Session 18 Part I – Held on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012

Posted on February 22, 2012 by Dick

Changes in life, changes in our Church

As the heading indicates our group continued but broadened their discussion of the changes in our church.  The discussion was lively and included such topics as the changes instituted by Vatican II, nuns changing their habits, providing ministries other than teaching in the Catholic schools; priests not saying the rosary, and women priests; topics that bubble up just under the surface for many Catholics.

As a result of this conversation I would offer two points that might serve as a way to frame our conversations.  The first deals with that fact that we are inescapably part of our times.  If we listen to the words we use, we often can detect those times.  For example before the session got started Rosemarie mentioned her interest in purchasing an iPad.  Now we know or can know the iPad is an Apple product that didn’t exist just a few short years ago. What is true of the word “iPad” is true of all words.  They have a beginning even though we may not always be able to date them.  Scripture scholars attempt to use the words in the Bible to help date the time of the writing.  It should be clear that their time and our time are not the same time. It’s critical to recognize this fact in its detail; often it is the notes covering our reading that do just that.

A second observation stems from the fact that whenever we talk we frequently use two quite distinct types of statements; statements of facts and statements of value.  An example of these two types of statements was provided by Don.  See if you can detect the differences in two statements I selected from his take on the recent changes in our liturgy.  At one point he said, “… It seemed like when they first changed from the Latin to the English they used some of these same words that they’re changing back to.”  A little later he added, “I don’t know they’re making a big deal of it [the changes in the liturgy] but it’s where it’s suppose to be …”

It’s one thing to ask whether the specific words that were used in the first effort to translate the liturgy from Latin to English are the same words that the liturgy is now using.  That question is a matter of fact.  We can have only one of three possible responses; yes with or without qualifications, no with or without qualifications, or I don’t know.  But it is quite another matter to discuss whether the changes are “where it’s suppose to be.”  Some people may consider that an evaluative statement and then the range of response are much different.  I’m wondering if this distinction which means a lot to me, actually makes sense to you.  For me Don’s “where it’s suppose to be…” is basically agreeing with the changes.  But not every one agrees with the changes and their disagreement can be based on a disagreement on facts but it also might be because they disagree about the values expressed in the change.  What’s your take on this?

To conclude I thought I would simply share some of the back and forth that actually occurred among the group members.

At first in response to the issue of the male dominated culture of the times in which the Bible was written, members talked about how women are 2nd class citizens with examples from Italy today, from the Middle East [Islamic countries], China, andJapan.  I asked them what I think is the tougher question, are there examples at the local and even personal level.

Tim expressed his opinion that in not permitting women to be priests our church is not keeping up with the times which recognize the equality between men and women.  Rosemarie didn’t agree.  For her the male priesthood is part of the identity of the Catholic Church.  She reflected that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Saturday with the apostles who were all men.  Tim wondered if that wasn’t just a cultural value and not a religious value.  Rebecca responded by pointing out that there weren’t any black apostles or Asian apostles at the Last Supper.  She wondered aloud why ethnicity is not an issue for our church but sex is?  She then thought maybe she should not be in this group.  Mark responded that he too struggles with some teachings, found the group “therapeutic” and hoped that Rebecca would come back.  Rosemarie remarked that most of us have something we don’t agree with.  There were many other participants – in fact the group started to laugh every time [maybe six times] I attempted to stop the conversation.  But it mattered to the folks and that mattered to me.

These exchanges might give you a flavor for the conversation. We find them rich, respectful and want more not less of them.  What would be your opinion?

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Session 17 Part II– Held on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Dick

Part II – Gen. 10:1 – 32 – Table of the Nations

It will help if you read the notes for this chapter, http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/10. The notes make the original meaning of the passage more accessible to us.

To begin you might notice that the first verse reads, “These are the descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, to whom children were born after the flood.” While the last verse reads, “These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their origins and by their nations. From these the nations of the earth branched out after the flood.”  Beginning and ending a passage in similar wording is called an inclusion, a literary device to mark off the passage. In other words, this passage is a piece of literature; it was written in faith to people of faith for the sake of their faith.

The second thing to notice, if we exempt Nimrod from the count, 70 generations are identified.  By now, perhaps, the number 70 might be recognized as having symbolic meaning for the Israelites.  Our struggle is that the number 70 spoke to the original audience; it moved them.  For us, however, it probably leaves us cold, it has little or no meaning.  When we thing of wedding anniversaries, for example, 25 and 50 have special meaning.  I just turned 70 and that had more meaning than 69 had.  But even these two examples have meaning primarily in their counting value.  It would be a misread of the text to think of 70 as having primarily a numerical value; that is, there were 70 descendants and only 70.

A third thing to notice is that in verses 21 and 22, Shem is introduced twice and, in addition, six generations are listed for him while only three are listed for his two brothers.  This, again, is a way for the author to indicate that Shem has greater importance, not because Shem is more important but because his descendants meant more to the author.  It helps to understand the times in which the author wrote to understand what he wrote, what God revealed and the notes make that a bit more open to us.

Reading and Discussion

Reading the passage is, in itself, a challenge; many names are difficult to pronounce, most of them are foreign to us, and the truth is scholars have not been able to identify exactly who these tribes, nations were in every instance. Nonetheless, I would encourage you to read aloud the passage.

Despite its difficulty, our group didn’t take long to engage in a lively discussion.  Heber remarked, as I mentioned in Part I of this session, “No place in here does it mention any of the wives names …” We’ve addressed this observation previously.  A little more fuel to the fire was added by other comments in the discussion.  For example, Jodie shared that in her literature class at Akron U., the professor told them that during this period women were thought of as unimportant.

We have to keep in mind that the dominant culture of this time was patriarchal; all things, other persons, and events were understood through the lens of the male.  To rise to the level of our times would be to recognize that cultural realities are not the same as revelational realities.  Often the scripture is used to justify a particular cultural reality embedded in the times in which the scriptures were written.  And, as is often the case, those who want to use the scripture to justify a particular cultural value, pick and choose passages to bolster their argument.  Maybe you could mention examples of this type of abuse of scripture that you have experienced.

For Christians, the lens through which the whole of scripture needs to be understood is the person of Jesus, the Christ.  But to appreciate what is written about Jesus is also to recognize the cultural realities of his day.  This whole discernment of cultural values and religious values is quite challenging.  For me the starting point to do this would be to make the following statement.  I am not a citizen of the United States who happens to be a Christian.  I am a Christian who happens to have been born in the United States.

Much more was discussed about the relationship between men and women in the past and into the present.  Enough has been written, however, to give you a reference frame for your own discussion.  I invite you to join the discussion

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Session 17 Part I – Held on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012

Posted on February 16, 2012 by Dick

Part I – Change in Life, in our Church

Since the topic of change occupied a significant part of our group’s discussion last Sunday, I thought it best to create two posts, the first of which will deal only with our discussing change.  The second on Chapter Ten of Genesis, The Table of Nations.

To start with I want to offer a few remarks about the very nature of change.  It is always concrete, it is inevitable, it happens at the individual level and at the social level, and we don’t often have much control over its occurrence. Some change is development and some change is decline. Some change that is actually good can feel good but it also can feel bad; some change that is actually bad can feel bad but it also can feel good.  In other words, our emotional reactions to change are not the final determinative for evaluating change even though they are clues to what change means to us.  Obviously change is not the only thing in life, but what we do with change matters a great deal. If you have a different opinion on any of these statements about change, your opinion is welcomed.

Since the Catholic Church is a human reality [but not only human] it has experienced change.  Some of the change in the Catholic Church has been development and some has been decline.  Every member of the Catholic Church, no matter their position in the church, also changes and some of their change has been development and some has been decline.

The real issue cannot be change since change is inevitable and much of it we have little or no control over.  The real issue is discerning the direction of the change so as to affirm the change that is development and to reverse the change that is decline.  And that is the source of our differences, we don’t agree on the evaluation of the change.

Although the above is extremely general, in themselves the statements are about the concrete.  I have chosen three exchanges in our group discussion to exemplify these notions of change in the concrete.

My presentation on the Trinity as an example of both continuity and change in the Roman Catholic Church meant something to Rosemarie.  She remarked, “… we will never, ever, ever know the mystery of the Trinity.  The Pope all the way down, you will never understand it.  There is no answer that is the mystery.  The magisterium of the church teaches us that there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three Persons, One God.  How do you explain it, no way and that’s one of the mysteries of our faith.  That’s the core of the Catholic Church, the Eucharist.  You can’t compromise. …”

It is clear to me that the notion of change in the Trinity mattered to Rosemarie, as it should.  It is also a fact that the Trinity is a mystery.  It is equally clear because it is a historical fact that our church in its history has said all kinds of things about the Trinity.  I would like to say focused on what Rosemarie said, though.  “… we will never, ever, ever know the mystery of the Trinity.”

To determine direction in change and that is the issue, we have to ask, does Rosemarie’s sentence mean we can know nothing about the Trinity or everything about the Trinity.  Once it is posed in that way, perhaps the whole conversation could change.  The Catholic Church actually teaches that we cannot know everything about the Trinity.  It also teaches that we can know some things about the Trinity and that what we know can be very fruitful.  Although a conversation about the Trinity may seem to mean very little in the concrete living of our lives in the 21st century, it affords an example of the flow of conversation that is necessary if we are to evaluate, not what we feel, but what actually is the case.  It is from knowing the actual case that we can position ourselves to respond authentically to that concrete specific change.

A second example occurred just as we began to discuss chapter 10 of Genesis, the Table of Nations.  Heber interrupted, “Can I ask a question. [I respond] Sure.  No place in here does it mention any of the wives names that I can see. Am I right or wrong?  [I respond] Oh, you’re right.  Now they had to marry in the context of their family, right? [I respond]  No.  Well everybody was wiped out but Noah and his family.  You understand where I’m coming from. …”

In Heber’s question there is a basic assumption; namely that the account of Noah and the Flood is an account of actual historical events.  Now that assumption is part of the very person that Heber is.  It’s not some abstract comment.  “You understand where I’m coming from.” When I write the next sentence, I am confronting Heber with change and with change that matters to him.  I think, however, the correct understanding of the Biblical account of the Noah and the Flood is in the context of it being a story told by people who believed, to people who believed, to help them in their belief.  It is not written to provide us with an account of actual historical events even if there are contained in its writings some actual historical events.

At this point Tim offered his thoughts.  “First of all this is really tough because all of us growing up with these stories were taught to believe that they were true, that they were historically accurate.  This is what actually happened.  And that’s the whole thing that everyone is having a hard time getting their mind around … it’s very tough …”

Confronting change is not easy and it is quite personal.  Each of us lives in our world but “our” world and “the” world may not fit together comfortably.  The real challenge seems to me to be twofold. First we much come to grips with “the” world as it actually exists.  But secondly, we must evaluate the world as it actually exists to affirm what is good in it and to reverse what is wrong, evil, etc. in it.  To do that is to rise to the level of our times. The challenge is person to each of us but it is also common to all of us.  What I have written doesn’t tell you concretely what you are to do, but it does lay out the frame work for your figuring out what you are to do.  Keep in mind that you are not alone.

As always your thoughts, comments, observations are welcomed.

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Session Sixteen – Held on Sunday, February 5, 2012

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Dick

Focal point – does, should, the church change? 

If our group is representative, two common reactions to the most recent changes in the Catholic liturgy: first is to think that they are merely changes in words and / or second to experience a disturbing feeling because the change in itself, especially change in the church is disruptive.  Both the thought and the feeling are profoundly related to an historical understanding of the scriptures because both are a response to change and change is inherently historical.  History is the record of human change in a similar way that your biography is a record of your changing.  And history ultimately, if we are to know about it, is a matter of words.  We weren’t there.

Let’s take an example in the life of the church that I think points at this issue of change but it is a change about which you probably have little or no knowledge or feelings. Certainly one of the fundamental and apparently unchanging distinguishing marks of Christianity is the fact that nearly all believe in the Trinity, that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  As Catholic we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Every time we enter the church building we bless ourselves in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  There is something constant, unchanging. It’s not like we are going to wake up some morning and the church is going to proclaim, there is no Trinity.

On the other hand, it is not like our understanding of what there are three of in the Trinity cannot develop; in fact it has developed. We say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons.  But … What does person mean?  St. Augustine, for example, thought that “person” meant what there are three of in the Trinity.  St. Thomas had a different definition.  Study of ancient Greek literature provides us with a different understanding.  The advent of depth psychology and the notion of consciousness has raised new questions and answers to what we mean by the word “person.”

So  if the very meaning of the word “person” has changed, the real issue is not change itself but the more difficult act of discerning the direction of that change.  Discernment of the direction of change applies to each of us individually.  We are changing but are we developing or declining?  This discernment applies to us socially too and thus to us as church.  If you feel disturbed by the changes in the liturgy, or really any social movement, and even your self; that feeling might be a clue to how you are judging the direction. At this turn in the conversation, the fundamental issue becomes a question concerning your judgment, Is it true?

Let’s take a few words that have changed in the liturgy, we use to say “We believe,” we now say “I believe.”  We use to say “One in being with the Father,” we now say “consubstantial with the Father.”  The priest use to say “cup,” now he says “chalice.”  Are these only words? Or do the words have a meaning, even if you don’t know what the meaning is exactly?  How do you feel, now not about all the recent liturgical changes, but rather about each of these concrete specific word changes?  Finally, do your feelings reveal to you the direction you think your church is taking? And do you agree with that direction or not?  If you feel unsettled, probably you don’t agree with the direction of the change. The much more difficult thing is first to express the direction as you understand it, then give expression to why you don’t agree with that direction.  And finally, to express the kind of change that take us in a direction that you could approve.  If enough of us actually did that, like on this website, we would soon learn how the community felt, and that itself might be a change we would feel Ok or not with.  I think that such is sufficient for you to mull over; your responses would be welcomed.

Noah and his Sons

Read notes and passage for Gen: 9:18-29 – http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/9.  Leading questions seem to help us stay focused as we listen / read.  So here are a few: What events does the story narrate? What’s the story all about?  What captured your attention in the story?  What seemed most significant?  What does shame mean to you?

We had a lively discussion.  A few remarks point to the value of group discussion.

As Ken remarked this is a story, like so many in the bible, of daily life.  It is not just a story of Noah and his family, but of families, especially those living in a culture of shame.  To hear God’s word is to break it open.

In the whole of your life, do you know of anyone who got drunk?  Is everyone who gets drunk intending to do so?  What do you think it would be like to have your private life made public? For Annette the really important point was the act of shaming the father, making it public.

To go outside the tent is a symbolic act just as walking backwards into the tent to cover their dad was a symbolic act.  Both acts reveal constant themes, threads that make up our daily living.  We are confronted by events and what we do at that moment in time makes all the difference.

Why does Noah curse Canaan the son of Ham, since it is Ham who shames Noah notCanaan?  As Tim remarked, cursing Canaan was like cursing Ham’s descendants.  It may seem simple, but Tim recognizing that the word “Canaan” is really talking about descendants is an example of breaking the word of God open.  I may not be able to relate to “Canaan” but to my descendants I can.  Finding connections in our day to day existence is what it means to break the word open.

As we concluded Tim commented that he had read this story twice on his own but didn’t get out of it what he had being a part of the group.  I think Tim’s observation is right on.  Gathering with others, having some leading questions, talking about the passage, makes a difference.  You are invited to begin such a process on line.

Posted in Scripture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Session Fifteen – Held on Sunday, January 29, 2012

Posted on February 1, 2012 by Dick

Review of Session Fourteen

Carol made two keen observations last week. First she noted that Noah has not said anything in this story.  And second, that we are told the names of the men but not the names of the women.

I observed that the second observation is probably a function of the patriarchal society that dominated the entire time of the writing of the Jewish and Christian scripture.  However, the first is much more likely a function of the authors themselves.  If my observations are correct, God’s revelation has much more to do with Noah not talking but very much doing than the fact that the women are not given names.  These types of distinctions can enhance our understanding of the Bible without the need to affirm as revealed the cultural make up of the believing communities.  Again, this type of distinction is not an all or nothing proposition, nor is it always easy to know.  Thus the need for the believing community, responsible theologians, and authentic teachers; at its heart though is the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Great Flood and the Covenant with Noah

We began by reviewing the notes for the Great Flood at Gen: 7:6 – 8:22 and for the Covenant at Gen: 9:1 – 17.  Select the appropriate chapter for your review – http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/#Genesis.

The goal of discussing the notes is to allow ourselves to hear more fully, more authentically, the passage we are listening to.  Let me know if this helps you.  Of course, it can only make a difference if you actually read the notes.  If the notes raise any questions, let me know that as well.

There were two of the notes on which I focused our attentions.  The first is the note for Gen: 8:7 – 12 where there is reference to the Gilgamesh Epic [really worth your read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh and to the first century A.D. Roman author Pliny.  These two references give you clues to how the understanding of the bible has advanced over the years; comparisons and contrasts with diverse sources of similar concepts are very helpful.

The second focal point was the biblical concept of Covenant.  I would urge you to google “biblical covenant” to be exposed to this key concept.  A covenant has its origins in “secular” society which the Israelites and then the Christians modified to communicate its unique meaning to their faith communities.  As Christians we believe that Christ established a new covenant which is expressed every time in the Catholic tradition Mass is celebrated. The Covenant with Noah is with all mortal creatures, see the note for Gen: 9:8 – 17.

At this point I made an observation that to live the biblical stories requires that we come to understand their meaning in the life of the original faith communities.  Accomplishing that allows us to keep that meaning but also requires an intelligent adaptation to our new context [authentic conservatism]. Without that adaptation ironically we actually fail to preserve the original meaning [inauthentic conservatism.]   The measure is neither being conservative nor being liberal; the measure is being authentic and to that extent you will find yourself in an extraordinarily demanding middle.  Your thoughts?

From a review of the notes we moved forward to read Gen: 7:6 – 9:17 but with three questions in mind:

  1. What part of the story did you like the best?
  2. What do you think is the most important part of the story?
  3. Where are you in this story or what part of the story is about you?

We would love to hear you answer to any or all of these questions.  Here are a few of our answers.

In response to the first question, Annette did not hesitate to say the first part of the story when God remembered he had Noah in the ark.  She wondered aloud, why would God have to remember, didn’t he already know?  Later on Annette would answer the final question along a similar but quite profound line.  The first part of story where we can wonder if God might have forgotten that Noah was in the ark.  This reminded Annette of life.  We feel like God forgets where we are sometimes; we feel lost, forgotten.  And some people give up on God because they think God has forgotten them.  I think Annette’s observations are very profound.  Have you ever felt that God has forgotten you?  Do you know people who have given up on God because they feel that God has forgotten them?

In response to the first question, Ken remarked that the covenant seemed to reveal that God felt remorse for what had happened and He wanted to make things right with the people.  He felt bad, poured himself out to reconcile with what He had done.  The Covenant is like a second chance.  We talked a lot about how good it feels to be given a second chance; for Tina that is where she found herself in the story.  I was reminded of Peter asking Jesus, well how many times do I have to forgive, seven times.  Jesus, no, seventy times seven times.  And why did Jesus say this, because that is what his Father does and he wants us to be like his Father, his children.  What do you think of this part of our conversation?  What would you add?

Dan and Tim thought that Noah simply doing what God told him to do without question was the most important part of the story.  This raised the fundamental question, to know what God is asking of us.  Wouldn’t it be nice if God said, just build the ark, here are the dimensions?  Life doesn’t seem to be so clear cut for many of us.  I suggested that the important point is not necessarily to know what God is asking of us but to keep the question in front of us.  For me the question is more important than the answer.  What about you?

There was much more but perhaps this little bit points to the richness of people of faith gathering to listen and share.  By responding on line, you too can be part of a larger conversation.  Another suggestion would be to gather a few of your family and friends once a week and using this website to guide you in your efforts to Rise to the Level of our Times.  When you think about it, that is just what the earliest Christians actually did, of course, without the benefit of the Internet.

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Scholar emphasizes New Testament’s Jewish roots

Posted on January 28, 2012 by Dick

A brief article http://usat.ly/xF1UjS  that points to the effort among scholars to create a much needed mutual understanding of people of different faiths; in this case, between persons of the Jewish and Christian faiths.  After all, Jesus was a Jew, his mission was predominately to his contemporary Jews, and modern scholarship has been able to provide a much more accurate account of the Jewish communities both at the time of Jesus and during the composition of the Christian scriptures.  Worth the few minutes it will take.  We have much to learn from one another!

As always any feedback?

Continue reading →

Posted in Scripture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Session Fourteen – Held on Sunday, January 22, 2012

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Dick

Discussion of Sources of our Different Opinions

Our group easily recognizes that people have different opinions on a whole array of things.  Some of those differences are matters of true and false, right and wrong.  And these kinds of differences do divide us.  Such divisions occur in matters of faith too.  Before we can agree or disagree with anyone, however, we have to understand that concrete other. At the same time, followers of Christ are challenged, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35)  In this quote, who concretely, in your very own life, are the “one another?”  And what does it mean to love the other?  How does studying the bible, Genesis in this concrete setting, help us to love one another?  Some questions for you to mull over.

Review of Session Thirteen

Two questions were raised in our session thirteen that I wanted to comment on.  Heber wondered what the animals did to deserve the punishment of the flood.  As I seem to say all the time, any question we can ask makes assumptions.  If you assume that the biblical account of Noah and the Flood was an historical event, then his question raises even more questions.  But if you assume that the biblical account has a meaning for our life, then that meaning in part is contained in the account as a whole.  And that is how I understand the account and would invite you to read Gen. 9: 9-10 for a clue to the answer to Heber’s question.  What do you think?

The second question came from Carol who wanted to know the size of the ark with the inference of how much space did these animals have.  This question led me to do two things.  First I decided during the previous week to take seriously what would it mean to flood the earth to a height of 15 ft above the highest mountain and cover the entire planet over a period of 40 days. Carrying out a bit of math, if the flood actually occurred as narrated, the amount of rain that would have fallen would have literally filled the entire Pacific Ocean from its present basin to its present sea level once every four days or ten times.

I then wondered how many animals are we talking about and how much space would they have had on the ark.  Keep in mind that I wanted to simply get some general idea not a scientific position. Today we don’t how many species exist but of the ones that we do know, there are 1.7 million species.  Since at least two of each specie were recorded in the account that would amount to 3.4 million individual creature.  How much space would all of those creatures plus the 8 human beings and enough provisions to last more than 40 days have in the ark with its dimensions? After assuming an average size for each creature and doing some rough calculations, I was left with a fraction of a cubic ft. for each creature. I present this to show just a few of issues that I encountered when I took seriously a literal interpretation of this biblical account..  This all seems to me to take us far from the wonder, beauty, and challenge that this story has for.  Read what we discussed in this session to learn more.

The Great Flood / Part 1 – Gen. 7: 6 – 24.  You can read http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/7

As the group, so too you should pay attention to yourself as you read or listen to this passage.  Carol was quick to point out that Noah didn’t say anything.  You might want to focus on her observation not just in this section but in the entire story.  What does it mean that Noah doesn’t talk?  She also pointed out that we know the names of the four men in the story but none of the women.  As you reflect on this observation, it would be very important to realize that the culture in which the story was told was a patriarchal one.  For me this fact reveals how God takes us as we are and then by the time of Christ reminds us that in Christ we are neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free.

Dan was fascinated in the account that Noah was 600 years old.  He wondered whether it was factual or part of the culture of the times? He then shared how a Jewish friend added that Noah had planted the seeds that 125 years later were to be the trees that Noah harvested to build the ark.  Such additions are meant to enliven our appreciation of the story.  The danger in our times of such additions occur when the listener things that this addition is part of the account, it is not.  Rather it is part of our human nature to embellish a story to drive home a point which is how I would take what Dan shared. But how would you?

Ken pointed out that people of every generation attempt to explain what happens in their lives.  He sees that as what is going on in this account.  We have as part of our world scientific understandings that help us to explain what is going on and the biblical people did not.  An observation I added was one of the affects of our scientific and historical developments is how they change how we view the whole of our world.  We make distinctions that early peoples were not able to make.  Ken offered the example of a volcanic irruption.  We know what causes that and are not inclined to think of it being caused by the “gods” as might have been the case in more primitive times.

Tim wondered what the meaning of verse 11b might be.  Once again this section of the account reveals the cosmology of the ancient people who imagined the world quite differently than we do.  Google ancient Hebrew cosmology to view how the world was imaged by them and then compare it to the words in this verse.

As part of our ongoing discussion there is a certain ambiguity to the word “world.”  I would ask you to reflect on a couple of facts from a biblical perspective.  The world is good, natural catastrophes occur, we do despicable things. As Christians we believe that Christ is the Savior of the world.  To Rise to the Level of our Times means to understand the complexities of our world, to discern the direction of our change, to promote the change that is development, and to turn the change that is decline into the change that is development. It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to think that all Christians would or should agree.  I don’t think they every did  nor do I think that, short of the next life, they every will.  What the challenge is is not to be divided by what we disagree on!  Is that within our reach?  Your thoughts?

What remains for next week is to complete the story which ends with Covenant with Noah.  The key to these past few weeks is quite simple, a Covenant, that is the meaning of the biblical account of Noah and the Flood.  To miss that is to miss everything.

Your thoughts are encouraged and welcomed.

Posted in Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Catholic Statements on Faith and Science and on the Authorship of the Biblical Account of Noah and the Flood

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Dick

I wish to respond in a thoughtful way to the comments that address the very approach being taken in our adult study of the scripture. The comment http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=317#comments seem to make a number of assumptions.  I think one is that a faithful Catholic must choose between religion and science, although in the comment there is a reference to scientists who are brothers and sisters of the faith.  However, there isn’t an American science, or a Russian science, or a Chinese science; nor is there a Christian science, a Muslim science, or a Jewish science, etc.  There is just science.  That is not to say that all of the above persons can be and are scientists.

To read the relevant statement by the authority of the Catholic Church I would direct the reader to the Vatican website on The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church http://bit.ly/10wHxJ. Where we read in Q. 29,

“Why is there no contradiction between faith and science?  Though faith is above reason, there can never be a contradiction between faith and science because both originate in God. It is God himself who gives to us the light both of reason and of faith.”

There are, nonetheless, conflicts in our society between scientists and believers.  The conflicts are quite complex though.  These conflicts reside not in science and in faith but in scientists and believers. They have a long and tortuous history.  Their origins are in that history to which, unfortunately, both the religious and the scientific communities share the blame.  We will move beyond these conflicts only when both communities engage in authentic conversation at both the level of science and the level of theology.  Before we move to a second assumption, you may wish to offer you own thoughts, etc. on the previous couple of paragraphs.

There is, as I understand it, another assumption in the comments.  If we take the time to read carefully the comment, I think it is easy to recognize the passion of the author’s beliefs; a passion that is both honorable and enviable.  It seems to me that such passion is stirred because not to take the bible literally is to “start undermining the word of God;” it is to “give the faithful more reasons to doubt the word and you.” I understand “you” to mean me but I’m not sure.  He adds, “Once you shift Genesis from Moses to other authors you discredit the word and undermine all of scripture.” Ultimately what is at stake as I hear him is the bible itself.

Again let me draw on authoritative Catholic statements.  The most significant encyclical informing Catholic biblical scholarship is Divino Afflante Spiritu [Inspired by the Divine Spirit] issued by Pope Pius XII on Sept. 30, 1943, quite a while ago.  This encyclical inaugurated the modern period of Roman Catholic Biblical studies.  The Catholic biblical scholar Father Raymond E. Brown described it as a ‘Magna Carta for biblical progress.’ There is a whole library of books from Catholic Biblical scholars based on contemporary methodologies.

More to the point of the authorship of the biblical account of Noah and the Flood is the website of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  There http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6 the notes offers the following concerning it authorship,

“[6:5–8:22] The story of the great flood is commonly regarded as a composite narrative based on separate sources woven together. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually  assigned  6:5–8;  7:1–5,  7–10,  12,  16b,  17b,  22–23;8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22. The other sections are usually attributed to the Priestly writer. There are differences between the two sources …” [Bolded added]

It’s just a mistake to think that the only acceptable Roman Catholic interpretation of the scriptures is a literal interpretation.  The vast 2000 year intellectual tradition of Catholic thought underpins a commitment to truth both revealed and grasped naturally.  What has persuaded modern Catholic biblical scholarship is the shear weight of the evidence.

There is another important observation that needs to be made.  If the Catholic Church since at least 1943 approved of the very approach I am taking in our adult scripture study, why does it seem so foreign to so many Catholics and really Christians of many other traditions? The answer to that is a book but in essence it is a cultural and an educational issue.  It is the very reason that I have argued most of my life that what is needed is adult education.

As always your responses are welcomed.

Posted in Culture, Science, Scripture | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Session Thirteen – Held on Sunday, January 15, 2012

Posted on January 18, 2012 by Dick

Discussion of Website Comments

The group discussed briefly the content of a comment concerning the literal interpretation of the biblical account of Noah and the Flood.  The group as a whole has found the adult study effort to be worthwhile and illuminating.  They were anxious to move on.  I will speak to the issues raised in the comments more fully in a later post.

Review of Session Twelve:

We recalled the challenge that every generation of Christians experiences to live faithfully their calling in the context of the actual personal, social, and historical setting in which they find themselves; a challenge that is unique to each individual, but common to our social and historical setting.  Once again we turned to the question of marriage that was raised last week.  I reiterated what I had said then.  Marriage is understood differently in different cultures.  At the same time, Christ’s vision of marriage as a sign and symbol of the Father’s faithfulness to the human community is now and has been since He first spoke it a true and enduring challenge.  It reminds me of the fact that Christianity is more aspiration than achievement.

Genesis 6:14 – 7:5 – Preparation for the Flood 

You can read this section; http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6 and the notes supplied will prove to be very helpful.  As is our custom, I asked the group and would not ask you to pay attention in listening to the reading, to identify any movement within oneself which might take the form of a question, an observation, or confusion.  Immediately after the reading I asked them to share any of the above as I now ask you.

The very first question that emerged in Carol concerned the size of the ark.  As the notes make clear, a cubit is understood to be approximately 1 ½ feet in length.  In one account Noah is given specific measurements of what the ark is to be, 350 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high.  We wondered what that actually meant in more familiar terms.  Since the account presents us with the ark as a boat, if would not be the shape of a cube.  To help imagine the volume of space available for holding the human animal “cargo,” I thought that 60% of the volume of a cube might account for the shape of the boat, for the internal structures, and for room for the provisions.  Obviously, this is just imagination but it might help to get at Carol’s question.  The math then is pretty straight forward, 60% of 350 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits x 1.5 ft per cubit.  The answer is 472, 500 cubic feet.

We didn’t arrive at this figure in our discussion but I’ve recorded it here on our website in order to compare that figure with something we might be more familiar with.  Using 80% of the cubic ft of the ark [its boat like structure] and comparing that to the size of the Costa Concordia, the luxury liner that went aground in Italy this past week, the Costa Concordia would hold approximately 7 arks.  By modern standards the ark wasn’t all that big.  And that’s the point; a standard of comparison would change over time.  The size of the Costa Concordia could not even be imagined in the 16th century, let alone 2000 BC.

It’s important to pay attention to what we are doing as I say over and over again.  Carol’s question is a very natural one for someone living in the 21st c.  Yet in some fundamental way, the question moves us away from the meaning of the story itself to question rather, how could all the birds of the air, animals, and things that crawl on the earth fit on this size boat.  But the real meaning of this part of the story is to set the stage for the outcome that will be told by the end of the story, a new beginning, a fresh start, a promise of commitment to us and at the same time the real consequences in the real world of our actual acts.  It is this meaning that moves me, for both of these aspects of the story govern my life as I live it today.

More later, but for now do you have any questions, comments, observations, etc.

Posted in Scripture | Tagged | Leave a comment

Session Twelve – Held on Sunday, January 8, 2012

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Dick

Review of Session Eleven:

What would life be like if there weren’t differences among us? Well pretty boring; yet when differences are basic and in the area of faith, those differences are challenging. To rise to the level of our times is to find a way to bridge the gap. One way is when the gap occurs in the same person. This twelfth session offered a couple of examples of that. Tina commented how she had tried to read Genesis before but simply couldn’t wrap her head around the account that Adam lived to be 930 years old; maybe part of her struggle comes from the fact that she is an account and numbers matter. It made much more sense to me when I learned that these are stories from which we are to learn their meaning and not necessarily actual historical events.

Later on in our session Tim pointed out that studying Genesis was much more difficult than studying the Gospel of John which we focused on in our previous study. Carol mentioned that listening to and hearing other possibly meanings to the Genesis account were easier than when she attempted to read it by herself. Rosemarie brought up that Genesis brings out the issues between science and religion too. What would be your input to our discussion?

Genesis 6:1 – 4: Origin of the Nephilim

I would strongly urge you to read the notes to the passages we are discussing. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6. Keep in mind as you read these four verses that the ancient Israelites did not live in a vacuum but rather were surrounded by other peoples and that they shared many common stories. Thus the Israelites had memories and drew on them to tell their stories. Again God always takes us as we are. So God accepts ancient people as they were but he also takes us as we are. Our journey is to discover the meaning that the stories had for the ancient people and to live that meaning in our own times; that is what it means to rise to the level of our times. Every generation of Christians are invited to do that for their times. Your grandparents lived in a different world and your grandchildren will live in a different world but the biblical stories are the same stories. What is different is our understanding of them because we are different. We can ask different questions and must respond in different circumstances, the concrete circumstances and history that surround and constitute us as individuals, as a community, as a nation, and now as a global presence.

A concrete example of this struggle emerged when Rosemarie asked what does it mean in Gen. 6:2b that “… so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose.” Heber wondered if this was the source of the one time tradition of the Mormons. If you listen carefully, you can hear among other things that this account occurs in a patriarchal society; it is men that take wives. It occurs in a polygamous setting; as many of them [wives] as they chose. If we move into our contemporary times things aren’t really all that different, we recognize the existence of polygamous societies. For example, Kara, my daughter, as a Peace Corp volunteer, taught in Sumve, a small village in Tanzania, Africa. There, if you were Muslim you were permitted to have more than one wife but, if you were Christian, you were permitted to have only one wife. The country attempted to formulate its laws to respect the different religious beliefs of its citizens. Whereas in the US, you can have more than one wife or husband as long as you do it sequentially and go through the proper legal proceedings to divorces one and marry the other. Finally, this one verse plus the practice of ancient Israelites means that God accepts us as we are. For Christians Christ, whom we believe is the very Son of God, saw in marriage a sign and symbol of his Father’s unconditional love of human beings. Thus for Christians, at least in aspiration if not in achievement, marriage is a one time commitment for life. But even that presented Matthew and Paul, and the Church ever after a struggle both to understand and to live what Christ said.

Noah and the Flood – two stories woven into one.

Let’s begin by reading the J account in the first column and then the P account in the second column, noting the bolded words in each account which will focus your attention on some of the differences in the two accounts. http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=307. There are differences in the accounts because the stories are told by different authors to different people living in different places and perhaps at different times. Later in time, however, the final editor sees fit to weave the two different accounts into one story. Why? Well by the time the editor does this there are people in his times that are familiar with both accounts. If he leaves one or the other out, they would be asking, hey where is my story? In a way, the editor was being politically correct for his time. We live at a time when we notice these differences, ask different questions, etc., but it isn’t like God doesn’t know all of this. My remark to the adult learner, God is inviting you to deal with it. This type of scholarship provides evidence of why I understand the scripture as I do. For me it is a historical perspective that illuminates the meaning of the biblical texts and presents us the challenge of rising to the level of our times.

Our group did more but this enough for anyone who would take the time to follow all I have written above. As always, your questions, comments, observations are welcomed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments