As you awake this morning, the dawn of a new day that has a special meaning.  Keep in mind – every birth of a star or a son, of you or me is a constant reminder that we didn’t have to be but simply are.  What then is the meaning of all that is?  It is a meaning that comes to us in the Word that was spoken once for all time.  We long to hear what will speak to our minds and our hearts in the wholeness of our life; a life that is both agony and ecstasy, a life that is caught up in the very drama of the God who Speaks His Word and the Love that is ignited by both Speaker and Spoken.  And the Word was made Flesh, our very flesh.  Will wonder never cease, how can this be … and yet it is.  This morning is a reminder for those who can hear that we are surrounded by a Love that is faithful in the Word whose very flesh and blood was poured out from a Speaker who yearns, longs to be one with all that is.  Joy, joy, joy to the World!

Dick

If you’ve been following our conversations, one thing  is clear in our group and may be less clear online, we don’t all agree.  If you’re interested in learning why, coming to understand how our worlds relate can be a big help.  A cautionary note: Fr. Lonergan’s presentation below is at one and the same time very concrete but heuristic, by “heuristic” I mean that the categories of thought are given but the discernment of the content of those categories in each case has to be supplied by you and only you can do it.

Perhaps the be most revealing of his categories is how he talks about horizons that are “dialectically opposed.”  Most noteworthy are the motives he identifies as being ascribe to someone whose world is “dialectically opposed” to ours.  “The other position is ascribed to wishful thinking, the acceptance  of myth, ignorance or fallacy, blindness or illusion, backwardness or immaturity, infidelity, bad will or a refusal of God’s grace.” Do any of these words speak to you about those whom you truly disagree with? Would you be willing to share your thoughts?

Reflecting on this one sentence may give us a clue as to why it is so hard to hear the other who really differs from us.  Paying attention to when we ascribe such motives to the other and then realizing what we are doing can become a tool to help us rise to the level of our times.

You can listen to Fr. Lonergan’s description of the notion of Horizon or you can read the transcript.

Horizon is the line where earth and sky apparently meet.  It comes from the Greek “ὁρίζων κύκλος” (horizōn kyklos), “bounding circle.”  It recedes when we advance and closes in behind us.  It divides objects into visible now and not now visible according to one’s standpoint.  As one moves about one standpoint changes and the objects that are within one’s horizon change.  What’s within one’s horizon is now accessible to vision, what’s beyond one’s horizon one can’t now possibly see.

So much for the literal sense but besides the literal sense there’s also a metaphorical or analogous sense.  As the range of our vision so our interest and our knowledge are limited. Within our horizon, within the world of our interest and knowledge, there is all we care for, know about to some extent great or small.  What’s beyond our horizon is what we know nothing about and care less. Horizons may be compared in three ways.  They may complement one another, they may be related genetically, they may be opposed dialectically.

First complementary horizons, there are different interests, skills, knowledge, in workmen, foremen, supervisors, technicians, engineers, managers, doctors, lawyers, professors and so on.  But each knows about the others.  Each has some general idea what the other does.  Each recognizes the need for the others.  And no one is willing to take up the other fellows work and do it for him.  Together they constitute a common world.  Each compliments the other.  Each knows something about the others.  Together they work together within a common world.  Yet the focus, the what is fully understood and fully a matter of interest varies from one man to the next.  Their horizons are complementary.

Genetic horizons are related to one another as successive stages in some process of development.  The later includes the earlier but diverges from it, dropping some elements, changing others, adding still others.  They’re not complimentary because they’re not simultaneous.  They are parts of the same biography or the same history.

Horizons may be dialectically opposed.  Then each has some awareness of the others but this inclusion is also a rejection and a condemnation.  The other position is ascribed to wishful thinking, the acceptance  of myth, ignorance or fallacy, blindness or illusion, backwardness or immaturity, infidelity, bad will or a refusal of God’s grace.  Rejection may be passionate and then suggestion that one should cultivate openness makes one furious, But the rejection may also have the firmness of ice without an trace of passion except perhaps a wand smile.   Both genocide and astrology may be beyond the pale.  But the former is excoriated, the latter is ignored or merely amuses. So we’ve compared horizons in three different ways, as complementary – parts of a single world, as genetically related – one arises from the other but differs from it and as dialectically opposed.

Horizons also differ in their structures.  In the first place horizons are structured.  Learning is not just an addition to an already acquired store but rather an organic growth out of what already is known.  And so there is always context.  Our intentions, our statements, our deeds all occur within context.  And it is to context we appeal when we explain our deeds.  What are you doing?  What are you up to? When we clarify and amplify, qualify our statements.  What I really meant I was this.  And you appeal to the context within which you made your judgments.  Or when you explain your goals you give a context.  Husserl who did terrifically delicate analyses of everything practically said that to describe even a single perception without any mention of the comprehensive horizon of a world and its encompassing frame of reference was to give a mutilated account of the perception.  All our acts of our intentional consciousness are within the context of their past in a movement towards their future.

Further regulative of our learning is our interest.  We take the trouble to attend and learn in accord with the values we respect and the satisfactions we prize.  But the values that are respected and the satisfactions that are prized can vary from age to age, group to group, man to man, and within the lifetime of each one of us.  So that the variation of horizons from the context from which they’re built up in learning and the influence above all of values, values and satisfactions are a great determinants horizons give rise to different structures in the horizons.  You can have different scales of values, you can have different values highly prized and others ignored and so on.  And that gives rise to enormous differences in horizons.

Review of Session Ten 

Annette started us off by asking the meaning of Gen: 4: 20 – 22.  http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4.  Like so many questions that Genesis raises for us, the question itself has assumptions.  These three verses state that all who “dwell in tents” and “keep livestock” have a common ancestor; all those who “play the lyre and reed pipe” or “play the harp and flute” [which instruments depends on your version’s translation of the bible] have a common ancestor; and all those who “forge instruments of bronze and iron” have a common ancestor.

It is much easier for me to express what these verses don’t mean.  The author is not trying to tell us, to take one example, that everyone who dwells in tents had a single person who was their ancestor.  Once I make this statement, though, a host of questions come flooding out based on what our assumptions are.  Some in our group and many around the globe, and this is to state it quite simply, believe that the bible is the word of God, God doesn’t lie, and therefore the bible is true.

One of my favorite phrases goes something like this, may I push you on that.  So here goes … If you think the statement in the last sentence in the previous paragraph is true, does that mean that in this one verse, Gen: 4:20, the true meaning of the bible is that all those who dwell in tents have a single person, named Jabal, as their common ancestor?  Or does it mean something else.  Please note that these are two questions that I have raised.  They may be meaningful questions to you or they may not.  If the questions are meaningful, select the one that you agree with and express your reason for holding that opinion.  If they are not meaningful, express why they are not. Either you will participate or you won’t.  If you do participate, you will attempt to do the best according to your ability to makes sense based on the world in which you live. In doing this you will experience what it means, in part, to rise to the level of our times.

Generations: Adam to Noah.

Below is a modified version of a handout given to the study group which basically summarizes Genesis 5, http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/5

There are a few observations to make: first there are ten generations from Adam to Noah.  Is that historical fact, just coincidental or is it a literary form? Note that Enoch is reported not as dying but as God taking him which may mean the same think as dying but why does the author change his words when it comes to Enoch.  Third, note that Lamech [who is now a descendant of Seth and not of Cain] lives for a total of 777 years.  Again does the 777 mean years or symbolic of some other meaning?

We had quite a discussion on the meaning of these ages.  As expressed earlier some members of our group believe that the ages are factual, that is historically true ages.  To take one example, Adam had a child when he was 130 years old, lived another 800 years and died when he was 930 years old.  Others think that the ages are symbolic but wondered what they could mean.  Some wondered if the notion of a year meant the same thing at the time of the author as it does today.

It seems clear to me that we have no experience of anyone living these kinds of years.  Because that is true, we have to make sense of the numbers or dismiss them as none sense. To find their meaning, though, requires that these numbers are placed in a larger context of the stories told in Genesis.  In that context we will find that the ages of individuals gradually lowers to become life spans that we are in the range of our experience.  This age trajectory has a meaning, it’s telling us something.  From one point of view we could say that it points backwards to a more perfect time, ultimately to a perfect time, the Garden of Eden.  Or it could be an effort to account for the personal, social, and political realities that are part of the Israelites past and present life.

Ultimately the bible is a story of salvation, of God’s interjection of his meaning into our world, and for Christians, of God’s interjection of His Spirit and His Son into human history.  It is an invitation to shape our understanding of the meaning of our lives in their totality and to live in the world that that understanding creates.  This is why it is so important to come to grips with what the bible is telling us.

Any comments, questions, observations, opinions are welcomed

If you are interested in this topic visit our Science and Religion page.  http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?page_id=252 and join the dialogue.

Programs of Interest 

Ken mentioned a program of possible interest: Dr. Issam Nemeh dealing with Science and Religion which can be seen on the History Channel – http://www.history.com/schedule/12/13/2011.  NOVA is also presenting a series on the Fabric of the Cosmos, hosted by Brian Greene which can give food for thought.

Session Nine Revisited

I mentioned how helpful it was for Mark to distinguish in the scripture: event and story.  The group continued to struggle with the truth of a story the events of which historically either we know did not happen, or don’t know whether they happened or not.  Sometime we know they didn’t happen because of the nature of the literature.  Mike near the end of our discussion on this point made an observation that was extremely helpful to me.  He reminded us that Jesus told parables which certainly convey a truth but are not depended on the event as narrated.  For example, the Gospel reading for Sunday, November 13, 2011 is the Parable of the Talents, Mt. 25: 14 – 30 http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25.  Is this story truth, if and only if, there was someone who was planning on going on a journey and called his three servants … etc? Was Jesus referring in this parable to a specific person and his three specific servants who did what is reported that they did? Or are these characters in the parable representative of human beings who carry out representative actions?  What is your answer to these two questions?   No matter what your answer, your answer is an effort to make sense out of the world in which you live.  It is possible, however, for one of the answers to be mistaken.  What happens if the same questions are asked now, not about a parable of Jesus, but the story of the first man and woman, Cain and Abel, etc?  How do you answer? And why?

God’s Word: Story or Event, Story and Event.  What is revelation? 

With Mark’s distinction between event and story, another fundamental question arises, what is revelation?  Our questions can be quite simple, this question is three words long; I just wish the answer could be given in three words but such is not the case.  Revelation first of all is inclusive of both story and event by being in the category of meaning.  Revelation is God’s entry into the meaning of our world.  And that meaning is a meaning of salvation and thus it is that Christians believe that Christ is the Savior of the World, Christ is revelation incarnate and the church as the Body of Christ is in the order of meaning.  We are to be a meaning of salvation in our world and that is why it is so important to Rise to the Level of our Times. More on this as story and/or event invite.

Genealogy as Literary Form

I wanted to offer some context in which to read Gen: 4:17 – 26 http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4 and 5:1 – 32 http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/5.  The notes for 5:1 – 32 are particularly helpful.

The Israelites, like many others of the same period, were groups of different tribes. By the time of the authorship of these biblical accounts the Israelites were already a kingdom, at one time untied and later divided; http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=94.  The closest I have experienced to belonging to a tribe was my growing up in an Italian family in the 40s.  When ever anyone first visited us, we seemed always to ask, “Where you from?”  It seemed to matter whether the visitor was Calabrese, Sicilian, Napolitano, etc.  My uncle was Sicilian and my dad, Romano and they had the hardest time even understanding one another.  As I related my story, it was amazing to me to see how many of the persons around our table nodded in agreement.  They too experienced similar family culture.  Yet as Roseann mentioned, their [the Italian visitors] thinking was entirely different than our [American] thinking.

What the scripture presents is a series of stories interspersed with genealogies [Read the notes].  And the genealogies have a structure, that is, they’re literary in form.  And they tell the Israelites that these stories are their stories, they are about them, they are their heritage.  It mattered first to the authors to create a larger sense of belonging among the Israelites than to their individual tribes and eventually it mattered to the tribes that they were part of something bigger, a kingdom, David’s kingdom, the Kingdom of God.

Now these stories are our stories in what they mean.  To require these genealogies to be historically accurate is to ask of them something their authors never intended; it wasn’t their meaning. It isn’t that “Adam” and “Eve” were historical persons, or that their children were two boys named “Cain” and “Abel;” it’s that they tell us about ourselves, our world, and, most importantly, our God.  As you read this, what do you think?  Does this fit into your world?  If it doesn’t, what do you think of it?  If it does, how do you talk to those to whom it doesn’t?

And what has placed these genealogies in a different context has been the work of modern scholarship.  As one member of the group exclaimed when I was attempting to explain this scholarship, are you trying to say that there are other books out there that are God’s word beside the bible?  The answer to that question comes back to the question of revelation.  We believe in the unique and formative role that the Jewish and Christian scripture plays in our life.  But we began this study by coming slowing to the recognition that the Spirit of God is given to all peoples.  There is something to be learned from all of the writings of other civilizations, cultures.  We are in a unique position in our times to carry out our mission in a way that is at the Level of our Times.

Your questions, comments, concerns, issues are welcomed.

Last Session Review 

I asked if there were any questions, comments about our discussion from session eight and began with pointing out that the word “world” is ambiguous.  All that God created is good.  Christ is the Savior of the world.  And the world is darkness, opposed to God.  This invites us to know the good and the bad.  The culture of America is changing.  Is the change all good, all bad, or are we invited to discern?   What is you answer to these questions?  Would you be willing to identify one change in America that you evaluate to be good and one that is  bad and, more importantly, why?

Without realizing it, we introduced some philosophy.  Ken wanted to know if Black Holes existed before we knew about them; of course, they did.  He then mentioned the movie, the Titanic.  It was based on a fact but it wasn’t a documentary.  From this could we conclude that even if we haven’t found evidence yet for some of people or events mentioned in the bible it doesn’t mean they didn’t exist? Noah’s Arch for example.  Read on to learn how we respond to this question.

Event and Story 

Mark expressed the heart of the issue when he asked what is the event and what is the story.  Is the story of Cain and Abel like the story of the Titanic, rooted in historical events, but told as a dramatic story?  How would you answer that question?  If you answer no, does that mean the story is not true?  It seems to me that we struggle with believing the truth of the story if the events narrated in the story are not rooted in some historical events or persons.  I would enjoy hearing what your opinion on this matter is.

If these questions become our questions, what’s at stake is our world.  Mostly our answer are an effort to make sense of our world.  As the evidence builds, however, it can happen that our answers are mistaken and then our world is challenged.  If that occurs, we can feel uncomfortable, fearful or excited, hopeful.  What is gained and lost, if Cain and Abel are two real historical brothers but rather symbols of what happens in family life that begs for an explanation.

The Story of Cain & Abel 

Keep in mind our questions, The Time of the Story, the Characters in the Story, and the Plot, as you read Gen. 4:1 – 16 and the notes – http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4

Our group tackled the “what is the time of the story” question.  Roseann concluded that it must have been shortly after creation but later in the discussion she rephrased her answer to shortly after the creation of the world.  Her addition raised a question for Mark.  Are there different times involved with “creation” and “creation of the world?”   Heber pointed out that there had to be time for two children to be born and grow old enough to do the jobs the story assumes. Ken reminds us that the story doesn’t mention a time but agreed with what had been said.  But the author in the first two verse states the birth of the two brothers and their adult roles.  From a literary point of view the time of the story is mythical time but it is very difficult for us to enter into that time as the discussion of our group might reveal.  And not entering into the time of the story can lead to many misunderstandings about the story.

In our discussion of the characters we quickly pointed out the inconsistencies between the story’s time and the author’s time.  The author is familiar with herders and flocks, tillers and crops, development of rituals and rites, Cain’s fear of someone would kill him implies others, later we will read of city foundations; perhaps you can identify other inconsistencies.  For some to learn of these inconsistencies brings on doubt.  For others they are of little moment.  I think they make sense once we realize that the author wrote at one time and placed the story in another time.  Do these observations raise any questions for you?  How can recognizing this help you to hear God’s word more fully, Rise to the Level of our Times. Once again our group wondered if the author is recalling something that has been passed down over the ages or is he creating something from his imagination.  What do you think?  How does God’s word fit with either of these possible answers? Ken observed that we are so used to thinking of things in a certain chronological order that we instinctively do that with the stories in the bible.

Ken also observed that from the get go it seems God did not approve of Cain’s offering without really saying why.  Cain is crestfallen, dejected.  But how does the Lord God respond to him, what are the conversational exchanges that occur? For the first time the word “sin” is introduced.  Not that this is the first account of sin but that this is the first time that it is named.  And how is sin described?  Three phrases “sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it.”  Lies in wait – what does that convey to you?  Its urge is for you – what experiences in your life give this phrase emotional presence for you?  You can rule over it.  Does that seem true to you?  It certainly doesn’t for me.

Now the plot thickens.  The younger brother is killed by his older brother.  Sin has spread to the family.  Death comes not from the hand of God but from our hand.  Cain asks, Am I my brother’s keeper? Only God is a “keeper” of human beings. Cain’s question implies that God is Abel’s keeper and should know his whereabouts.  But how does God respond?  What is the significance for you of the “mark” God put on Cain?  What does it means in terms of God’s reaction to violence?  In our day and age, if a person is convicted of premeditated murder what is likely to happen to him? What does it mean that Cain left the presence of the Lord?  Does it imply that God left Cain? Some of us thought that it represented something worse than physical death, namely, separation from God.

Your comments, questions, observations are welcomed.

The vital problem of Christian education is a sociological one; how to make students culturally  conscious of their religion; otherwise they will be divided personalities – with a Christian faith and a pagan culture which contradict one another continually. We have to ask ourselves are we Christians who happen to live in England or America or are we English or Americans who happened to attend a church on Sundays? There is no doubt which is the New Testament view; there the Christians are one people in the full sociological sense, but scattered among different cities and peoples. But today we mostly take the opposite view so that our national cultures are the only culture we have and our religion has to exist on a sectarian subculture. Thus the sociological problem of Christian culture is also a psychological problem of integration and spiritual help. This is the key issue … We must make an effort to achieve an open Christian culture which is sufficiently conscious of the value of its own tradition to be able to meet secularists culture on an equal footing.
Page 152.  see Christopher Dawson, “The Enlightenment and Technology,” Communio XXII, no. 4 (Winter 1995) : 726.

Introduction

Since a number of members were new to this session, we decided to reread the Story of the Expulsion at  http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3.  As I mentioned in our last session, reading the notes can be a major aid in our study of the meaning of God’s word.

As always we are lead by four questions that can prompt our understanding. As you read pay attention to your self, what stands out in the story for you, raises questions, or raises feelings inside of you.

1. Who are the characters in the story – list them
2. What is the time of the story
3. What is the plot of this story

Who are the characters? 

Our group quickly listed seven characters but in listing them we discovered the difficulty and discipline required to stick with the story.  We ended up discussing these characters for quite a while.

A revealing discussion occurred around two characters, the “man and woman.”  We might think Adam and Eve. But throughout the Hebrew word is translated “man” not “Adam.” If you read the notes, you will see that the naming of the woman, Eve, doesn’t occur until the very end of the story.  Complicating matters was the fact that one of our members had a version of the Bible in which Adam was referred to throughout the story.

A point of clarification, the Hebrew word for “man” and for “Adam” is the same word.  It is the context that helps the translator select.  Perhaps it is obvious to you that “man” refers to man in general whereas “Adam” refers to an individual man.  Does this distinction mean anything to you?  You might also see why it is a great advantage to study scriptures in a group. You won’t all think a like, I can assure you that.  If you respond to this electronically, you can begin to form a group online, even if you are in the comfort of your home.

Our discussion on “man and woman” prompted Mark to ask a seemingly innocent question, who married them and then the whole idea of marriage I thought was later in the church anyway. Before we attempted to discuss his question though, I pointed out that Mark’s question, itself, might assume among other things that the time of the story is historical time.

The Time of the Story – Science, Culture and Religion 

What do you think is the time of the story?  There is no mention of time in the story of the Expulsion.  We rightly assume, again from the context, that the author means “in the beginning.”  I can’t tell you how much discussion swirled around those three words.   You are welcome to join in. We are caught now [in our present time] with very real differences of opinion that have far reaching implications and points to the very goal of this website, Rise to the Level of our Times.

Dan made clear the meaning of this text to him and many others who agree with him.  He asked, are we going on the assumption that God is not the author [of the Bible] and that we trust that the scientists are right with the 4.6 billion years when there are creation scientists that have all kind of evidence that prove a lot much younger world.  We’re doubting God and we’re going to trust the world.  To study that evidence you can go to www.creationevidence.org.  Later in the discussion Dan said, basically I come from that God wrote the Bible and you take the genealogies from Jesus … it went from Mary straight back to Adam … and everything the Bible says is true.

For me the challenge is to identify what is true and false on each side of apparently contradictory positions.  This is the meaning of “Rise to the Level of our Times.”  First let’s attempt to identify where the differences really lie.  I would invite you again to join in the discussion.

On the side of scientists, I would argue that it is not with their science, nor is it with all scientists.  Science by definition is empirical, theoretical, methodical.  Scientists, however, suffer from the same biases, etc. that the rest of us do and their biases are quite powerful and culturally influential when they are presented as science.  So the best opinion for the date of the earth is scientific, that is 4.3 billion years old.  But in stating their scientific conclusions they may even unwittingly include a number of extra scientific opinions. In my opinion the conflict with science lies in the extra scientific statements of scientists.  To go into what those extras scientific opinions are is for another time. If you’re interested, let me know.

On the side of religion I would begin by stating that the Bible is written by persons who believe, to people who believe in order to aid their believing.  The Bible, in the main, is historical only in the sense that it was written at particular times and places and what is written reveals those particular times and places to the extent that we can determine them.  Secondly, the notion of revelation is an extraordinarily complex one but it rests on the belief that God has directly entered into the very meaning of this world for us.  And for me, that meaning is everything.  So to deduce from the lineage recorded in the Bible the age of the universe is to deduce from the Bible what isn’t intended in the Bible.  Or to attempt to make sense of a day, or a week, or a year, as meaning something other than a day, a week, or a year is to miss the meaning of the text.

Creation scientists claim, as stated on their website, that “Our creation model begins, not with the space-time dimension, but with the Creator Himself.” The only beginning that we can ever have in this life is rooted in space and time.  In Catholic intellectual tradition, even to name God as Creator is on the assumption that there is a creation.  God is not a datum in creation to be understood but the explanation of all the data of creation. Only the mystic approaches the Creator Himself, for the rest of us, we must wait for the next life. Nonetheless, I agree with Dan that as Christians we must choose between being Americans who happen to go to church on Sundays or being Christians who happen to have been born in theUnited States.  Christophe Dawson expressed this more fully than I http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=237 .  It is much easier to be an American first than to be a Christian first.  Much more can and has been written but allow this to be a starter.

Some Observations from our members 

Our group had much more to say and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention at least some.

Ken had a couple of meaningful observations:  Well what I hear is the difficulty that we have is trying to inject what our life experiences and how we know our life to be in our current time … to inject that into the story and possibly make assumptions based on what we hear and know today.  Later he remarked I think that we’re so caught up sometimes in the world of absolutes that we’re trying to pin things down into a black or white, a yes or no, good and evil

Carol showed from her own experience the importance of simply talking with one another to learn what in fact we believe.

Tim mentioned something personal to him that I think we could all identify with.  … There’s also moments even in my own life where something bad has happened … [to which he concluded] … it’s been better for me that the bad thing happened.

Mike ended our discussion with this comment: in the times of these writings very select people were educated.  And then eating of the tree of knowledge was a bad thing.  I don’t know that there’s not something written in that message that … light years beyond … I should say in reverse of where we are now … where everyone can be educated.  Everyone can write.  Everyone can tell how they feel and how they think.  I think part of that is part of the problem of today’s world.  There are too many people who think they know stuff or pretend to know stuff and people follow them.

As always your opinions, comments, questions are welcomed.