Isaac and the Promise Renewed: Part I – Held on Sunday, March 17, 2013

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

We will be meeting on Palm Sunday but not Easter Sunday.  So I will post on “Good Friday” March 29th.  There will be no post on the week following East; the next post will be no later than Friday, April 12.

Gen. 26: 23 – 25: Isaac and the Promise Renewed

Review

I began with what I intended to be a brief comment about one of the exchanges which occurred in the previous week’s discussion and it ended going on for more than forty minutes.  My opening comment dealt with a series of exchanges among Faryl, Roseann and myself.  It all began when Faryl said that her take on the mess that the world is in is that God made the mess so as to fix it.  I reflected that the both the Jewish and Christian take is that we made the mess.  Faryl responded that she didn’t mean to blame God for the mess.  Roseann offered that God permitted the mess.

This exchange offers quite a bit to reflect on.  I preface my remarks below by saying that I could “hear” so much in this exchange and wondered if or what any of the participants or you who are reading this post “hear” in the exchange.  Below are my “hearings” and response.

  1. The scripture is clear first that creation is good, in fact, “very good.”
  2. It is often the case that we don’t express at first the full meaning of what we intend.  How often do we say, “Oh!  I didn’t mean that” and then go on to offer further clarification.  This is what I think happened inside of Faryl but, as I said, it happens to all of us.
  3. Roseann’s remark that God permits is both profound and theologically sound.  It would take us too far afield to deal with the problem of evil in this post but Roseann’s remark points to one of the significant elements in the solution to the problem of evil. At least this much can be said,  Though, God allows the human component of the “mess,” namely, sin or evil, God is neither the cause nor the author of “sin.”  If these points raise questions or comments for you, please feel welcomed to state you thoughts in the comment section at the end of this post.

Mark, who was not present at last week’s gathering, but had read the post.  He wondered what Faryl meant by “pda.”  His simple question continued the discussion for another ten to fifteen minutes.  Before Faryl explained what “pda” meant, I asked those not in attendance last week if they knew.  Only two knew.  Faryl explained that “pda” stood for “public display of affection.”  The word “affection, however, has overtones which came up a bit later in our discussion.

Three follow up remarks elicited some reflections on my part.  Steve commented that “pda” was just part of the new language created by texting.  Ken said that “pda” existed long before texting.  Heber remarked that holding hands with your “girlfriend” was as far as it went in the school halls in his day.  The kids today do a lot more than hold hands in the school.

Here are my comments.

  1. Ken had a different “when” for “pda” than Steve.  He was convinced that his “when” was true so he corrected Steve.  His correction was a mere correction of facts.  Neither the topic nor the exchange had any meaningful emotional overtones, no values involved.
  2. Heber, on the other, implied a judgment of value in his comments.  He verified my read of his comment.  Heber saw a difference too, but his difference had a direction to it and he didn’t approve of that direction.  They [the kids today] were going too far.  There is both emotion and value involved now.  More is at stake.

Rosemarie said that this conversation reminded her of how some young people she is acquainted with talk; every sentence seems to include, “And he goes…”  “Blah, Blah, Blah and then they say, ‘And he goes …’” Rosemarie’s assessment is that the young people speak poor English, grammatically incorrect.  “Going where?” she asks herself.

More commentary!  Rosemarie’s assessment reveals first that she, like all of us, have a standard within us by which we judge; in this concrete instance, a standard of proper English.  We normally not only have a standard but think that our standard is correct.  If we were to read Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Orson Wells, however, we would find different English, different grammar, different standards.

The notion of a standard for Proper English offered an example of historical studies at work.  Historical studies forces us to place whatever standard we wish to apply in an historical context.  It doesn’t make it relative but does make it much more both complex and rich.  To Rise to the Level of our Times requires that we come to know at least that there is a historical context for our standard and maybe what that historical context is.  There is enormous consequences if we accept that our standards have an historical consequence.  Are you able to identify any?

When the historical context is applied to the bible or our faith in general another question arose.  Ken pointed out well that what God means, or the bible, or our faith is what it means to us in the context of our life.  The people of the bible lived thousands of years ago in a different culture and at different places.  Scripture resonates with us in our life and it resonated with them in their lives.  Our two lives are very different and it is hard to put ourselves in their times, in their lives.

I wondered if it is important to do that, hard as it might be, to understand what it meant to them, then.  Ken though that it was important.  Faryl said that it was important too because it is important to get it right, to interpret the scripture correctly.  I wish that I could share her example from an exchange begun on the Internet but again, more than can be shared in one post.

It is hard to disagree, however, with Faryl’s observations.  Unless we can approximate what the bible meant then, we are unlikely to transfer that meaning into our lives as we live them today.  And there is plenty of examples of people of faith doing exactly that.

Mark took us to another aspect of this issue when he claimed that it is both important and not important.  He felt that in an “adult” study it was important but there was no way that such effort to understand the meaning as it once was could be taught to children.  His remarks brought out the issue of education in our parish, in our church.  I suggested that unless the adult had an adult understanding; the parent, the teacher could not faithfully teach.  We cannot teach what we don’t understand.  If we understand, then we can modify our presentation in as many ways as it takes so that our children, the student, whomever, can understand.

I drew our conversation to an end, though the conversation was not over.  I also will limit this post to the “review” part of our discussion.  In a second post entitled, Isaac and the Promise Renewed: Part II I will share the discussion we had on three verses, chap. 26: 23 – 25.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

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

Isaac, Abimelech, and Rebekah – Held on Sunday, March 10, 2013

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

Despite my best intentions, I did not post the session held on Sunday March 3, what follows is my post for our session held on March 10 with a brief review of the discussion from the previous week.

Gen. 26: 06 – 11: Isaac, Abimelech and Rebekah

Review

A topic of our discussion that caught my attention emerged from v. 3, “The Lord appeared to him [Isaac] and said: …”  I’m not sure how others imagined this verse in the concrete but I believe that there are two comments worth noting. First, God’s appearance is an experience that emerges on the inside of us; we cannot “see” God with our eyes.  The biblical author gives expression to that event in clearest terms possible, God appeared and talked. For we believers there is no doubt that God was involved in the historical life of these patriarchs, in the history of the Israelites.  But secondly, that doesn’t mean that the “appearance and the talk” have to be imagined as visual and auditory.  Any effort to give expression to these events falls short of the actual experience; for the experience overwhelms, lives one moved, awed, even fearful.

To reflect on the different ways to read “The Lord appeared to him and said …” can change how we read, understand, recognize the meaning of, not just this one verse, but the entirety of the Book.  What our faith affirms is that God was involved in the actual history of the Israelite people, as Christians, that the very Word of God became flesh, and finally that God continues to be involved in the whole of human history.  The Bible changes the very meaning of human history and it is that change in meaning that is being communicated in the author’s words.

I would love to hear what your understanding of the previous two paragraphs is and what your opinion on that understanding is.

Background of 26: 06 – 11: Isaac, Abimelech and Rebekah.

The very format of our conversation has changed.  A new pattern has emerged.  I might make a general comment on the passage we are about to read.  For example, in this passage, I made two comments:

  1. This account is third time, twice with Abraham and now with Isaac, that they, in order to protect their lives, say that their wife is their sister. But this account has some important differences.
  2. These stories of Isaac strongly mirror similar stories in the life of Abraham.

Once I offer a few general remarks, we read the passage.  It is at this point that the structure of our conversation has changed.  Once the characters of the entire passage have been identified I have begun to ask questions about specific verses within the passage.  This change will be reflected in the structure of my posting as well.

Let’s begin with a reading of the passage: 26: 06 – 11: – http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/26

We quickly identified the characters.  Isaac, Rebekah, the Philistines, especially the men and the King, Abimelech.  Tim pointed out a significant character not present, God or The Lord.

V. 06: We learn that Isaac settles in Gerar.  Although I don’t know the geography of the land at the time of either Isaac or the author, Isaac basically is traveling south toward Egypt, so Gerar is located somewhere between where he started his journey and Egypt.

V. 07: The men of the area question Isaac about Rebekah.  There is so much of the culture of the day assumed in this, and really most of the verses of the bible.  It’s learning to hear the cultural assumptions that allow a more meaningful hearing of God’s word. The verse seems to assume that killing a husband to have his wife is just part of the life.   It also seems that this verse, although it appears after the birth of Esau and Jacob, assumes a time prior to the birth of the two boys.

Heber was struck by these assumptions.  Although killing another man so as to have his wife is not as much a part of our culture as it was then; still men and women too are not stopped by the fact that who they are attracted to is married.  Wooing occurs, divorce follows, and remarriage happens.  There are differences for sure but there are also commonalities.

Heber talked about the Mormons having more than one wife.  It was important to correct any misunderstandings.  Although polygamy existed in the past and there might be some Mormons who attempt to live that today, the Mormon church has a disavowed such practices.

V. 08: Isaac and Rebekah have settled in at Gerar.  The king just happens to look out his window and is able to observe a behavior between Isaac and Rebekah that would not have occurred if they were brother and sister.

At this point in our conversation Faryl defined what Abimelech saw as PDA.  Now I had no idea what she meant.  Do you?  We spent a bit of time helping me and others to understand Faryl’s term; revealing the change in language and culture that occurs in our own lifetimes let alone in the life time of scriptures.

Vv. 09 – 10: In these verses Abimelech and Isaac begin to work out what has happened.  What seems obvious is the communal nature of their culture and the sexual dynamics.  Abimelech exclaims, “How could you have done this to us!”  Note that for Abimelech what Isaac did could have had repercussions on his entire people, “us”.

“It would have taken very little for one of the people to lie with your wife …” What is the cultural significance of “very little?” How different is that from today’s culture, even though they are separated by thousands of years?

“… and so you would have brought guilt upon us.”  Again we can hear the communal nature of the times.  The guilt was not merely on the men who might have taken Rebekah but on the community as a whole.

This brought out the social nature of moral behavior.  Family members bringing shame on their entire family may not be as prevalent as it was even a generation ago, but it still occurs and certainly was part of the memory of some of our group.

V. 11: Abimelech is deeply concerned not to “abuse” either Isaac  or Rebekah and pronounced the death penalty for any members of his kingdom that does.

We noted a couple of things that were different in this story when compared to the previous two.  First God is simply not part of the conversation.  I leave that fact to your own reflection.  Also Rebekah is not taken in by Abimelech as was Sarah.

The hour and a half flew by.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Isaac and Abimelech – Held on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Posted on March 7, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

We had another lively session.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on one’s perspective, I have commitments through Sunday and will not post the March 3rd session until next Monday, March 11.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Birth of Esau and Jacob – Held on Sunday, February 24, 2013

Posted on March 1, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

I will be posting by Friday of each week the session from the previous Sunday through Good Friday.  Then we will take a week break so there will not be a post on week following Easter Sunday

Gen. 25: 19 – 34: The Birth of Esau and Jacob

Background

This passage is composed of three episodes:

  1. Vv. 19 – 23: focuses on the prayer of the two parents, Isaac and Rebekah, and the Lord’s response to both; presented in quite different manners.
  2. Vv. 24: – 26: an account of the birth revealing both the birth order, the names, the appearance of the two boys and a play on words that references a people, Edomites, at a later time in Israelite history.
  3. Vv. 27 – 34: Esau’s selling of his birth right for a meal; Jacob’s less than honorable manner to obtain that birth right.

Our discussion on these three episodes was a back and forth of a series of questions that were raised mostly by myself but also from other participants.  I intend to leave most of our answers unreported so that if you read the discussion, you can formulate your own response.  If you should choose to report in the comment section what your responses are, that would allow further dialogue.

I continue to offer a section on Our Questions and My Refrain, if these are quite familiar to you, skip to the reading and discussion section of the post.

Our Questions

  1. First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
  • what the characters say and do, or
  • don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
  • finally when they enter into the passage and leave it

We can more easily and more accurately know what their role is from the point of view of the author and / or the editor of the passage.

  1. The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
  • The “when” within the story / passage itself,
  • The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
  • The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
  1. What is the plot, the point of the passage?
  2. Finally, because each passage is at one and the same time the word of human beings and the Word of God, there is revealed the values that are part and parcel of the human beings in their time and place and there is the values revealed by God for the believer.  Our final question is to discern which values in the passage are attractive to us, we are drawn to and which are we repulsed by, inclined to reject?  The more difficult task, if we do identify these two responses in us of the values revealed, which are of God and we are being challenged to embrace and which are not of God and we are being challenged to correct and develop.

My Refrain

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

Reading of the passage http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/25

Discussion Gen. 25: 09 – 23:  The Prayers of Isaac and Rebekah and the Lord’s response.

We quickly identified the characters in the passage; Isaac, Rebekah, the Lord and a reference to the two boys in the womb.  We learn that Isaac is 40 years old, Rebekah is sterile [can also be translated barren. Sterile infers that Rebekah cannot have children while barren doesn’t carry that same inference, at least, as strongly.]

Isaac prays and God responds.  Rebekah becomes pregnant.  Keep in mind that the passage without much emphasis, as a mere matter of fact, reports that Isaac was 60 when Rebekah became pregnant. God takes his good old time to respond, 20 years.  If you’ve lived long enough, you might be able to look back 20 years to see how, in fact, later events can be understood as an answer to an issue that began 20 or more years ago.

We learn that the pregnancy has not been easy for Rebekah; painful might be the best description.  Rebekah doesn’t pray; she “consults.”  Scholars believe this infers that the praying took place at a place of prayer.  God’s response to Rebekah takes the form of a revelation which is to impact her and her understanding of things.  It’s important to note that no one else in the story knows what God has revealed to Rebekah, just her.

These four lines are quite extraordinary.  The two boys are identified with two nations; of course, the author and the author’s audience knows who those two nations are: the Israelites and the Edomites.  We learn as well that the birth order is going to be subverted.  It’s very difficult for this simple statement to resonate with us in the same that it must have for the characters in the story and how it actually resonated within Israelite history.  This subversion of the birth order is the origin, or perhaps continuance, of the familial conflicts that are part and parcel of Israelite history.

Carol pointed out the parallels between this story and the story of the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah.  How are the two stories similar?

Discussion Gen. 25: 24 – 26:  The Birth of the Esau and Jacob

We learn in the reading of the birth order and the appearance of the two boys.  The words that describe Esau, ruddy and hairy, are a play on words that refers to the Edomites.  It is in the notes that we learn about this word play.  Without the work of scholars we simply would not know because the word play occurs only in the original language.  This evidence for me that scholarship can help us to appreciate more fully the bible and that most of us are in the position to believe the scholars.  Unfortunately, scholarship can very and, it is not uncommon for scholarship to simply reinforce a given horizon of understanding of the reader.

Discussion Gen. 25: 27 – 34:  Esau Exchanges his Birthright for a Meal.

The life style of the two boys is consistent with the description of at birth.  It is life styles that conflict; not much different than how rural and urban Americans experience life quite differently, view life differently, and such differences are in conflict.

As you read this part of the story, what is your evaluation of the behavior of the two boys?  Which, in your opinion, has acted in an upright manner?  As we mulled over this question, we realized first of all that birthright was a much more significant part of the culture of the story than it is in our lives, even though we too experience the impact of birth order in our family lives.

Does Esau’s reason for selling his birth right, he was very hungry, not present him as a bit of a dunce.  Isn’t Jacob taking advantage of Esau also an act that doesn’t seem very upright to us?  Yet God select Jacob to be the individual through whom He intends to fulfill his promise.  We pick people because we think they are good or, at least, better.  In fact, it they fail, we are disappointed.  God does pick by the same standard.  He picks them because He is God not because his choice is good.

Cathy wondered how Jacob could want the birth right unless Rebekah had shared God’s revelation with him.  What’s your thought on this question?

Ken wanted to know if the Edomites were one of the tribes of Israel.  They were not, in fact, the nations warred against one another.

I raised a question that pretty much was being discussed until time ran out.  In the revelations that the Lord made to Rebekah, does it mean that because the Lord said it, therefore it HAD to happen.

Ken wanted some clarification.  He wondered if there were any stories in the bible that tell us that what God intended to happen, didn’t.  Although he though he didn’t know, he actually did.  I asked him if God intended in the story of Adam and Eve for the story to turn out as it did.  Of course, this brought up the issue of predestination.

Michael took the passage as simply a prediction from God and not that it meant that it HAD to happen.  Don responded that he thought it HAD to happen since God knew what was going to take place.

At this point in the conversation, I pointed out that Don had brought up for the first time the question of God’s knowledge and its relationship to what happens.  Michael hadn’t done that but it doesn’t mean that Michael didn’t think it.  Michael simply didn’t say it.  So what is your opinion, if God knows everything, does that mean that everything that God knows HAS to happen?  A hint is contained in my emphasis on the word HAS to or HAD to happen.  What’s your opinion and more importantly why?  Is Don correct?  Is Michael correct?  Is there a third choice?

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Abraham’s Sons by Keturah and the Death of Abraham – Held on Sunday, February 17, 2013

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

I will be posting by Friday of each week the session from the previous Sunday through Good Friday.  Then we will take a week break so there will not be a post on the week following Easter Sunday, March 31st.

Gen. 25: 01 – 06: Abraham’s Sons by Keturah and Gen. 25: 07 – 11: The Death of Abraham

Background

Most of the first half hour of our session was devoted to introductions and updating two new members who joined us for the first time, Jean and Joan.  We devoted the next forty five minutes to our first passage dealing with the Abraham’s sons born by Keturah and the final 15 minutes on the Death of Abraham.

I will bring out some of the background to the passages as part of the discussion which frankly went all over the place; from Adam and Eve to the Palestinian Conflict.  If anything, the conversation revealed how very difficult it is to stay focused on the passage at hand; a discipline I strongly urge of any reading.

Before we read the passage though I continue to offer Our Questions and My Refrain.  If these two points are quite familiar to you, skip to the reading itself.

Our Questions

For the sake of completeness I will include in our blog the basic questions that guide us in hearing the passages we study each week.

  1. First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
  • what the characters say and do, or
  • don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
  • finally when they enter into the passage and leave it

We can more easily and more accurately know what their role is from the point of view of the author and / or the editor of the passage.

  1. The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
  • The “when” within the story / passage itself,
  • The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
  • The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
  1. What is the plot, the point of the passage?
  2. Finally, because each passage is at one and the same time the word of human beings and the Word of God, there is revealed the values that are part and parcel of the human beings in their time and place and there is the values revealed by God for the believer.  Our final question is to discern which values in the passage are attractive to us, we are drawn to and which are we repulsed by, inclined to reject?  The more difficult task, if we do identify these two responses in us of the values revealed, which are of God and we are being challenged to embrace and which are not of God and we are being challenged to correct and develop.

My Refrain

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

Reading of the passage http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/25

Discussion Gen. 25: 01 – 06:  Abraham’s Sons by Keturah.

Carol began our discussion with a very astute observation.  She noticed that in verse 3 the author addresses the third generation of children not as individuals but as a group or tribe.  This she concluded to because the author prefaces each of their names with the indefinite article “the.”  Carol’s observation is clear evidence that our author was not thinking of individual children; his was a larger picture to be conveyed.  Further the simple “the” raises a question inside of us and it is that question, almost as much as the answer that is important.  I will leave the reader, you, to wonder what the question, not the answer, but the question means?

Rosemarie wondered what “Grants” in verse 6, also translated “gifts” meant.  Obviously our author doesn’t give us any details to help us identify what the “grants” or “gifts” were.  We can guess though, maybe camels, tents, basic necessities for life at that time.  But we don’t know and the bible doesn’t tell us.

Jean pointed out in verse 5 we learn that Abraham gave “everything” to Isaac and in verse 6 he sent all of his “other sons” eastward.  Of course, in our logical Western mind we might think well he didn’t give “everything” to Isaac since he did give the other sons something.  Again it is obvious that our author simply doesn’t think like we do.  But Isaac matters in this passage.  Not only does Abraham give him “everything” but by the end of the passage we learn that Abraham in sending the other sons eastward is intending to keep them away from Isaac.  What is the author telling us about Abraham’s concern for Isaac?

For myself the concubine, Keturah, came out of the blue.  We might think, given the sequence in the story that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah had died.  But we really don’t know that.  Further, it’s not clear whether the author thinks of Keturah as a wife [see verse 1 “took her as his wife”], or as a concubine [see verse 6 “To the sons of his concubines (note the plural)].

Noting Abraham’s concubines led us to recall the story of Hagar and Ishmael and Sarah’s relationship with Hagar and Abraham’s relationship with Ishmael.  This prompted Joan to share her understanding of this conflict and its impact on the Muslims today, their treatment of women, and the modern day Palestinian conflict.  Joan’s thoughts allowed us to focus on the disparate historical times that these observations blur.  We have the time of the story, perhaps the 13th century BC; the time of the editor of the passage, perhaps 6th century BC; the birth of Islam in the 7th century AD; and, of course the birth of the modern Palestinian conflict in the 20th century.  Give or take 33oo years.  We can hold all of that in our mind but we have to be clear that is what we are doing.  To make connections between the enormous time differences requires a great deal of research and would probably result in quite varied accounts of those connections.  It is easy to assume that bible tells us something that, at least in this one passage, simply isn’t there.

Jean reminded us that the bible is inspired by THE Holy Spirit.  Heber remarked that all of the leaders [males] seemed to have more than one wife, concubine.  These two somewhat disparate remarks allowed me to raise a question concerning inspiration.  Inspiration is a complex concept.  Yes we do believe that scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit.  But what does that mean?  When the authors tell us the various males having more than one wife, what is inspired about that?  We can believe that the bible is inspired, be correct, but not know exactly what that belief means.

I pointed out how far ranging our conversation had taken us and wanted to bring us back to the passage at hand.  What is the purpose of this passage?  I summarized a few points that had come out in our conversation:

  • By the third generation we learned that the “children’s” names were not of individuals but of groups, or tribes.
  • We learned that Abraham had a special concern for Isaac giving him everything and sending the other sons eastward away from Isaac.
  • We couldn’t clearly know if Keturah was a wife or a concubine; nor could we determine the order of her “marriage” to Abraham.
  • Finally we realized that our conversations had roamed far and wide, that much of it had come out of our understanding of the storehouse of Catholic faith.

We went on to read the second passage dealing with the death of Abraham which prompted another fifteen minutes or so of discussion.  I leave the details of that for your wonderment.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

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

Creator God Evolving World by Cynthia Crysdale and Neil Ormerod, Lenten Series: To be held on Wednesday, February 20 and the following 5 Wednesdays of Lent.

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Dick

Creator God Evolving World

A Journey of the Mind

Lenten Series – 2013

                     I.          Welcome

  1. Introductions if necessary
  2. Comment on title
    1. Lenten Series
    2. A Journey of the Mind
    3. Creator God Evolving Worl

II.          We begin with the fact that this is a Lenten Series.  So we read in Mk. 1: 14 – 15

After John had been arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of God: “This is the time of fulfillment.  The Kingdom of God is at hand.  Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

  1. There are two things that Jesus told the people who heard him and two things he asked of them
    1. He told them first that “This is the time of fulfillment.” And then he told them what was the fulfillment; namely, that the Kingdom of God is at hand.”
      1. Keep in mind that the tense of the verb is the present tense; thus the sentences are always in the present of the listener.
      2. That the “this” is his saying it.  His words effectively announce and in announcing make happen the “time of fulfillment.”
      3. What is being fulfilled is their longing for a just and peaceful life; not their individual longing but the longing of the Israelites, the Hebrews, the Jews and through them all the nations [everyone who isn’t an Israelite, a Hebrew, a Jew].
      4. What fulfills that longing is through Jesus, in Jesus, with Jesus but it is “the Kingdom of God” that is the fulfillment.  Jesus is the One Mediator and what he mediates is the Kingdom of God.
    2. Jesus then asked his listeners to do two things.
      1. Repent [A single verb, the subject is the listener but the object is also the listener]

i.     We might think that repentance is a one time thing but we know that such is not the case.  No, it is a life time thing.

ii.     And in our Journey of the Mind we want to facilitate that repentance to occur in this time of our living.

  1. Believe but this time there is an object: the gospel.  This is a little tricky though for the gospel is the gospel preached.  And Jesus preached the Gospel of God.
  2. There are two levels in that repentance one divine and the other human
    1. Jesus address the divine when he tells his listeners to believe in the gospel and that gospel is “The Kingdom of God is at hand.”  That is the unchanging of our faith – to believe in the gospel, the good news, the Kingdom of God is at hand.
    2. But the first level, the human, emerges, develops, declines, is redeemed, again and again and again over time both individually in our lives as individuals but also communally as our community emerges, develops, declines, is redeemed in the history that spans time.
  3. It is on the first level that we will attempt to fulfill during the next six weeks and evidence that we have reached it will be expressed in these three measures:
    1. 1.      To apprehend the world ever more fully
    2. 2.      To judge the truth of things with ever greater clarity and
    3. 3.      To act in the world ever more responsibly. [Quoted from Reid Lochlin, “One Nostra Aetate or Two?  Hermeneutics and the Vatican II.” LRI Graduate Seminar, St. Mary’s College, December 24, 2012, p.16]

III.          Next this Lenten Series is a Journey of the Mind

  1. So we begin with what is called a syllogism, something that will give expression to how our mind works.  But, of course, there will be a trick in it so as to get you to think.
  2. The syllogism runs as follows.
    1. What God reveals is true.  God can neither deceive nor be deceived.
    2. God has revealed, for example, the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation.
    3. Therefore the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation are true.
  3. Do you think that everybody agrees with the conclusion?  Do you agree with the conclusion?  How would you explain your two answers?
  4. Scholastic tag re: truth
  5. Two points to be garnered

IV.          Finally Creator God Evolving World – our text

  1. Overview of the book – Table of Content

i.     Chapter 1. God, Religion, and Science

  1. The Emergence of Modern Science
  2. Newton and God
  3. The “Newtonian” Worldview and Deism
  4. Beyond the Newtonian Worldview: Darwinism and quantum Mechanics
  5. Randomness, Purpose, and Ethics
  6. Authority, Tradition, and Reason
  7. A Tale of Two Authors
  8. Conclusion

ii.     Chapter 2. Evolving World: Regularity and Probability

  1. Two Ways of Making Sense Classical and Statistical Science
  2. The Interaction of Classical and Statistical Science
  3. Is It All Random?
  4. Emergent Probability: Order and Novelty Interacting
  5. Natural Selection and Chance
  6. Conclusion

iii.     Chapters 3 – 6 to follow

Posted in Culture, New Evangelization, Science | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Wooing of Rebekah: Part II – Held on Sunday, February 3, 2013

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

No Scripture Study Session on Sunday, February 10, 2013.  I will be attending the baptism of Cormik, our fourth grandchild, second son of Julia and John.

Gen. 24: 28 – 61 – The Wooing of Rebekah [Third Episode]

Background

Before reading the passage I reminded Heber of a question he had asked last week, Is this passage the source of pre-arranged marriages?  It’s an excellent question on a number of points.  The question identifies a cultural reality at the time of the author.  It assumes that the biblical account is the source, origin of that cultural reality.

The bible is not the source of the cultural reality of “Pre-arranged Marriages.” The opposite is true, namely, that the biblical author simply is giving expression to a cultural reality that he is quite familiar with but is not unique to the Israelite community.  It is more an expression of a patriarchal society.

It does raise, however, a basic question that we, as a group, rarely actually ask; let alone answer.  What in this story is unique to the Israelite community, what is being revealed, what is part of their story as the People of God?  Faryl wondered if it had something to do with descendants.  Annette thought it had to do with who Rebekah is, part of Abraham’s extended family.

Although both of these responses are an actual part of the story, the question remains.  Abraham was approaching death.  Yahweh had promised him both land and descendants.  Abraham knows that it is through Isaac and not Ishmael that the Yahweh intends to fulfill his promise.  This story is the concrete way in which Abraham becomes the instrument in which the promise will continue.  What Abraham was confronted with, we all are too.  We believe and we will die.  What is to become of that belief, my concrete belief in this place at this time?  I would suggest that it is in answering that question, Yahweh communicates through Abraham to all future generations.  What is to be done will change over time, but the story is to be lived by all who believe for the sake of world.

Keep in mind too, that in this story it is Rebekah and not Isaac who is called to leave family and land just as Abraham was asked to do.  She in her “I do” cooperates with Yahweh in the grand story being narrated and lived.  She is to play a vital role in the tradition that leads to Jesus of Nazareth.

There is as well two words in this passage that, at least for me, capture the heart of the God of the Israelites, that are revelatory.  The two Hebrew words are “hesed” and “emet.”  The translations that most attracts me are “hesed” which means Yahweh’s steadfast love and “emet” which means Yahweh’s kindness.  Each of us has been chosen to be alive and the very sources of that life is a relationship of steadfast love and kindness.  Yes life does offer sufficient evidence that God could not possibly be one who is steadfast in his love and kind and then there is Christ, crucified and risen.

Before we read the passage though I continue to offer Our Questions and My Refrain.  Quieting ourselves, allowing the questions to arise, paying attention to what happens to oneself in the reading/listening forms the condition of hearing God’s word.

Our Questions

For the sake of completeness I will include in our blog the basic questions that guide us in hearing the passages we study each week.

  1. First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
  • what the characters say and do, or
  • don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
  • finally when they enter into the passage and leave it

We can more easily and more accurately know what their role is from the point of view of the author and / or the editor of the passage.

  1. The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
  • The “when” within the story / passage itself,
  • The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
  • The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
  1. What is the plot, the point of the passage?
  2. Finally, because each passage is at one and the same time the word of human beings and the Word of God, there is revealed the values that are part and parcel of the human beings in their time and place and there is the values revealed by God for the believer.  Our final question is to discern which values in the passage are attractive to us, we are drawn to and which are we repulsed by, inclined to reject?  The more difficult task, if we do identify these two responses in us of the values revealed, which are of God and we are being challenged to embrace and which are not of God and we are being challenged to correct and develop.

My Refrain

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

Reading of the passage http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/24

Discussion Gen. 24: 28 – 61:  Rebekah and her family respond.

Tim wondered if we are dealing here with a second author since the story is repeated in a different context but pretty much the same story.  I pointed out that one of the key terms that helps scholars determine the authors is the name of God and that name is consistent in this story.  As far as I know, therefore, scholars see this whole story as being written by the J author.

Ken made an interesting observation, sometimes the story is told in the first person and at other times in the third person.  He knows that it is the author doing that in narrating the story but wondered why?

One thing that I thought this allowed the narrator to do is to make known to the reader / listener what is not necessarily known to the characters in the story.  This has an interesting impact on us who are the readers / listeners.  We realize that in the story the characters living a life of faith don’t know certain things.  In this passage Abraham and the servant don’t know who the woman is, whether she will say yes or no but the author does and so too do we the readers.  So as people of faith we at one and the same time know and don’t know.  The demands of life require us to live a life of prayer if we are to know “Yahweh’s Steadfast Love and Kindness” at the very time in our life when such knowing seems to be contradicted by the facts on the ground as it were.  It is at that very time we question, doubt that God could possibly be “Steadfast Love and Kindness.”  Paul urges us, therefore, to pray always.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

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

The Context for our Life – Held on Sunday, February 3, 2013

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

No Scripture Study Session on Sunday, February 10, 2013.  I will be attending the baptism of Cormik, our fourth grandchild, second son of Julia and John.

Preview:  The Basic Context of the Human History and our Life within Human History as Dynamic and Developing

Over the previous week [01/28 – 02/02/2013] I had been struggling to create a context that would help us to understand both the narrative of the Wooing of Rebekah and the “Gun Control” issue that seemed to dominate our conversation over the past several weeks.  I shared the fruit of that reflection with the group and now with all who visit this website.

First, all of us who gather are Christians.  It seems obvious that what is unique about being a Christian, no matter our tradition, is being a follower of Jesus Christ.  Despite this obvious fact, we often do not seem to be conscious of the uniqueness and centrality of that following, discipleship.  It is his life, death, resurrection, and return that is THE context.  Since Jesus was born into time his context can be located in the context of the created universe in which He and we live our lives.

Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J., in his work, Insight, presented an understanding of the order or design of this universe which he argues is explanatory.  Based on his thought I presented the three dynamics principles of actual human history as we both experience it and participate in it.  Whether we know it or not, understand it or not, I think there are three principles operating in all of human history:

  • PROGRESS
  • DECLINE and
  • REDEMPTION

These three principles are at work in each of us individually and all of us collectively.  Although we may not all agree on WHAT is progress in our own life, the life of our community, the life of our nation, or the life of our world; we would agree that progress does occur.  The same can be said of decline; again we may not agree on WHAT is decline but that decline occurs seems to be beyond dispute.  Finally, Redemption is the very meaning of Jesus’s life but that redemption occurs in life seems as well to be beyond dispute; perhaps not everywhere and not all the time but it does occur.

To get things going, I offered a couple of concrete examples.  I began with an example from our Declaration of Independence issued on July 4, 1776.  The opening sentence of the 2nd paragraph reads, ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, …”  The phrase “all men are created equal” from hindsight was more vision than reality.  Its narrow confine of propertied white males over time was to be broken and as the meaning of the phrase expanded to include “all” was viewed as progress by most of us Americans.

In this presentation I argued that it is up to each of us individually and all of us collectively to arrive at WHAT progress is, WHAT decline is, at WHAT redemption is, in the concrete of our individual life, the life of our community, the life of our nation, the life of our world.  But to do that is to question, without the question, the likelihood is greatly diminished.

I argued further, using another example, that we cannot understand the Kingdom of God, the central message of Jesus, to mean the United States of America.  That doesn’t mean we can’t argue that our form of government is better than another.  But to make our government or any government No. 1 is a form of idolatry.

What seems central to me is Christ’s identification with the poor, the marginalized; I was hungry, I was thirsty … whatever you did to these the least of my brothers and sisters, you did to me.  At the center of Christ’s life though was his death and the Father’s response in raising him from the dead.  This event in Christ is the very principle of redemption.  In this event, death the ultimate evil, was converted, changed, into life eternal.

At this point and for the next forty minutes or so, we had a wonderful flow of conversations.  I offer a taste of that flow.

Rosemarie felt strongly that we can see Christ in others.  I pointed out her believe is true but more has to be said.  At present there are 7 billion human beings and perhaps 2 billion are Christian.  So Christians might see Christ in the other but they are a minority.  Thus most human beings today do not see Christ in the other.  All of us though do good and do bad, not just Christians.  On the other hand, we believe that the Holy Spirit is in every human person who ever has, is, or will live.  It is obvious though that not everyone has or perhaps will come to believe in Jesus the Christ.

Ken reflected on a fundamental question he posed.  What is the basis of our decisions? What guides us drives to make the decisions that we make?  He thought that we are more or less convinced that we are right and are afraid when we are challenged that we might be wrong.  Fear stops us from moving outside of our box.  [I hope this captures the essence of what Ken had to say because I thought his comments were both heartfelt and on target.]

The point I made to Ken is that he is aware of this back and forth that goes on inside of him and that awareness itself is a gift as well as a burden.  He can’t rest …

Ken observed that there are internal and external changes.  He wondered aloud why am I like I am?  Why can’t I change.  I suggested that St. Paul prayed that God would relieve him of a personal problem.

In the ensuing conversation, I had commented that I’ve been trying most of my life to change; often with little success.  Mark though that many people simply don’t want to change, let alone try every day to change.

Rosemarie pointed out that although she agrees with change there are some things that are unchanging.  Although I tend to agree with what Rosemarie said, the issue is in the detail, what things?  As an example, I brought up again the expression of Faryl from a week ago, “closed minded politically correct.”  Well “politically correct” is a general world that holds a host of actual words and behaviors.  The first example that came to mind was the conflict over Christmas Greetings.  Do we say Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays?  Well for me, I’m not interested in making the United States Christian.  My challenge is living a Christian life.  Greetings don’t seem all that important to me.  I don’t believe such cultural realities are the unchanging basis of Christian faith or practice.

Heber pointed out that each of these the three principles involve change; progress involves change, decline is a change; and so  too is redemption.  He doesn’t want to change unless he can see that the change is for the better.  This sounded to me like a healthy conservatism.  To change for the sake of change might seem frivolous.  To stand pat for the sake of standing pat though might suffer from the same flaw.

Tina brought forward a changing and challenging situation at work which raised a fundamental question for her.  Again the very fact that she questions made the situation real to her; whereas another staff member might not know what all the fuss is about.  For that staff member the situation is not the same as it is for Tina.  That’s life in the concrete.

Eventually we were to talk about marriage, divorce, church membership, receiving communion, moral relativism, etc.  If you weren’t there, you missed a great exchange.  If you are interested, you can add to this website your own issues, questions, comments.

I will comment on the Wooing of Rebekah passage in my next post.

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Wooing of Rebekah – Held on Sunday, January 27, 2013

Posted on February 1, 2013 by Dick

Gen. 24: 01 – 67 – The Wooing of Rebekah

Background

This story continues the turning point in Genesis from Abraham to his progenitors, in this case, Isaac.  However, it is Rebekah who most mirrors Abraham as the one called who in responding leaves family and land to journey to an unknown.  The story can be broken up into four episodes:

  1. Vv. 01 – 09: Abraham initiates the journey by commissioning his servant to find a wife for Isaac.
  2. Vv. 10 – 27: The servant carries out the commission.
  3. Vv. 28 – 61: Rebekah and her family respond
  4. Vv. 62 – 67: the marriage of Rebekah and Isaac

We devoted our time to the first two episodes and intend to turn to the last two next Sunday, February 3rd.  In the first episode Abraham nearing the end of his life summons his most senior servant to send him back to his [Abraham’s] home land and his own kin there to find a wife for Isaac.  Abraham is clear on what the servant is not to do.  Twice [vv. 06 & 08] he informs the servant “Never take my son back there for any reason!” In v. 03 he has expressed again what the servant is not to do, “you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I live …”

The servant is hesitant since fulfillment of the oath seems outside of his control, “What if the woman is unwilling to follow me to this land?…”  Abraham acknowledges the fact that despite God’s providence it is possible for the plan to be frustrated by human decisions.  Eventually the two arrive at an understanding, the servant takes an oath, and goes off to fulfill the commission.

In the second episode, the prayer of the servant dominates.  In prayer the servant utters two Hebrew words that, for me, define the relationship between God and the Israelites, but ultimately God and human kind.  The two words are “hesed” – steadfast love – and “emet” – faithfulness, see v. 27. Prayer enters in because the servant is faced with a fundamental question, how is he to know who the woman is?  Not knowing is a constant theme, not just in biblical stories, but lies at the heart of all of our lives; often we simply do not know.  Prayer enters in.  [In our course on Creator God Evolving World we will probe how it is that prayer asking God to “intervene” and God’s transcendence are to be understood.]

The story is told in what is termed, a type scene, common in the bible as well as other literature, a man, a woman, a well, a marriage.  The story teller draws on the culture open to him to convey a meaning.  As I continuously do, the story is not an historical account of events; rather it is a theological account of God’s relationship with us, God’s entry into human meaning.  It reveals both the human culture of the day and the transcendent values of God.  Discerning, distinguishing, and developing are the constant challenge of each generation of believers.  So now we turn to our questions!

Our Questions

For the sake of completeness I will include in our blog the basic questions that guide us in hearing the passages we study each week.

  1. First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
  • what the characters say and do, or
  • don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
  • finally when they enter into the passage and leave it

We can more easily and more accurately know what their role is from the point of view of the author and / or the editor of the passage.

  1. The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
  • The “when” within the story / passage itself,
  • The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
  • The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
  1. What is the plot, the point of the passage?
  2. Finally, because each passage is at one and the same time the word of human beings and the Word of God, there is revealed the values that are part and parcel of the human beings in their time and place and there is the values revealed by God for the believer.  Our final question is to discern which values in the passage are attractive to us, we are drawn to and which are we repulsed by, inclined to reject?  The more difficult task, if we do identify these two responses in us of the values revealed, which are of God and we are being challenged to embrace and which are not of God and we are being challenged to correct and develop.

My Refrain

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

Reading of the passage http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/24

Discussion Gen. 24: 01 – 27:  The servant is commissioned and the meeting of Rebekah at the well.

Tim raised the first question, why is placing one’s hand underneath the thigh a part of oath taking?  I mentioned that probably “thigh” was a euphemism for genitals that symbolized the source of life.  Such a gesture was very symbolic for the people of this time but escapes us today.  Such is the constant reminder of both the human and the divine dimension of the bible.

A host of other questions were raised and discussed:

What is the significance of twice demanding that the servant “never’ take Isaac back to Abraham’s land of origin?

Why did Abraham select a servant to fulfill this mission and not a family member?

Why did the servant give Rebekah gifts first and then ask about staying at her family’s house?

It seems strange to give Rebekah a nose ring.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

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

Gun Control Issue and the Call to New Evangelization – Held on Sunday, January 27, 2013

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

For those of you who come to this site I had hoped to post on the Tuesday, then the Wednesday following the Sunday that we had our gathering.  Obviously I haven’t been faithful to that time line.  If you come to this site by Friday at noon, I will have either posted or informed you of the status of the post.

Preview – The Challenge of the Church’s Call to a New Evangelization.

I began this session focusing particularly on the comment that Faryl had made with the goal of setting it in the context of the call for a new Evangelization [I didn’t succeed very well].  Faryl had spoken of the “closed minded politically correct” dimension of our culture.  It is obvious that she understands “politically correct” in a negative sense.  Her comments reflect the cultural conflicts that mark our society at the present.  For me the question is how do we respond to the Call to a New Evangelization in such a context.

Below is the thought of Fr. Lonergan on the task of training people for their pastoral ministry.  It is different words but the concept is the same, how do we evangelize in our changing culture.  Here is how Fr. Lonergan put it back in 1973.

“But the fundamental issue is that every class in every culture has different powers of assimilation.  Preaching the Gospel is a matter of adapting in each case to the relevant differences.  Preaching the Gospel is not a matter of imposing your culture on other people.  Christians have been trying to do that for a very long time.  It’s not a matter of putting a patch on somebody else’s culture.  And the patch tears the whole garment.  It’s a matter of finding in the other culture the virtualities, the potentialities for expressing the Christian message.  And the differences may be individual or specific or generic.  And so pastoral theology is a matter of organizing the training of preachers and the assignment of tasks so that individual differences will be met on the individual level, specific differences on the group level, generic differences on the regional level.

Pastoral theology can be just as complicated as the high command and make just as many mistakes.  It’s not a matter of listening on the suicide phone or nothing like that.  In the training of preachers there are many goals that have to be kept in mind.  But the most important is to secure a thorough understanding of the message to be communicated in all its dimensions and possibilities.  And the key element is understanding.  If you don’t understand you can repeat formula.  And the other people can repeat formula.  That’s what we’re trying to get away from.  If you do understand you can say the same thing in a thousand different ways.  You can watch people’s faces and when they’re not catching on you can change your pitch and keep changing it until they start smiling.  When they do they got it.  And that’s the fundamental element in pastoral theology.  Help people to understand.”

By “class” Fr. Lonergan is referencing the different social classes in a society; by “powers of assimilation” he means the capacity of individuals in those different classes to understand.  It’s one thing to talk with someone who has a high school education, another who has obtained a PhD.  His focus is an invitation to identify the concrete and real differences between oneself as a believer and the concrete other who is not a believer.  He reminds us that those differences can be individual, specific, or generic but he doesn’t tell us what those differences are; that is the task of the believer who is called to evangelize.  He tells us further to identify the virtualities and potentialities in the other’s culture for expressing the Christian message.  Again he doesn’t tell what those virtualities and potentialities are; he leaves that to those called to evangelize.  The heart of the matter though is not a matter of reciting formulas but of understanding the Christian message.

There are two things he tells evangelization is not.  It “is not a matter of imposing your culture on other people.”  He reminds us that “If you don’t understand you can repeat formula.  And the other people can repeat formula.  That’s what we’re trying to get away from.”  So it’s not a matter of repeating formula.

After a brief conversation on this notion, Annette raised the issue of “Gun Controls” and for the next half hour there occurred a lively conversation with strongly held positions for and against.  It took me about four times to bring the conversation to an end.  The conversation further highlighted the cultural divide.

I would really be interested in anyone who would take the time to read the two paragraphs above and attempt to apply it to the gun control issue or really any issue that reveals our different cultural values.  What I’m not interested in is your expressing your already firmly held position on gun control. To move forward is the challenge.

I will share our discussion on the Wooing of Rebekah, Gen. 24: 01 – 67 in my next post.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, New Evangelization | Tagged | 2 Comments