN the house?  The same thing goes for love.  What’s the sense in having it if people aren’t going to live in it?  You can’t live ON love or AROUND love.  No, you live IN love—whether that’s the love of your family or friends or spouse, or even the family pet!

God’s love is meant to live IN, not on or around!  It’s meant to surround you so that all else pales in comparison.  That’s why Jesus could talk about the sparrows and how we are worth more than many of them.  That’s why Jesus could say, “Do not fear.”  That’s why it says in Romans 6:23 that the gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord.

This involves your whole self—body, mind, spirit.  Your very being is received and kept hidden within the being of God—every fiber of it.  You start to live in confusion when you think that you are separated from God.  This confusion is what often leads to the urge to live independently from God and to live only within and for yourself.  That is the very definition of sin.  It’s to live only for yourself without any regard for God and others.  This is the cause of most of the pain and heartache in our world today.  The price we pay is death and more death.  Romans 6:23 also says that the wages of sin is death.

But the gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord!  People of God are those who live IN Christ Jesus.  The challenge is putting yourself in Christ—a challenge you cannot achieve.

But God can achieve that.  Nothing is impossible for God to do.  And so God sends His Spirit to remind us of what has been accomplished for us by Christ Jesus our Lord: his sacrifice on the cross at the hands of people living independently from God, his rising from the dead by the mighty hand of God, and his ascension to all authority in heaven and earth.  Jesus is Lord and has the name that is above all names in heaven and earth.  You are baptized by that same mighty hand of God into Christ and his love.  You didn’t do it.  It was done to you.  You are not separated from God.  You live IN His love because you live IN Christ Jesus your Lord.  And Christ Jesus lives IN you as he takes residence IN you.  Take and eat, this is his body; take and drink, this is his blood.  His supper is his reminder of the profound reality that he lives with and in you.

Have no fear, but when fear strikes your heart and mind pause yourself and recall that your very being is surrounded by the love of God in which you live and which lives in you.

In Defense of Judas

We are approaching the time of year when Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, gets a bad rap.

"Bad, wicked, naughty Judas for handing Jesus over to be killed."

I think Judas understood the script that Jesus was preaching over and over-- "The Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinners.  They will kill him, but he will arise on the third day."

Judas willingly became the one to hand Jesus over.  His listened to his Rabbi and did what Jesus said.  It's as simple as that.

If anything, we should be looking askance at the Eleven.

"When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.  And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."  And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after the other, "Is it I, Lord?"-- Matthew 26:20-22

Sorrowful?  They should have been climbing over one another to volunteer for the job!  I think they didn't believe Jesus, especially that "rising on the third day" bit.  To them the death of Jesus would be the end of Jesus.

I can understand, perhaps even sympathize a bit.  I don't want anyone to die.  I would also have a hard time believing that a person who was killed by my hand would rise from the dead.

I think it took faith and massive courage for Judas to do what he did.  The story would have turned out much differently if he didn't.  In fact, using the word "betray" shows the anti-Judas bias of our English Bible translations.  We don't like betrayers, so using the word almost guarantees that we will see Judas as the bad guy who did the dastardly deed.

Try reading the Passion Narratives without an anti-Judas bias and see if that's a more satisfying way of understanding the texts.

I'm on Team Judas!

It's Not Easy Being Me

I should tell you a little more about myself so you'll know where I'm coming from.

As I state in the very first post of this blog, I'm primarily a thinker.  My brain never shuts off during waking hours.  It's a blessing and a curse, really.

It's a blessing because I'm able to see and understand different perspectives.  It's a curse for the same reason.

I find it difficult to come down on one side of an issue in a world where that is demanded.  To most people, things are either black or white, this or that, hot or cold.

"TAKE A STAND, MOTHERF***ER!!"

Yeah, I hear that a lot.  But I can't.  I'm not wired to do that.  Most people don't understand.  And this is exactly where the pressure mounts for me.  I'm a misfit in this world and I know it, but I don't want to be a misfit.

This is why I get excited when someone offers a third (or fourth, or fifth) way of looking at something.  I thrive on different perspectives.  Problem is it doesn't happen very often.

Which brings me to my blog post prior to this one, which took a look at Genesis 1.  I know all of the old arguments, and they're usually pitted against each other.  One side insists on Mosaic authorship and a literal reading; the other insists on a non-Mosaic priestly author and a more polemical reading.  Conservative vs. Liberal.

What if it didn't really matter?  What if there's another way of looking at this issue?  Those kinds of questions excite me because they open the issue up to new possibilities and fresh perspectives

Issues don't always have to be either/or, do they?