Rise to the Level of our Times

The Purchase of a Burial Plot – Held on Sunday, January 20, 2013

Posted on January 25, 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.

Gen. 23: 01 – 20 – The Purchase of a Burial Plot

Preview

As is our custom, I began our study with two related topics of discussion. After repeating my intention to offer a Lenten series based on the book, Creator God Evolving World by Cynthia Crysdale and Neil Ormerod, about eleven members expressed an interest in attending and settled on the Wednesdays during lent from 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm with ½ hour of question period afterwards for those interested. Rosemarie was able to obtain the book through St. Raphael Book Store for $17.25. She must know of your interest no later than February 10.

I then shared a couple of highlights from my studies from the previous week. Listening to a scripture course recording I learned that we spontaneously think that others think as we do, so we tend to understand the scripture readings as though the author thought as we do. It may be obvious that the author doesn’t but that doesn’t stop us from thinking as though he does. Secondly I learned that scripture is written primarily in symbolic language; much as we do in our ordinary conversations. This fact came up in our discussion, part of which I will share below. There are four terms which can help us understand the very nature of symbolic language. It is couched in language that contains affect laden images. In other words our everyday conversations have meaning; we are moved by what we say, hear, read, etc. But more than that, in our affects are revealed an apprehension of values; things that matter to us. I used a couple of examples from the 60s [revealing my age, I guess]. You might recall that during the Vietnam protests, the protesters began to burn the American flag. That act is clearly symbolic, the cloth is much more than cloth; it stands for the US, taps into our patriotism. Another example from the same time period was young men began letting their hair grow longer. Many parents weren’t all that happy with their son’s decision. Why would the length of hair create such a reaction, it was a symbol, a form of protest in its own right.

In order to show how we tend to read the symbolic language as though the author thinks as we do, I commented on a few verses from the passage we had been studying, The Testing of Abraham, Gen. 22: 15 – 16

“A second time the angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven and said: “I swear by my very self—oracle of the LORD—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one . . “

We have an “angel of the LORD” talking to Abraham “from heaven.” The angel’s words are in quotes. Now I don’t really know what these two verses mean to you, if anything, but I suspect some of the following might be at play. So I leave you with a handful of questions, does the passage assume that the LORD told an angel what to say to Abraham? If the angel was talking “from heaven” where is that? How did Abraham hear him? Why when the angel spoke did he / she speak in the first person singular, “I”? Now wonder if any of these questions were questions that the author could answer, even thought about, was concerned with. We can ask questions that the scripture can’t really answer, because the author was no writing to answer such questions. His intention, purpose, was very different.

Needless to say the thoughts I shared brought forth a lively discussion. I wish that I could share all of the details of that conversation but that would take quite a bit of space. I chose instead to select out of the many two comments; one from Annette and the other from Faryl. Although both comments flowed in the context of the discussion, reading them here might seem disconnected but they weren’t Annette pointed out we can say one thing; others can even thing that of us, but that doesn’t mean that we are living it. So husbands and wives might appear to be in a happy marriage, parents might seem to be good parents but we really don’t know. Annette’s comments brought to my mind Mt. 07: 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”

On another note Faryl remarked “closed minded politically correct” groups misquote the scripture and want to remove God from the public square. I selected her comments because they represent the symbolic language that I was speaking of as reflected in our contemporary scene. If you are old as I am, you might recall a time in which the words “politically correct” were not a part of our everyday conversation. But the phrase is certainly used today. It means something to Faryl, and since the adjectives “closed minded” define the phrase, its’ not hard to know that for Faryl, “politically correct” has a pejorative meaning and is disvalued. All of that in a few words strung together. That is how we communicate though, and it is also how the biblical authors communicated. The difference is the context of the times. What moved them might not move us and what moves us might not have moved them. Our task, to rise to the level of our times, is to understand the meaning and values that mattered to the author and figure out how to address those meanings and values in our time and place.

I believe the place to begin is in a spirit of prayer, to pay attention to what moves us, to listen to what move others, and to share in the community of believers. The ultimate test though is both inward, Gal. 5: 22 – “ … the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;” and outward, I was hunger, thirsty, sick, imprisoned etc … whatever you did to these the least of my brothers and sisters, you did to me. [Mt. 25: 31 – 46.]

Background

We concluded chap. 22 with the genealogy of vv. 20 – 24 that relays the descendants of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. Genealogies are located throughout the bible both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures. This particular genealogy begins the transition from Abraham to Isaac by letting us know that his wife to be, Rebekah, is part of the extended family. She is one of us, as it were, a not unimportant value for the Jewish community and many other communities as well.

We then moved on to read chap. 23 that narrates the death of Sarah and the subsequent purchase of burial plot by Abraham. At the heart of this story is the purchasing of the plot within the “land.” It becomes a burial place for Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah. It solidifies the fulfillment of the promise of the land and confirms for the Israelites their claim to the land. Keep in mind as well that in the exilic period, many Israelites were forced to bury their dead in a foreign land. This story has a deeper meaning for them given their life situation and points to the word of God speaking to us in the concreteness of our life. God’s word sheds light on our trials and tribulations; offering hope in the faithfulness of 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.

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.

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.

What is the plot, the point of the passage?
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/22 and http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/23 .

Discussion Gen. 23: 01 – 20: Purchase of a Burial Plot.

I wanted to pick up the discussion around the burial plot passage. Michael referencing the notes reminded us that Abraham as a sojourner, a foreigner, who did not have the right to purchase land. By purchasing the burial plot Abraham becomes a land owner. Ken acknowledged difficulty in following the burial passage, precisely because the passage speaks in terms of giving not of selling. Abraham wants to buy but Ephron wants to give, v. 11 “Please, sir, listen to me! I give you both the field and the cave in it; in the presence of my people I give it to you. Bury your dead!”

This highlights our earlier point that the biblical authors simply don’t think as we do because they live at a different time and in a different place. The passage depicts how people battered at that time. For Carol Abraham needed to purchase the land. Michael emphasized what is accomplished by “purchasing” has everything to do with legal ownership. Abraham is now a land owner and the Israelites are owners of the land, no longer foreigners. Of course burial is central to our lives. Various members of the group spoke of their own burial plans, plots. Isn’t it true that we all want to have a plot to be buried in.

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

Posted in Culture, Literal Interpretation, Scripture | Tagged Modern Scripture Scholarship, Religion and Culture, Scripture Study | Leave a comment

The Testing of Abraham – Held on Sunday, January 06, 2013

Posted on January 12, 2013 by Dick

Gen. 22: 01 – 19 – The Testing of Abraham

Preview

After a two week holiday break we returned to our study of Genesis. But as usual there were two topics that we dealt with prior to reading our passage. During the break I had read Creator God Evolving World by Cynthia Crysdale and Neil Ormerod, Fortress Press, c. 2013. Given all of the discuss that ensued around the biblical account of creation, I found this book an excellent account of the tremendous intellectual Catholic tradition. It affirms the transcendant nature of our God and both embraces and critiques the evolutionary science of Neo-Darwinism. Since it has six chapters [see below], it seemed well suited for a Lenten series. I offered to do a guided reading of this college level text for anyone who might be interested. I was pleased to discover that more than a handful of those present expressed an interest. For those who are reading this web account, the six chapter headings are:

God, Religion, and Science
Evolving World: Regularity and Probability
Creator God
Evolving World: Purpose and Meaning
Human Freedom and God’s Providence
Implications for Human Living: Moral Agency and Emergent Probability

It’s available at Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Creator-Evolving-World-Cynthia-Crysdale/dp/0800698770/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357916782&sr=1-1&keywords=creator+god+evolving+world

In discussing the book I mentioned that one of a number of key notions in Creator God Evolving World is the philosophical distinction between primary and secondary causality. This distinction lies at the very heart of an intellectual approach to the question we dealt with in Comments on this site over the previous two weeks concerning the “What to say in the face of Senseless Violence.” Commonly when confronted by the brute facts of such senseless violence revealed in the Newtown tragedy, other such events that have occurred all too often, as well as natural disasters such Hurricane Sandy, the tsunami that devastated Japan, the earthquakes that wreak havoc, destruction, etc., etc., we ask why did God allow such events to happen. Even though the victims of events such as these need care and compassion but ultimately there is a hunger for meaning and a critical component in constructing that meaning is to understand how God actually is the cause of all that happens save sin for which we are responsible alone.

This topic lead to an exchange among many of the group on the guns, controls, and violence. It would take us too far a field for me to summarize that discussion. However, one point that emerged more than once has particular significance. As a group we have been able to create a climate in which each individual seems to feel the freedom to say whatever is on their mind. It is this climate that brings them back again and again. I personally believe that such freedom of expression is absolutely essential if we are ever to discern God’s call in our life.

Background

In turning to our passage, The Testing of Abraham, Gen. 22: 01 – 19, I was struck that the version on line failed, in my opinion, to convey the literary power of the story. As an alternative, I read an account from a Jewish version – http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf.

Comparison with Gen. 12: 01 – 04. To begin, this passage mirrors the account of God’s initial call to Abraham, Gen. 12: 01 – 04. There God is asking Abraham to forsake his past and now God is asking Abraham to forsake his future. In both accounts God, despite the lack of almost any human evidence, provide. In each case Abraham is asked to travel to a location unknown to him but to which God will show him. This passage is particularly poignant in the light of having just sent his first born, Ishmael, with Hagar into the dessert and a fate unknown to Abraham.

Literary Highlights. I want to highlight as well a few literary points not as apparent in the New American Bible on the USCCB website http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/22, in vv. 2, 12, and 16 there is the haunting phrase, “your son, your only son.” There is the near incredible silence of Abraham, except in v. 1 when in response to God, Abraham says, “Here I am.” Then in v. 7 in response to Isaac, Abraham says, “Here I am.” And once again in v. 11 responding to God Abraham says, “Here I am.” There is more but enough for now.

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.

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.

Second, 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.

Third, wWhat is the plot, the point of the passage?
And 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/22.

Discussion Gen. 22:01 – 19 – The Testing of Abraham

In listening to the Jewish version Ken was struck with the difficulty in just following that translation. This prompted him to ask a question about the original sources of any translation. The question is basic to what is called Textual Criticism. What are the earliest biblical manuscripts [actual documents] that we have? Research has identified “family” groups of extant documents; all of which are hundreds of years after the life of Christ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript for an excellent overview of what we know at the present.

Rosemarie wondered what was going on in the mind of Isaac when all of this was happening. What did he know? What was he feeling? All are wonderful questions but our text tells us very little. It is obvious that we want to know much more than the author has any interest in and that itself is a question, why? And it also requires a certain discipline to our questioning. There are simply a host of questions we can ask that the bible doesn’t answer, at least, in a direct fashion.

Heber was so aware that when Abraham responds to Isaac’s observation that there is no lamb for the holocaust, God will provide, there was no evidence to support Abraham’s statement. This lead us to recognize that so often, like Abraham, we simply don’t have any evidence to base on trust on except the word of God, that God is faithful. Trust is easy until it isn’t and life does present many of us with times in which we question, wonder, and search for meaning.

I wanted to point out at this juncture in our discussion that in this account, God knew that he was testing Abraham, we the reader knows that God is testing Abraham but Abraham doesn’t know. We, the readers / listeners know now in our present but it isn’t as though when life comes our way we know we are being tested. This is why it is that we are asked to pray always so that when it comes and it will, we will be prepared. This is why we are asked to gather with two or three because it is much easier when we are not alone.

Carol asked what was the setting in which the author, editor was writing; a question that puts the story in a context that we often overlook. We know that this story must have been told originally, then written down, then woven into the biblical account. Our best opinion is that the weaving into what we now have as the biblical account probably occurred after the exile. As far as I know, the effort of the Jewish community to make sense of the defeat of the Northern Kingdom, the Southern Kingdom, the exile into Babylon, and return to the Land of Canaan is unique in human history. The Jewish community didn’t turn to another God but rather affirmed that their God was the only God. This was the birth of what we know call monotheism, the belief in one God; a transforming event in human history.

As always more occurred than I can write. Another lively discussion time that happened all too quickly.

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

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged Historical Method, Modern Scripture Scholarship, Scripture Study | Leave a comment

Reflections on “Not Knowing What to Say” in the Face of Senseless Violence

Posted on December 20, 2012 by Dick

A Context for Not Knowing What to Say.

As I prepare to share a group of maybe 15 persons reflecting on a dramatic story of the testing of Abraham told for thousands of years, I can’t help but put our conversation into the larger perspective of our world and our universe. It’s hard not to have been impacted by the unspeakable but yet real tragedy that occurred in Newtown. People everywhere had something to say, some attracted me and some repulsed me. Our group struggled with not knowing what to say.

This not knowing what to say came to the foreground for me just this morning. As I was going through my Google+ posts, there was one entitled, “The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D [720p]/ Ultragłębokie Pole Hubble’a w 3D” which can be viewed athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvjYcIPKA3s. The hundreds of posts ranged all over but it didn’t take long for someone to express they’re being awed at the majesty of God which brought out all of those who asked why it was that the believers see God in the wonder of the universe but don’t talk about their God when tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, and yes events such as Newtown wreak havoc on innocent victims. Much of the conversations on either side really didn’t impress me. I find it rare that a group of persons of different values and world views would take the time and discipline to discover what they already share in common and what precisely they disagree about in the concrete.

Most of us seem, in my opinion, to be more shaped by our culture yet don’t seem to be aware that we are. To that extent we already know what someone is going to say . . . So we know what the liberal point of view is, the libertarian, the conservative, fundamentalist, atheist, etc., even though no one is only and all liberal, libertarian, conservative, fundamentalist, atheist, etc. Life is simply more complex that any vast over generalization which tends to lump all these cultural realities into undifferentiated wholes.

A place to start.

I think it is so obvious that nothing human is perfect, is beyond criticism, can’t be improved on. If the previous sentence is true, then neither the government nor the country of the United States, the Roman Catholic Church or any religion, the worldview of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, fundamentalists, atheists; NRA or any organization, Knights of Columbus, Jews, the State of Israel, Muslims, etc., etc. etc.; nothing that we can talk about which is everything is beyond criticism.

At the same time and this is the real rub, we do arrive at truth and truth has something of the absolute about it. For example in its simplest form, concretely I will always have written this post; it’s just a brute fact. And if you are reading this, you will always have read however much you will have read. Whether we would agree on what I meant and you understand is a further question, but it is a meaningless question if I didn’t post and you didn’t read. When truth becomes a weapon though, then I think the person using truth as a weapon has fallen short of truth’s value which is be a light on the path, a guide in the journey.

People of Faith.

The title of the website is Rise to the Level of our Times, because I am terribly interested in being part of a movement to challenge people of faith to achieve an adult understanding of their faith; to come to grips with the fact that learning something when we are 2 or 12 or 22 can be understood more fully, can be corrected, might even have to be jettisoned when we are now 32 or 42 or 72. I believe that people of faith must learn to know what is of value and true in the secular world; the secular world cannot be all wrong nor is it all right. I believe that people of faith need to be critical of their faith; their world of faith cannot be all right nor can it be all wrong. As people of faith we have a biography as an individual and a history as a community. The search for meaning is in our individual biography and our communal history and true meaning is both redemptive and healing.

I will post on the Testing of Abraham on another day but wanted first to just air some of my thoughts to invite others to comment, express their opinion, feel free to say whatever is on your mind because it is you and you matter.

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

Posted in Culture | 7 Comments

Hagar and Ishmael – Held on Sunday, December 2, 2012

Posted on December 12, 2012 by Dick

Gen. 21: 09 – 21 – Hagar and Ishmael

Preview

I brought up two points that developed over the previous week.

The first had to do with something that Ken had shared. He mentioned something that happened to him while listening to the give and take of questions and answers that occurred while he was listening to Catholic Radio. He realized that often times he would not know the answer to a question until he actually heard the answer but somehow he knew that that answer was his answer too. It was as though he understood something but couldn’t put it into words but hearing the answer did just that. I thought that Ken’s experience is a common one that we all might be able to relate with. At the same time, we might not think that Jesus himself shared in that experience in a way too. Theologically we believe that Jesus as God knew all that God knows but as man he had to grow in knowledge and grace. How can this be? Well the knowledge that Jesus had was, technically speaking, ineffable, that is, a knowledge without words. Jesus had to grow to find the right words to express what he knew. His growth began with learning a specific language, Aramaic, and that language had its inherent limitations of the first century of our times. Something for us to think about …

A second point came out of the bulletin again,http://www.stanthonyallsaintscanton.org, in reflectingon the readings, the article stated, “God’s Word always comes to specific human beings in concrete situations. It’s not airy, floating in the clouds.” The Bible, indeed, is an account of the God’s word coming to specific human beings in concrete situations; that’s true. The Bible is also human words and those words share in the human consciousness out of which they [the words] emerge. Thus the words are rooted in time and place, limited by the culture of the authors, etc. In reading the Bible we can easily take the words to mean what they mean to us. A simple example that came out in our discussion today was the word, messenger. Heber pointed out in our discussion that it was a messenger that spoke to Hagar. We had a lengthy discussion on just that one word.

If we recall that this sequence of stories began with three messengers appearing to Abraham. We learn later that one of the messengers is the Lord and that the two other messengers go on to meet with Lot and then deal with the people Sodom and Gomorrah. “Messenger” is word that conveys God communicating with human beings. Later we will read that God communicated in dreams, think of Joseph for example. Over time God’s messengers were angels sent from God. We then developed an entire world view of good angels lead by Michael, bad angels lead by Satan, an epic war, angels sent down to lead us astray, tempt us, guardian angels to protect us. In time the messengers became the message.

The point is that God communicates to us and as Tim was to say that God communicates is the important thing not how he communicates. God’s word is concrete, yes. But like Ken in our first point we don’t always know how to express the very concrete experience we have. And it is extremely rare that God sends a concrete messenger who knows that he or she, the messenger, is sent from God. Most often, as Carol remarked, it is the message that resonates with us. Someone just says something, something just happens and we think of this as God’s message. There is a huge issue though, and that is the issue of discernment. History is replete with people who thought that God was telling them to do something; the something was in fact not from God but a justification of what the person or his/her group want to do. Think of all the people who did and do awful things and justify it by quoting the Bible. Ultimately the discernment is not in the words but in the actions that follow. If we mirror Christ, love your enemies, do good to those that persecute you, feed the hungry, etc., then we can be pretty sure that such message was from God; otherwise it probably was not.

This part of our discussion led to Ken making a telling remark. He argued that it is hard to get out of our own way of thinking. We think of literature in terms of fact or fiction; one real, the other not. Faryl added that one of the more difficult things to accomplish in the reading of any literature is knowing what the theme, plot, lesson of the literature is meant to be. She sees the Bible as filled with the symbolic which isn’t grasped or appreciated unless we can get pass the concrete. For me, “concrete” is a tricky word though. It some sense the symbolic is concrete; it’s an image that awakens in us feelings. Children are often afraid of the dark and the dark is concrete. This discussion proved to be very fruitful and is evidence of the value of an adult scripture group gathering to hear and share what the words, story means.

Background

Doublets occur a number of times in the Abraham cycle. This story of Hagar and Ishmael is one, we’ve also read of two stories dealing with Sarah in which she is portrayed as Abraham’s sister, the story of Lot has two sequences to as does stories of the covenant. Readings the notes will add a few points of explanation that help to grasp the meaning of this story. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/21

This story once again resonates with many but not all contemporary Muslims who would trace their lineage back to Abraham through Ishmael. Sarah is portrayed as deeply concerned to protect the inheritance of her son, Isaac. Abraham is torn between the request of Sarah and his love of his son, Ishmael. The narrator makes clear that Hagar is both Egyptian and a slave and her wandering aimlessly in the desert can’t help but bring to mind the wandering of the Israelites themselves. But it is God’s role that stands out. He tells Abraham to do whatever Sarah is asking of him, that it is through Isaac that the promise of ancestry will be fulfilled; God listens to the cry of Ishmael, responds to Hagar, saves them, and promises to raise a great nation from Ishmael too.

In many ways it is difficult to hear this story for what it is, that is, an account of the care and concern that God has for the non-Israelites. It is sad for me to read how Ishmael has become, even to this day, a divisive symbol among Jew and Muslim. To the extent that my observation has any reality to it, it points to the need to read the Book in search of its actual meaning. A key to doing so is to read with a questioning but disciplined mind, in search of the meaning that the author / narrator is conveying. I continue to repeat, therefore, our questions as an aid in our search.

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.

First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
1. what the characters say and do, or
2. don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
3. 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.

The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
1. The “when” within the story / passage itself,
2. The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
3. The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
What is the plot, the point of the passage?
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/21.

Discussion Gen. 21:09 – 21 – Hagar and Ishmael.

Our discussion began with identifying the characters and their role in the story. We started with Annette identifying Hagar. Hagar is described first as an Egyptian and also as a slave. [There is one sequence in which she is not so described, identifying that communicates the story too.] When we hear that Hagar is an Egyptian and a slave, perhaps little if anything is conveyed in an emotional way too us. A search for the words that would convey the same feelings to us that Egyptian and slave conveyed to the first audience of this story might prove rewarding. Who are our “Egyptians?” Ones who oppressed us, enslaved us, held us captive, our enemies; maybe in Fr. Tom’s words, those we struggle to love, we don’t love.

Next we brought up Ishmael. Little did I know that his character was to lead our group into a real round robin of a discussion. I find it difficult to convey all that happened but will attempt to do the best that I can. It began with me asking again well who is Ishmael. Kai quickly pointed out that he was Abraham’s son and thus a son of the covenant [remember he was circumcised]. He was Hagar’s son too but that made him an Egyptian and in some senses a slave. This lead me to point out the really difficult situation Ishmael found himself in. I said, almost in passing, that none of us pick our parents. For me that statement seemed a matter of mere fact, sort of uncontestable. Ken said again in passing, “Well, not that we know of.” And it was that sentence that started the go around, as it were.

I commented that Ken may have just been talking but in reality we don’t pick our parents and we know that. I was speaking of our biological parents but may not have expressed that clearly. Tim talked about his mom and her sister and how we’re a lot like our parents, even if we don’t want to be. Faryl felt strongly about her situation in which she has chosen her grandparents as her parents. Ken was aware of people who have had a near death experience sharing that they learned they had picked their parents.

Then Ken asked did Jesus pick Mary as his mother. In the heat of the conversation, I said that Jesus was both God and man but that is an article of faith and he didn’t pick his parents. Rosemarie shared our Catholic faith belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary. I realized that in faith we do believe that Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of his son. So you can see that things really went all over the place. Kai responded to Ken by asking him if he, Kai, claimed that the number 7 was an even number would he be correct. At this point I suggested that we get back to our original conversation.

Annette aided us by asking about the fact that Hagar found Ishmael an Egyptian wife, the only time in the entire bible that such has occurred. It further suggested that Hagar remained true as a mother to her son.

This exchange was extremely fruitful even though we haven’t had a chance yet to bear that fruit. For me at that heart of this give and take are deeply philosophical and theological issues. From my theological perspective first there cannot be a conflict between what we believe in faith and we can come to know in our human endeavors since God is the ultimate source of both. That is not to say that there hasn’t been and will continue to be conflicts but I personally don’t think such conflicts are ultimate. And whenever there is a conflict we must approach them in a spirit of humility and in a search for truth. Finally from my philosophical perspective, we can and do arrive at truth and thus at what is real. To reach the truth, however, is first to understand what we have come to experience through our outer sense or in our inner experiences. We have to recognize though that our understanding can be correct or incorrect so that it is only when we judge our understanding to be correct that we have arrived at truth. Whether any of these thoughts of mine will be discussed further only time will tell.

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

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged Catholic Position, Historical Method, Modern Scripture Scholarship, Science and Religion, Scripture Study | Leave a comment

Advent – Comments on Parish Bulletin Information – Held on Sunday, December 2, 2012

Posted on December 4, 2012 by Dick

Advent

Our parish bulletin of St. Anthony All Saints in Canton, OH, http://www.stanthonyallsaintscanton.org/, and click on “weekly bulletin” had two sections that caught my attention. The first, entitled Waiting for Joyful Hope, was a reflection on the Sunday Scriptures. It was the very last sentence that stopped me though with this question, “What are some specific things that pull you in either direction, toward the Holy Spirit or the world?

The question assumes something that needs some clarification. Advent, the beginning of our Liturgical Year, is a celebration of God with us, Emmanuel, the Incarnation, the Word Made Flesh. There is a healthy tension in our lives as the church invites us to celebrate Advent and the “world” invites us to celebrate the Holidays: Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc. To be inclusive we are invited to say Happy Holidays. To keep Christ in Christmas we are invited to say, Merry Christmas. And so it is in our society … and the conflict is much deeper than our greetings. I have intentionally placed quotation marks around the word, “world”, precisely because it is an ambiguous term. For the believer, the world was created by God and is declared in the Genesis to be good. For the Christian, Christ is the Savior of the world. All of creation groans in anticipation of its fulfillment. And we are sinners who live in the world and make all that is human in the world and its impact on the rest of the world. What we do is not all good and some of what we do is evil, and the evil enters into the world, both natural and human.

So the world in its broadest sense is not all good nor all bad. To Rise to the Level of our Times is to affirm what is good in the world and to convert was is bad in it into good. This is the fundamental message of Christ who in his death and resurrection did exactly that. I think we need to use the word “world” with the greatest of care. I wish it was as easy as saying Merry Christmas or keeping Christ in Christmas or whatever but it isn’t. We are called to be the salt of the world, its light and I personally have come to believe that the only salt or light that exists in the human world is our love. We are summoned to love because we have first been loved and that is why we are asked to love our enemies because that is what God does. We are being invited to live the tension that we, if we don’t feel that tension at this time of year, is evidence enough that we are too much in the world and if the fight can be reduced to a bumper sticker or an email forwarded then we are too much not of the world. Our world deserves much more than that. More could and should be said but I leave that to any conversation that these few paragraphs may engender in those who read it.

A second bulletin section was happily entitled, Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Vatican II; Dei Verbum – The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. For the sake of ease, here is the bulletin section that I discussed in our Scripture Group.

“Below are some important points made in DV [Dei Verbum] that will always remain forever.

Scripture and Tradition make up a single deposit of the word of God. [DV 10]
The Magesterium is not superior to the word of God, but is its servant. [DV 10]
Revelation is not just words about God. It is a living encounter with God.
The whole bible is without error – but with an eye to SALAVATION not with an eye to historical or scientific accuracy.

Dei Verbum presents very positive vision of the role of the Bible in the life of the Church. It has actually served to challenge traditional beliefs and practices cherished by Catholics. Bible displays of prophetic, edge as when Jesus’ attitude toward the poor and his acceptance of the sinner confront our own failings as Christians [sic]. [A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II by Edward P. Hahnenberg.] ”

To read the entire document, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html, is to discover that it is a mere 18 pages in length with a preface, six chapters, and twenty-six subsections, promulgated on Thursday, November 18, 1965.

I would like to elaborate on two of the bullet points noted above. The first bullet point has a tricky word in it, “deposit”. Deposit might connote some building or vault, some place where something is stored. Or we might think that that this deposit is actually something that the pope and the bishops have who then give it to us. Or maybe the word “deposit” might convey something that is whole and entire, perhaps unchanging. I would really love to hear what you think about this “deposit.”

“Deposit” is tricky because it is an incarnational reality, sharing in the divine and the human. On the human side and since we change over time in both our hearts [what we value, what is important] and in our heads [what we understand], the “deposit” changes, even though it is always the same. If we read the document, we might be really surprised to learn that the first medium in which the “deposit” changes, develops is in us, the believers. In Chap. two, subsection 8, we read, “For there is growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts [cf. Luke 2:19, 51], through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.” Our study group is a living example of believers who treasure these things in their hearts [a reference to Our Lady] and are growing in their understanding of the realities and words which have been handed down. They can witness to the change that has occurred in them.

The last bullet also is worth reflecting on. Inerrancy is highly complex concept so I want to limit my reflections on the last two points of comparison, namely that the bible is not inerrant with an eye to history and science. It certainly should be clear by now that the scriptures are written by people of faith, to people of faith, for the sake of the faith. If the word “science” means our modern science, there is not a single scientific statement in the entire bible. We can date the beginning of our modern empirical science with, symbolically at least, Galileo, in the 16^th century. By then the entire bible had existed for many more than 16 centuries. The understanding of science has changed our understanding of the world in the most dramatic fashion imaginable and has caused us to re-examine our understanding of the bible. But it is history not science that raises the more critical issue.

The relationship between the Bible and History is much more complicated. As literature, everything in the bible is historical, that is, it was written by someone at some time in some place. Because of that the cultures of the original writers and any revisers, redactors could not have escaped from including the cultures of their days in their writings, revisions, and redactions. The Bible can be studied to discover historical facts as well as legend but it was not written to do that. Yet the unique feature of both the Jewish and Christian scripture is its very historical nature. God entered into the life of a particular people, the Israelites, Hebrews, Jews and Jesus, the Christ, was born in time and place. He was a first century Jew, living a rather non-descript life in a little village in Galilee, Nazareth. And for roughly three actual years, lived, preached, and was crucified. Some of this is simply historical fact but the significance of Jesus’ life is what we believe about him.

The simplest example is in our Christian creed. In our creed we state that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose on the third day. It simply historical fact that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who lived during the first few decades of what we term the first century; that he was crucified in Jerusalem while Pontus Pilate served as the Roman Procurator of Judea; that he died and was buried. To deny the historicity of these facts is shear silliness. But to affirm their profound and ultimate meaning is rooted in an act of faith that claims on the third day he rose from the dead. As St. Paul has written, “And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith.” 1 Cor. 15:14. Again Paul reminds us a few verses later that “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.” 1 Cor. 15:19. Our faith is rooted in time and transcends time. We are more than our times allows us to be. We are more aspiration than achievement. Minimally we must rise to the level of our times. I do not think we are doing that as well as we could.

A couple of bullet points are worth more even than these few pages but it worth at least that much. This is to argue that what is worthwhile takes both time and, in my opinion, a communion of believers sharing their faith in that word. These are matters for adults to whom has been entrusted the faith which is to be handed down, untarnished, developed, risen to the level of our times.

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

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture, Science, Scripture | Tagged Advent, Religion and Culture, Science and Religion, Scripture Study | 1 Comment

The Birth of Isaac – Held on Sunday, November 18, 2012

Posted on November 20, 2012 by Dick

Gen. 21: 01 – 08 – Birth of Isaac

Preview

Not wanting to be labor the point, in summary two weeks ago I offered as an example of our church’s failure to deal adequately with the scientific revolution the biological understandings underpinning the encyclical Humanae Vitae. I believe that its biological assumptions were mistaken and not in concert with contemporary biological science. One of the group’s members felt that as the group’s leader I have the responsibility to make clear that my position is not that of the church.

As I prepared to share this with the group, I realized first that the position I expressed was not really my own but rather the thought of Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J. whom I think to be one of the greatest Catholic thinkers of the 20th century. If anyone is interested in reading a one page letter of Fr. Lonergan that succinctly expresses his position do the following:

Log on to the the LRI website (www.lonergan-lri.ca).
Click on “Resources” (right-hand end of green sequence at top of screen).
Scroll down till you find “Lonergan Studies Newsletter.”
On second-last line of page, you’ll see where to click for “an online full-text version of all current and past editions of the Lonergan Studies Newsletter.”
Locate the March, 1990, edition; go to pp. 6-8; and you’ll be in business.

Furthermore, if anyone is interested in reading again a brief account of who Fr. Lonergan is written by Msgr. Liddy, The Mystery of Bernard Lonergan, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10220.

Background

As always I urge you to read the notes on USCCB website http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/21.

Setting the story of the birth of Isaac in the context of the passages immediately surrounding is itself valuable. There are four stories: Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech, the Birth of Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael, and Abraham and Abimelech. A cursory glance shows that the birth of Isaac is enclosed in stories that focus on individuals who are not members of the chosen Israelite community. Over time the universality of Yahweh will become ever more evident as the biblical world develops. For Christians, this universality is captured eloquently by Paul in Gal. 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ.”

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.

First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
1. a. what the characters say and do, or
2. b. don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
3. c. 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.

The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
1. a. The “when” within the story / passage itself,
2. b. The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
3. c. The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
What is the plot, the point of the passage?
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/21.

Discussion Gen. 21:01 – 8 – Birth of Isaac

The first thing that caught Mark’s attention is how Abraham was the focus of the birth of Isaac, especially Sarah’s remark, “I have borne him a son in his old age.” The patriarchal culture of the day is almost ever present in these passages. Mark’s observation allowed us to ask the question, is this an expression of a merely cultural value of the times, or is it a value for all times? In other words, is a patriarchal society the norm that these passages in the bible are evidence of? However we answer the question, the important points would be first to know our rationale and to be open to the reasoning of others who may differ.

The topic moved from a discussion of patriarchal and matriarchal to one of equality. What does it mean to be equal? I know that equality cannot be rooted in skill sets, talents, etc. In those ways we are not equal; there is a range of strength, intelligence; some are more graceful, melodic voice, etc. So in what way are we equal? Isn’t equality the overriding argument in our marriage debate today as a growing number of states approve same sex marriages? We really didn’t get into this issue but I see the issue as an extension of the conversation, how do we discern what is part of the culture of the bible and what is of divine revelation? And how do we discern?

At the heart of the passage, though, was the meaning of the opening sentence, “The Lord took note of Sarah so he had said he would; he did for her as he had promised.” We live by promise and the story is a story of the Lord, Yahweh, being faithful to his promise; a promise despite the story’s account of overwhelming human odds against even the possibility of it being fulfilled. Cathy recalled in her notes somewhere that twenty-five years passed between the promise and its fulfillment. [The twenty-five years later lead to a discussion of the meaning of numbers in the scripture which I need to bracket for the time being.] The ebb and flow of emotions, the extraordinary challenge to believe, to trust, with the time span between promise announced and promise fulfilled. This is the very stuff that life is made of. The early Christians had to move through the disappointed times when the expected imminent return of the Lord did not occur. So God’s promise, delay, how to read the signs of the times are topics to reflect on, share with others.

As always more occurred than I can write. Another lively discussion time that happened all too quickly.

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

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged Religion and Culture, Science and Religion, Scripture Study | Leave a comment

Gen. 20:01-18 – Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech – Part 2 – Held on Sunday, November 11, 2012

Posted on November 14, 2012 by Dick

Gen. 20:01 – 18 – Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech

Background

As the notes on USCCB website http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/20 inform us, this is the second story of Abraham passing his wife, Sarah, off as his sister. The first occurred in Gen. 12:10 – 31:01 and a third version of the story involving Isaac and Rebekah occurs in Gen. 26:06 – 11.

The passage itself is built around three dialogues: Abimelech and God in vv. 03-07, Abimelech and Abraham in vv. 09-13, and Abraham and Sarah in vv. 15-16. There are number of things to note in this story.

Abraham is revealed in a rather failed character light. Despite this fact God protects him, requires Abimelech to obtain Abraham’s intercession, and listens to Abraham’s intercession.
God engages Abimelech even though Abimelech is not a member of the community of faith. God acknowledges Abimelech’s innocence. Despite his innocence God states that he is a dead man and later we learn that the consequences of his act could affect his entire family and kingdom.
For me the most significant message is that there exists a moral order that is not dependent upon the innocence of the person but the immorality of the act. Consequences follow irrespective of the innocence or guilt of the person who has performed the act and that sin has a social nature to it.

One of the newest members of our group pointed out that in the Sacrament of Reconciliation [Confession] by telling the priest our sins we are acknowledging the social dimension of sin. I thought that her comments were especially on target. The comments also reminded me of the decline in the celebration of this Sacrament which I believe is better expressed in terms of reconciliation, confessing our sins is an important part of the Sacrament but only a part. The heart of the matter is celebrating the saving grace of Christ Jesus who in dying reconciled all of us to his Father in Him.

In comparison to Abraham, Abimelech, the outsider, is much more appealing, even magnanimous in his response to what Abraham has done.

Our Questions – The fourth question seems to me to be the most critical; answering it undoubtedly will elicit a wide range of responses and probably differences of opinion amongst us.

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.

First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
1. what the characters say and do, or
2. don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
3. 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.

The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
1. The “when” within the story / passage itself,
2. The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
3. The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
What is the plot, the point of the passage?
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/20.

Discussion Gen. 20:01 – 18 – Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech

As is quite common our group took off with their own thoughts and reflections before we had a chance to respond to our list of questions. Carol wondered who the author was and Faryl referred to the notes which state, “[20:1–18] Abraham again passes off his wife Sarah as his sister to escape trouble in a foreign land (cf. 12:10–13:1, the J source). The story appears to be from a different source (according to some, E) and deals with the ethical questions of the incident.”

Michael pointed out that this second account makes more sense. God talks with Abimelech, tell him that Abraham is a prophet, and that gives some rationale for why Abimelech was so generous with Abraham.

Ken was interested in “getting into the mind of Abraham.” I wondered if Ken found Abraham appealing in this story and, of course, he didn’t. Yet Abraham did intercede for Abimelech and God responded favorably to Abraham’s intercession. This highlighted for me that God listens to us even if we are sinners. It recalls a phrase that often comes to mind for me, God loves us not because of us but because of who he is.

When we return next week, perhaps we should spend a little more time on this passage. There are a number of issues in the passage but the one that continues to capture my attention is the fact that even though innocent and acknowledged to be so by God, Abimelech’s innocent act violated the moral order and would have consequences.

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

Posted in Scripture | Tagged Modern Scripture Scholarship, Religion and Culture, Scripture Study | Leave a comment

Reflections on the “Corrupt and Crime Ridden Roman Catholic Church” article – Held on Sunday, November 11, 2012

Posted on November 13, 2012 by Dick

A Reflection / Response to the article “Why I love the Corrupt and Crime Ridden Catholic Church.”

I took my clue for our opening topic from an email that Ken had forwarded to me in which he provided a link to an article written by Fr. Dwight Longenecker with the captivating title, “Why I Love the Corrupt and Crime Ridden Catholic Church;” along with more than 80 comments. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/11/why-i-love-the-corrupt-and-crime-ridden-catholic-church.html. Ken ended his email with the request, “let me know what you think.”

For me, Fr.’s article is good as far as it goes but it falls short of clarifying what is unique about the problems confronting the Catholic Church today, that is, in the 21^st century. To accomplish that we need to identify where the root of the problems confronting our church today lie. With that in mind, I shared with the group what I have garnered from my studies are those roots which stretch back for centuries, are very complex, and deeply challenging. Given the historical realities of these roots all I hoped to do in the context of our scripture group is bring them forward and offer an example or two of the problems they have generated. There are four root causes as I have come to understand them.

First there was the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century with its own roots going back to perhaps the 14^th century. These events shattered the unity of the Western, Roman Christian Churches and are now lived out in an enormously complex set of relationships within Western Christianity. As Catholics, it wasn’t until the Second Vatican Council that we were, not just permitted, but encouraged to relate in a meaningful way with Christians from other traditions. In some ways the ecumenical movement has stalled but the cry for unity is profound.
Much more significant and far reaching was the Scientific Revolution beginning at least symbolically with Galileo. The very notion of science, nature, our world, the universe changed in dramatic ways. In my brief life time, I left school only to learn about plate tectonics, galaxies, an expanding universe, DNA, evolution, etc. etc. I choose to give as one example, among many, a problem made evident because of the scientific revolution and the vast technologies that have emerged out of that scientific revolution. I selected the position on birth control enunciated by Pope Paul VI, shortly after Vatican II in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae. I would argue that at the core of the encyclical’s failure is an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the procreative process made ever more evident by contemporary science. We will end up spending more time on this issue in our next session; but it should be obvious that my personal opinion is in conflict with the official teaching of the Catholic Church. From all the surveys that I have come across, most Catholic women don’t practically agree either.
A third modern transformation was political. The French Revolution changed the very nature of how we as nation states organize ourselves politically and there are serious ramifications from that transformation that our church struggles with to this day. As citizens of a Western democratic nation we are imbued with a vision of political life that includes the very notion of equality. Again I have experienced in my own life time the extraordinary social and political changes brought about by the civil rights movement, the continuing struggle to bring about equality for women across a whole range of economic and social settings, and more and more we are confronted with the demand for equality on gender issues.
The last transformational factor lying at the root of the challenges confronting us is the development of historical consciousness in Germany in the 19^th century. I personally think that the changes brought about by this revolution are the deepest and most unsettling for us. For it has introduced into our very sources and history searching questions about their very nature. We are confronted with understanding a new the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the achievements of the Fathers of the Church in the Greek Councils, the grand scope of the scholastic scholars.

Now it goes without saying that books, if not libraries, have been written on these four and many other factors that have produced the “modern” world and the Catholic Church’s presence in it. It must also be acknowledged that the four transformational factors I have alluded to occurred in a context that certainly had ante Roman Catholic bias in them. Over these years, however, we have not been especially astute in responding to the biases and the developments that make our world pretty much what it is. And this has occurred at a time when each of these massive transformations are not without their own need of critique and correction; actions that I think the Roman Catholic Church could perform in a uniquely qualified way given its foundational intellectual tradition and its present global reach.

In summary, I felt that the heart of Fr. Longenecker article, as I understood it, focused on the almost universally agreed fact that we are all sinners. And it is this fact that both accounts for why the Roman Catholic Church is corrupt and crime ridden and why we love her. His observations are true for the church in all of human history but failed to point out what is unique to the shortcomings and challenges for our church in the 21^st century. And it was to address these shortcomings that I offered my thoughts on his article.

I will offer a second post on the scripture passage that we moved on to study.

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

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture, Science | Tagged Catholic Position, Interfaith Dialogue, Religion and Culture, Science and Religion | Leave a comment

Gen. 19: 01 – 29 – Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – Held on Sunday, November 4, 2012

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Dick

Gen. 19:01 – 29 – Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Review

The comments from last week, October 28, which were submitted by Tim, Ken, and Dan, I thought, had a real lesson for all of us to learn. It seems obvious that we all don’t think alike; some of our differences are merely perspectival while others are opposed. But what became clear to me as we reviewed the back and forth of the comments, the more we talk in personal terms the more likely it is that we will agree and the more we talk in social and historical terms the more likely our real and opposed differences will come to light.

Our discussion on the comments highlighted both of these observations. It was Tim’s sharing his own personal observations that served as an example of the personal bringing us together. Tim wrote, “In regards to the question of is humanity moving forward … Each of us has good and bad hours, days, weeks, months, and even years. I personally struggle with my faith all the time.” On a different topic altogether, Dan shared in moving terms his faith story within which he expressed his firm conviction of the errors of modern science and the secular teachings that for him contradict and undermine faith in Christ Jesus. While Ken’s comment pointed out in different terms that there is a fundamental conflict between the values of Christ and the values of this world. We are called to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect; a call that cannot and should not be watered down by the values of our world.

As I read Dan’s second comment, I realized that at one and the same time there are aspects of our conversation we can more easily agree on and that was made quite clear in Dan’s response to Tim’s and my comments. Dan wrote simply, “Brothers, Actually, I agree with most of what you say , knowing that we are to strive for holiness every day, yet struggling and failing.” We share with one another the struggle to live our personal life in fidelity to our faith. As I have remarked elsewhere, quoting Fr. Lonergan, Christianity is more aspiration than achievement. And we are very aware of the gap, chasm between our aspirations and our achievements.

Nonetheless, the question on a large scale remains, Is the universe created by God to be understood in evolutionary terms or not? I think that it is nearly impossible for either side of the answer to that question to be totally right or totally wrong. The real challenge is to be able to distinguish and affirm the truth on both sides and correct the errors on both sides. That is the challenge. On this very point I read an article written by Pat Byrne [former Chair of the Philosophy Department at Boston College] entitled, Lonergan, Science, and Intelligent Design. I believe Pat’s article is an excellent example of attempting to meet the challenge. The Intelligent Design persons are, in my opinion, mistaken in their science but correct in their aspiration. While Neo – Evolutionary theorists are correct in their science but error in their extra scientific positions.

I’m not inlcined at this point to go into the details that are necessary to substantiate my opinion. But if anyone is interested in reading Pat’s article [27 pages and challenging], let me know and I will forward a copy to you. Having a dialogue on that article, difficult as it might be, is for me the basis of finding the truth and error in this seemingly endless debate between science and religion.

We also spent time discussing further the passage that dealt with Abraham’s Intercession but I must leave those details to entice others to join us in our lively exchanges.

Background

The notes on USCCB website prove helpful in enriching the context within which we can read and understand the story of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/19.

It is critical, however, that we come to grips with the very nature of the biblical writing; namely, that the book is written by people of faith, to people of faith, for the sake of their faith. It is not a history book but it cannot escape being historical. I know that many in the study group have heard this account many more than a few times. But hearing and understanding are quite different events in our consciousness.

A first step will be to offer a minimal account of some of the probable history implied in the story. It is believed [we don’t know for sure] that Sodom was located in a region south of the Dead Sea. Geologically, this region is part of rift, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift, that has deposits of sulphur and bitumen and petrochemical springs. This area was not always desolate as it is now. Thus we have the makings of a terrifying event, an earthquake, explosions, fire, destruction. Now we don’t know that such an event actually occurred but the story lends itself to that assumption. What is evident is that we wonder why bad things happen, especially to good people. And for we who are believers, what is God’s role in all this?

The story though is about the breakdown of human society as measured in the light of the God’s law of doing justice and righteousness exemplified by Abraham’s extraordinary act of hospitality, the somewhat parallel act of hospitality by Lot, and the utter lack of it by the townsfolk. Lot’s role also exemplifies his own fall from grace in his awful act of offering his daughters for the townsfolk “to do as they please,” as though heterosexual violence can somehow be a response to homosexual violence. What is at stake is the summons to live a life of doing justice and righteousness; the struggle to understand the social interrelationship of the wicked and the righteous; and the fact that destruction occurs. I personally think that the “homosexual incident” is our problem today in a way that was quite different for the people in the time of the story.

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.

First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
1. what the characters say and do, or
2. don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
3. 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.

The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
1. The “when” within the story / passage itself,
2. The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
3. The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
What is the plot, the point of the passage?
Finally, because each passage is at one and the same time the word of human being 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 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/19.

Discussion Gen. 19:01 – 29 – Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

We began with an effort to identify the characters but the passage has its own power to prevail. Of all that we discussed, I have chosen the remarks of Faryl near the end of our discussion period to share with a larger audience. She observed in the light of her grasp of literary criticism that the characterization of the townsfolk lacked credibility. All were totally evil despite the fact that the young could hardly have been involved in such acts. She offered further that such incredibility in the story gives the modern reader sufficient reason to think that the bible itself is rather incredible. This is my take on what Faryl had to say.

I believe that Faryl’s remarks deserve attention and some in the community, but not all, need to be able to respond to her observations. I intend to do that at our next gathering but thought that her thoughts might serve as a focus of some discussion on this site. If her remarks strike you as significant and have added urgency coming as it does from the next generation of believers, what are we to say?

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

Posted in Culture, Literal Interpretation, Scripture | Tagged Religion and Culture, Science and Religion, Scripture Study | Leave a comment

Gen. 18: 16 – 33 – Abraham’s Intercessions – Held on Sunday, October 28, 2012

Posted on October 31, 2012 by Dick

Gen. 18:16 – 33 – Abraham’s Intercessions

Review

We started off focusing our attention on a remark that Ken had submitted on our blog last week. As I heard Ken, he assumed first of all that from an unknown but earliest period in humankind “hospitality” as portrayed in the passage would not have been present, a value for the earliest human beings. He also felt that “debauchery and wickedness” would have been more prevalent in these earlier times and is present but less prevalent today. One of the most critical values in our group’s gathering is the freedom and comfort to say whatever we are thinking. I personally believe that without that climate the very Word of God is hindered from entering into our lives. The only place to begin is where we actually are. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that what we assume or think is correct or true. In fact, most adult learning is from ignorance or error to truth. As adults we already have a rather well formed world view in which we live and handle the triumphs and tribulations that fill our life.

The question then for each of us, Is the direction of human history one of ongoing growth and development, slow and back forth, but essentially moving forward; forward not within the field of knowing, that is science, nor in the field of making, that is technology but in the field of practical living, that is in our moral and, for we believers, in our religious life, our relationship with God in Christ Jesus? What is your opinion on this question?

Faryl offered her take on the question. She thinks that we have and will continue to advance in both knowledge and technology but our moral being is pretty much as it has been from the beginning. When both of these factors are at play we find ourselves having potential for ever greater good and ever greater evil. In conclusion she feels that history is evidence of both the ever greater good and evil occurring.

Background

A first step in learning about the background to this and any of our passages is to read the notes, http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/18, as they apply to vv. 16 – 33.

This passage can be further broken down into three subsections.

In verses 16 – 19, God is talking to the other two men [Abraham can hear but isn’t part of the conversation. The key verse is verse 19: “Indeed, I have singled him out that he may direct his children and his household in the future to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD may put into effect for Abraham the promises he made about him.” I have bolded the heart of this whole passage, and in some sense of the Jewish Covenant.
In verses 20 – 22, we can note the transition taking place,
1. First looking back at verse 16 we are told that the three men “looked toward Sodom”
2. And now in verse 22 we read that two of the men “went toward Sodom,” leaving God and Abraham together and setting the stage for the ensuing dialogue between them.
3. If we look forward to chap. 19:01 we learn that the two mean “came to Sodom.”

We also learn that the LORD intends to find out if things are as bad as they have been reported. In verse 21, there is a very telling phrase, “If not …” placed by the author on the lips of the LORD. The “if” reveals that our future is open and dependent in part upon us; for “it” [life as we live it] can be different and the LORD intends to find out.

3. In verses 23 – 33 we come to the heart of the whole passage, Abraham interceding, assuming and beginning to fulfill his role as a blessing for all the nations and thus fulfilling the LORD’s promise.

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.

First who are the characters and what role does each play? To the extent that we can identify
1. what the characters say and do, or
2. don’t say and do but we would expect them to do so, and
3. 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.

The “when” question is quite complicated and again for the sake of completeness; there is
1. The “when” within the story / passage itself,
2. The “when” of the editor, and most importantly,
3. The “when” of our life at the time we are actually reading / studying the passage.
What is the plot, the point of the passage?
Finally, because each passage is at one and the same time the word of human being 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 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/18.

Discussion Gen. 18:16 – 33 – Abraham’s Intercession

The discussion of this passage will continue in our next session but a couple of points seem important to me. First in the version we read in the study group, verse 23 and the following translate the “right” in verse 19 as “innocent” whereas in version it is translated as “righteous.” In the scholars I use to guide me, justice and righteousness are critical terms to understand in their full breadth and depth. They hearken back to the creation story, run through the whole of the Jewish scripture and invite us to maintain and promote all our relations to include our relationship with the earth and all that fills it; the earth itself, the plants, the animals and all of our fellow human beings.

A second point came into focus when we wondered why Abraham stopped at “ten” righteous persons. Like most numbers in the scripture the number “ten” in this account is symbolic, means more than one thing. For example, it might have meant that Abraham was now convinced that God would be faithful to his way of justice and righteousness. It could have meant that any lesser number would imply treating the situation on an individual rather than a social basis. There are other possible meanings but these two might give us a taste of the richness of the author / editor.

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

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged Religion and Culture, Scripture Study | 4 Comments

The Purchase of a Burial Plot – Held on Sunday, January 20, 2013

The Testing of Abraham – Held on Sunday, January 06, 2013

Reflections on “Not Knowing What to Say” in the Face of Senseless Violence

Hagar and Ishmael – Held on Sunday, December 2, 2012

Advent – Comments on Parish Bulletin Information – Held on Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Birth of Isaac – Held on Sunday, November 18, 2012

Gen. 20:01-18 – Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech – Part 2 – Held on Sunday, November 11, 2012

Reflections on the “Corrupt and Crime Ridden Roman Catholic Church” article – Held on Sunday, November 11, 2012

Gen. 19: 01 – 29 – Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – Held on Sunday, November 4, 2012

Gen. 18: 16 – 33 – Abraham’s Intercessions – Held on Sunday, October 28, 2012

Archive

Recent Comments

Adult Scripture Study Group Schedule