by michael | Apr 5, 2023 | Christianity Blog
To this point in our journey, most people can agree about the historicity of Jesus (Yeshuah) of Nazareth and about his execution by the Romans as a criminal or potential threat to the established order. While the cross is the most visible symbol of Christianity it is not that event alone nor is it first in priority, as the foundation for the tradition. It is the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead that is first in priority and that is at the centre of the tradition. However, like the walls in the holy of holies on the temple mount in the first century, bare of images, statues or any representations of YHWH, so too Christianity is based upon an inexplicable claim, one that cannot be proved, seen or even adequately explained. It is like entering into a room and seeing a bare wall or getting to the end of a novel and meeting a blank page. Any possible evidence for the ripples that have spread through history because of the event, though not for the event itself, relies entirely upon the success or failure with which Christians respond to it by taking up their personal crosses and follow Jesus’ way of self-sacrifice. By living a life that brings life to others and adhering to a way of life that values truth (or perhaps accuracy at least) in human affairs and does into get subverted in service for any cause, person, political party, even country or business (any idol).
This then leads us to St. Paul and to his particular theological invention: trust as ‘faith/faithfulness’ and the notion of ‘the Body of Christ’.
It is not what you believe that matters in life but what you do or how well what you do is in line with trusting that Yeshuah showed a better way to be human and that one’s position in Paul’s Body of Messiah (not the/a church) is irrelevant for pride and self-righteousness but is only meaningful simply because one is a part, however humble of that strange bio-spiritual entity.
by michael | Apr 3, 2023 | Christianity Blog
Important qualifications:
- I use YHWH (God) because it saves me from calling YHWH by any male/female pronoun. I am also a cousin to YHWH’s people and so a better respect for YHWH is due.
- This text, like the others, are works in progress. If someone writes to let me know of a misspelled word etc or some other grammar-like possible correction necessary, i will change it. I will do the same if I find or am told that there is a logical problem within the context of the argument.
- There are footnotes to these texts, for further reading or from which direct quotes were derived.
In 1859 a book was published that shook the foundations of western society. That book was The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection and the man who wrote it was named Charles Darwin.
The foundations trembled because before that book was published, human beings, at least those who made up the Christian West, had a view of themselves that was both arrogant and unnatural. Arrogant because they considered themselves to be the special creation of YHWH and unnatural because they believed that that ‘special creation’ was separate from the rest of the natural world.
Origin(1) began a process of thinking that underscored what most of us now take for granted though in some cases do not fully appreciate. Human beings are creatures that are as much part of evolutionary creation as any other species on the planet. Our presence and effects upon the chain of being in the world and the universe of which we are a part cannot and must not be ignored. We know now, for example, that if we take a toxic stew from one of our factories and dump it in the ocean or in a river, that eventually we ourselves will be affected because we are part of creation. We know now that the plastics we use and toss away make their way into other creatures on Earth and now are moving up the food chain to human beings. We know, but the manufacturers of plastic, and our use of it, continue apace.
It could be argued successfully that the biblical record does not support the arrogant and unnatural interpretations that were laid on the scriptural text by Christian interpreters. After all, in the mythical creation story in Genesis human beings are created as part of the process of creation; they are never described as separate from it. The biblical term is ‘steward’, not ruler. As well, there is that important line that has run thread-like through these reflections from Ash Wednesday (the story of Adam and Eve): “remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.” We are part of the dust of this world and one day we shall all return to dust.
Some of those who came after Darwin took his observations and conclusions about evolution and applied them to human morality, to the life of the individual and its relationship to society or community. Some of these persons (e.g., social Darwinists[2]) used Darwin’s notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ to claim that only the strong should survive, that the strong will rise through ruthless competition and that competition will be motivated solely by self-interest. It is possible to look through the lens that these persons supply and see our time since 1859 as very much the practical application of Darwin’s notion in national aggression, colonialism, warfare and in economic development as a form of subjugation.
However, there is a more positive way of seeing this history, another way of seeing our time since Darwin. We can see it as a time of learning about how, in fact, interdependent we are. As a species we are dependent upon the rest of creation for our survival, for the air we breathe, for the food we eat. As individuals we depend upon others in order to survive. We need to cooperate with others if we are to survive and thrive both as individuals and as a species. Even in today’s world economy nations and investors are deeply conscious about how interdependent the world has become. This movement of interdependence is gravely threatened by right-wing jingoistic tribalism.
Of course we have not yet throughly learned because of our own self-interest or through any higher motives that we must cooperate with one another if we are to survive. We have not fully learned and accepted that we need each other. And because we need each other we sometimes have to put our own self-interest aside for the greater good. Sometimes in fact some of us do choose to be self-sacrificial and turn away from the motivations of the self for the good of someone else. Sometimes we even choose to be self-sacrificial because it is the right thing to do.
Here then is the human dilemma writ large: we are, as Darwin re-discovered (what the Genesis story clearly stated centuries earlier), animals who belong to a created order and we have a powerful instinct for our own self-survival. Yet we have, surprisingly, equally powerful motivations to be self-sacrificial. This very human contradiction/conflict is at the core of our discussions of these past few weeks.
We have spent these weeks talking about the tests or temptations that happened to Jesus in the story where he goes into the desert for forty days. In the first week we talked about the value and the terror of going into any desert, whether of the soul or spirit or a physical one. In such a place we have an opportunity to unpack our baggage and our burdens, struggle with our daemons and come out stronger, it is hoped, than when we went in.
As part of that unpacking of the baggage we carry around with us day-to-day and dealing with our very real daemons, we spoke about the three very real and deeply human tests faced by Jesus in the desert. They were the tests of bread and consumption, the test of the desire for power, and the more peculiar one of testing, through doubt, we sometimes feel as to whether YHWH is really among us or not.
At the root of these three tests is the struggle in our nature between the instinct of an animal to survive at all costs and the possibility that is in every one of us to transcend that instinct to become a self-sacrificing creature, something that does not fit the paradigms of certain theories of evolution or of economics or of social structure. We can, to put it bluntly, be mere animals or we can rise though our physical selves to become (like) either devils or angels.
Please note that there are rarely such things as pure motives. We are a complicated kind of creature. Sometimes we do things for the right reasons, sometimes we do not. We are not usually motivated purely by either self-interest or self-sacrifice. Sometimes through necessity we are and should be motivated by self-interest. Sometimes we have to choose which motivation wins out. And that is where our greatest difficulties emerge.
When we are tested by the need or requirement to consume, in our self-interest we seek food, shelter, and security. Yet in that need we sometimes desire more and more and more, not because we actually need more but because we simply want more. In that desire for more we can sometimes be deaf to the cry within that asks: is there nothing more than that which I can buy? We may also be deaf and blind to the needs of others around us who have more significant needs than ourselves. Our self-interest in this test sometimes never allows us to rise above mere appetite, the belly, and ultimately we are consumed by the very things that we buy and the option and impulse to rise above that instinct is lost.
When we are tested by the desire for power our instinct motivates us to get whatever power we can and keep it so that we can beat off anyone else who might want to take away what we have. We adopt a fortress mentality, one that drives us to manipulate and control people so that we get what we want. Some use power well and we call those people ‘persons with authority’. Jesus was such a one. Those who do not use power well, that is, to their own and others’ destruction, are called, well many things, but certainly not persons with authority (unless motivation by fear equals authority. These latter imagine themselves to be like gods, have no doubts, and will do the worst things they can, limited only by ability, chance and human frailty.
Fanatics or fundamentalists or true believers in any human sphere of activity-science, religion, atheism, politics, economics, etc-are the most dangerous people in the world, because nothing can convince them that perhaps their theories need to be tweaked. No evidence can be provided that shows what they believe to be absolute truth, no matter the damage they cause, the crimes they commit, the violence they visit upon others may in fact be wrong or wrong-headed, or at least only part of a truth (4).
Devils or angels are made of us through the quest for and the wielding of power and at least part of the direction in which we become one of these depends upon how certain we are.
When we are tested by the desire to wonder if YHWH is really among us, the third test, we do one of two things. We remain committed to the possibility of the kingdom of YHWH(5), despite the enormous possibility for pain that that stance holds, or we walk away. And we walk away either because the pain of holding belief in YHWH’s’s presence ( and the possibility for goodness) in contrast with the reality of the world is too much to bear or we walk away because we know that, as Dostoyevsky put it over 100 years ago, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted” (6). In this case, self-interest is the name of the game, the game we choose. For such a person, YHWH is an inconvenient obstacle, as are rules, laws, fences put in place to check our self-interest against the common good.
You may think that all this talk about the struggle between our instinct (our base natures) and the call to re-write the program, as it were, by rising above instinct is beyond us in our practical day-to-day existence. However, we see it in human drama all the time: politicians who get caught in conflicts of interest, spouses who leave their families because the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, people who use violence, verbal and physical, to articulate their fear of losing control or power, decision-makers in companies or government who lay off employees only to gain ever-increasing returns for investors.
These human tests of bread, power and belief or trust test our instincts for survival but they also test our capacity for self-sacrifice.
With the test of bread our capacity for self-sacrifice is tested at a personal level every time we are asked to give to a charity of some sort. We in the West, for example, have the smallest percentage of the population of the world yet we consume most of the world’s goods and control most of the world’s wealth. We are asked as individuals and as nations how much we are willing to give up of our personal luxuries so that the vast majority of the population of the world can raise their standard of living. How much are we willing to give up, or sacrifice for the good of others?
With the test of power our capacity for self-sacrifice is made evident in how comfortable we are in hearing and accepting what others say, how we deal with disappointment, in not getting what we want, especially in limiting our ability to manipulate and control others to our own ends. To the extent that we have power and are able to make the sacrifice of humility in these sorts of things, to that extent we have authority. To the extent that that we cannot hear anything but the sound of our own voice, the dictates of our own impulses, the desire of our own will over others, we will have only power, not authority, and we will not have made any self-sacrifice. Indeed, the very notion in such a state would make no sense.
With the test of doubting whether YHWH is among us or not our capacity for self-sacrifice is tested as to whether we are bound by any ideals, laws, rules, principles, authorities than our own. Do we have what it takes to sacrifice ourselves, or at least some part of ourselves, for something that is part of a broader vision (in our case, the kingdom of YHWH)?
Darwin was correct. We are animals, part of the earth’s ecosystem and we have the same basic desire for survival that all other animals on earth have. However, we have also as part of our nature the ability to rise above motives that derive strictly from self-interest. Self-interest in competition with self-sacrifice. We have both and we need both in order to survive as individuals and as a species. The question is; which will become the predominate trait in each of us? There are moments in each of our lives when we make decisions that determine our character, and define us as more self-sacrificial or more self-interested. We are molded by such decisions and once the mould sets we may be fixed in our character for life, predominately as selfish or as self-sacrificing, or to use biblical language, devils or angels.
Last week the reflection ended by stating that there is another piece of the puzzle that has not yet been considered as critical in describing how it is that we who follow the Nazorean messiah are to be little messiahs to the world. That piece runs through scripture like a glowing thread, transcending time and space. As one of those pieces of scripture puts it, “Jesus said to his disciples: “if any want to become my followers let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?”(7)
There are two significant points in this statement. 1) That following Jesus, being his disciple means that one follows the Nazorean messiah to the cross. 2) That human life, and indeed the life of other species and the planet itself is more important than short-term want or desire.
Let us take the second point first. This is a familiar point from these past few weeks. From YHWH’s point of view our lives are more precious than what we gain in life, if even it would be the whole world and all that it offers. Sometimes we give our lives away to things that are of much less value than we ourselves. We give our love to those things that are not gods.
The first point. The piece of the puzzle that defines for us what it is to be a Christian who trusts the Nazorean messiah, is to make decisions that will ultimately define us as self-giving, self-sacrificial. In a word, that we know YHWH through this first-century Jew whom we follow as disciples, from the cross. The cross is the ultimate example for Christians of what it means to be righteous in the world, as an example of self-sacrifice, self-giving for others. YHWH has shown something about God’s self in this instrument of death; it shows the lengths to which YHWH will go to get our attention and our willing service, our willing self-sacrifice.
The choices we make ultimately define us as self-giving or self-serving. At various points in our lives we have to do both. But what is the final sum of those choices?
As Christians of course we are called to win our tests or triumph over our temptations, when they come, by choosing self-sacrifice. We are not called to attempt to wipe out our self-interest, our own will to survive, for that is impossible. Or at least it is a path that very few can or are willing to travel to its very end. But we are called to rise above self-interest, to seek a higher way, to take the road of the cross, the road of self-sacrifice, as far as we can bear the load.
It might be asked: what gives legitimacy to this road, this approach to human ethics and human choice, to being human? It is the fact that Jesus’ movement did not die with him. And also because of the fact that many millions of Christians over the centuries have done, and today still do, work that is self-sacrificial, self-giving. Such acts bring new life, the very presence of God, into the world. The message of the cross, of Easter, as St. Paul puts it, may be foolishness to the contemporary despisers of faith, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. But the cross is not an explanation; it is a message.
More about that next week.
Footnotes
(1) He developed his work further in a later volume entitled The Descent of Man.
(2) Some of the names associated with this term, often by others, are Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton (the grandfather of eugenics) and Ernst Haeckel.
(3) It was actually Herbert Spender who created the phrase as an analogue to Darwin’s ‘natural selection’, by which both meant the ability to procreate, not the ability to dominate. Darwin himself used Spencer’s term alongside his own. Modern biologists prefer Darwin’s.
(4) A worthy volume to read on this point is Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam (New York: Random House, 1985).
(5) This concept is difficult to see in any way that it can be a reality. And what sort of are laity could it possibly be? The best we can do will we wait is to ask: what can I do now to make the world a better place, not just for me and my tribe, which was the Greco-Roman choice: their civilizations, though the writings of most of their literature tend to imply that some persons are less human than others. The Judeo-Christian option chose to define all persons as humans, regardless of assets, power, colour, differences of sexual matters, social status etc. Speaking only of the Christins; did they succeed? Far from it, but they had a few shining moments where the impetus of Chesed (loving kindness) broke free of the shackles of credenda and its worship and did some good in the world.
(6) In his The Brothers Karamazov.
(7) Mark 8:34-37
by michael | Mar 25, 2023 | Christianity Blog
Important qualifications:
- I use YHWH (God) because it saves me from calling YHWH by any male/female pronoun. I am also a cousin to YHWH’s people and so a better respect for YHWH is due.
- This text, like the others, are works in progress. If someone writes to let me know of a misspelled word etc or some other grammar-like possible correction necessary, i will change it. I will do the same if I find or am told that there is a logical problem within the context of the argument.
- There are footnotes to these texts, for further reading or from which direct quotes were derived.
The third test faced by Jesus is the most powerful, most difficult one to face. Let us explore the biblical background to this test.
Jesus’ daemon tells him to throw himself down from a high place because YHWH will not allow him, his daemon says, to be injured. The author of the text quotes Deuteronomy (6:16), Psalms 91 and 95 and Exodus (17:2-17) to make his point. The answer Jesus gives is: “You shall not put the Lord your YHWH to the test.” This is a peculiar answer, at least I have always wondered about it. What does it mean?
The set of quotations imbedded in this part of the tale comes from a story in Exodus. When the people of Israel had reached a certain point on their journey out of Egypt they stopped and complained to Moses: “Have you brought us out of Egypt to kill us in the desert by thirst and hunger?” Moses, out of sheer frustration and anger, strikes a rock at YHWH’s direction. Fresh water pours out to slake the peoples’ thirst. He called the place Massah and Meribah, two words meaning ‘quarrel’ and ‘test’ because, ‘the people tested the Lord, saying, ‘is the Lord really among us or not?’
Why did this question arise? It did because the people doubted whether YHWH was with them, or more precisely, they acted on the doubt by requiring the test. Here then is the test or the temptation for both Jesus and ourselves: Is YHWH really among us? Are we alone as a species in a vast, indifferent universe? A modern person might ask the question this way: ‘does God exist?’
In the first reflection to this series three weeks ago it was suggested that the desert into which Jesus was driven may have been as much or more a desert of the soul, an inward experience for him as much as it may have been a real experience of going into a physical desert. It was also suggested that we, too, have all been in the desert of the soul or mind or spirit, whether because of a difficult relationship break-up, a death, or even a welcome and positive life-change (such as a new and better job). At other times we voluntarily go into the desert to face our daemons and unpack our baggage, in the hope that we come out of it more healthy and whole than we have been, in the past, with daemons running loose and our baggage still packed and on our backs or in our hands.
We all have daemons or tempters which test us to our limits, and beyond. One that is common today for people who are sensitive to the movements of history and their impact on human life in all its narrative, is one that arises from this temptation. Is faith is a delusion because YHWH is not with us, because YHWH does not exist? Modern persons sometimes wonder if YHWH, should YHWH actually exist, cares or if YHWH, like the universe itself, does not particularly care about you, or me or humanity in general. Actually, it is not doubt that is the test but the desire to test YHWH in some way that is at the root of this human temptation. Doubt is normal. That is one of the great daemons of our age, if you are a theist.
Christian theologian Martin E. Marty wrote a small book called A Cry of Absence in which he distinguishes between two types of spirituality. The first is that within which a person lives in a perpetual summer-time of unthinking bliss. The second is one in which the absence of YHWH is a wintry and profound and haunting reality. The daemon comes from the latter.
As Marty discusses, that wintry perspective comes from persons who cannot look away from the 20th century, which for them is the most egregious example of humans tossing over YHWH in favour of themselves. As such these humans created a twisted, anti-human theology of humankind that led directly to the horrors and death of millions, far more than at any other point in (theistic) history.**
For the wintry souled Christian, that time and elements of it have continued to today, has killed the simplistic, unquestioning, unthinking understanding of the love of YHWH, the accuracy of the Scriptures and the entire theological construct of the Christian faith. In particular, for Jews and some Christians a kind of naïve assumption in either the goodness of YHWH or the righteousness of human beings cannot be wholly trusted because of the Sho’ah, the destruction of European Jewry in the Second World War.
For those of us who feel keenly that lack of simplicity in belief, we come face to face with a question that asks, demands, YHWH to justify him/her/itself for these events. In effect, those with that ‘wintry’ sense of faith, wanted, and still want, to do exactly what the daemon wanted Jesus to do: test YHWH.
Like John the Baptist (Luke 7:18-20) we wintry types want to know, “are you the one, or should we look for another?” Like Job we want YHWH to provide evidence for who it is claimed that YHWH is. Not being able to do that, we sometimes wonder therefore if we are indeed, as a species, alone in a hostile universe, that YHWH is not among us. Perhaps the less angry, less bloodthirsty atheists are correct.
If I were to live with any sense of equilibrium or balance, I have to do one of three incompatible things: a) accept the daemon as a messenger of knowledge, and walk away, b) banish the daemon (only YHWH could do this) or c) chain the daemon down in order to know where it is all the time. For some reason (which I do not understand) the first option has been unacceptable to me. The second, getting rid of the daemon, I do not know how to do and so I wait for YHWH. The only viable option is to do the third. And so, at first quite unconsciously, I began to fashion links for a chain that would tie this daemon down. These links are a set of rationalizations, explanations into which new understanding had to come and some older, more traditional ones had to be left behind.
The first of these was that YHWH is not all-powerful. YHWH cannot stop time. YHWH cannot make gravity stop functioning. YHWH cannot stop evil people from doing evil. YHWH cannot stop evil people from becoming evil by changing either their genetic or sociological make-up. I had to choose: either YHWH is all-powerful and can stop evil and suffering but chooses not to or YHWH has chosen a way that demonstrates that YHWH is not all-powerful and has some other mechanism or means whereby YHWH influences the world.
The second link in the chain was that it is not YHWH who does evil. It is not the devil either. Evil happens because human beings do evil. They do evil because there is something in their genes that never enabled them to have a conscience or through their childhood never were able to learn compassion and mercy and therefore are bereft of YHWH, and the most important elements of what it means to be a human being
That third link is that we live in a dangerous universe. Natural disasters, disease simply happens, because we live in such a universe. It and YHWH are not evil; they simply are. Indeed, we live in a universe in which human beings have a part. We are not separate creatures from the world. Our actions and inactions influence creation. Biologically we are dust and to dust we shall return. Therefore we die, some of us tragically, before our time: children, young parents, and young people. Some of us slowly suffer and there is little that we can do. Sometimes there is even less that YHWH can do because YHWH cannot break the laws that YHWH himself has, we believe, put in place.
The fourth link is that YHWH is not absent from suffering, absent from the world. YHWH is not an “unmoved mover,” without passion, without care for creation.
And so, sometimes I feel a bit like a former archbishop (D. Sommerville) of British Columbia: “Occasionally atheism hits me like a very bad flu. Eventually I recover and continue on.” The reason I have spoken at length about this test and about my own daemon associated with it, is because I am certain that I am not alone. I am certain that most people at least a few times in their lives experience serious doubt about whether YHWH is with us, whether we are in fact alone. Some of these, like myself, experience it rather severely, others only in passing. Their baggage and their more significant daemons lie in wait elsewhere.
The other tests or temptations in the story of Jesus in the wilderness had faithful resolutions to them. What then might be the faithful resolution to this particular test? If you are waiting for me to tell you that the faithful resolution to this test is not to doubt or not to question or to encourage you to believe that YHWH is ‘in full control’ of the universe, I cannot tell you those things, for I do not believe that they are faithful resolutions to the test.
I believe that a faithful resolution must include the capacity to doubt and the capacity to question. For when we doubt and when we question, a freedom arises that cannot be had any other way, a freedom that allows us to expand to our deepest understanding of our humanity and of YHWH. I have to say that doubt, when it turns into cynicism, is by far the greatest danger with this test. But even then in some circumstances it is to be wondered at that even cynicism might be an acceptable response. In some cases cynicism stemming from doubt may, oddly enough, be the only possible faithful response.
Along with the capacity to doubt and question, the most important faithful resolution to the question of whether YHWH is with us is what I named as the fourth link in the chain that holds down my personal daemon: that YHWH is not absent from suffering. Perhaps the most famous words in the Christian Scriptures are John 3:16: “For YHWH so loved the world that he gave his only son…” These words essentially underline the point. In Jesus on the cross we believe that YHWH is revealed as not without passion. YHWH is not without knowing suffering. Indeed, the message of the Gospel is that YHWH has taken within YHWH’s very self the essence of humanity, its wonders and its joys, its very dust and its very spirit.
This is why ethics, morality, knowing the difference between righteousness and evil, knowing the difference between darkness and light in our lives is so important. To repeat: YHWH does not have the power of a police officer, a soldier, a fire-fighter or a social worker to stop disasters from happening or to stop evil people from doing evil things. Nor thank YHWH is YHWH a have to. Those are our jobs.
I had earlier suggested that YHWH has some other attraction, some other mechanism or form of ‘power’ at work in the world. This ‘power’ is nothing short of persuasive love, defined as mercy and compassion. How we know this about YHWH is through such statements as John 3:16. But most particularly we know it through the acting out by Christians of their understanding of what YHWH is like: namely a YHWH who takes humanity (its suffering, its joys, its wonders and its dust) into YHWH’s very self. As animated dust we are called to use all our heart, soul, strength and mind to be messengers of compassion, peace, healing and wholeness in the world. To do this is to deal with the daemon of doubt, and indeed all daemons, in a way that cannot be defeated.
There is another piece to this puzzle about how we are to do this, how we are to act as YHWH’s messengers in the world, how as Christians we are to be Christ to the world around us, but of that we must speak next week.
Is YHWH missing? Does YHWH exist? Is the Lord really among us or not? Individually we can answer those questions only in the deserts of our own minds and souls. But when we enter the public arena of relationships (family, friends, business, faith [trust] community), the only way we can answer those questions adequately is how we act towards one another, how much charity we have and act upon, thus dispelling the wind of sand that blow from the deserts of others and perhaps at the same time, our own. As the author of I John, in a desperate moment, put it “Behold, how they love one another”.
Please remain seated as we pray. Holy YHWH, we have a choice when we are confronted by your absence. We either walk away and do the best we can without reference to you, or we choose to seek you in the world around us- in other human beings. This test is about trusting that you are with us, even in absence. Give us the grace to love, for not to love is to fail the test. Amen.
**I believe it was Bertrand Russell (Why I am Not a Christian [?]) who first articulated the specific calumny that, ‘the amount of deaths caused by religion is the highest of any human group’. Besides the lack of evidence accompanying such statements, the deaths of so many in the 20th century alone by atheistic leaders and their worshippers is far higher than any group of religious persons…however, atheists have a point. Every religion has some passing reference to the dictum ‘you shall love your neighbour as [you love] yourself’, but at the same time find any number of realpolitik reasons to kill or cause harm (to sin) against other human beings.
by michael | Mar 12, 2023 | Christianity Blog
Important qualifications:
- I use YHWH (YHWH) because it saves me from calling YHWH by any male/female pronoun. I am also a cousin to YHWH’s people and so a better respect for YHWH is due.
- This text, like the others, are works in progress. If someone writes to let me know of a misspelled word etc or some other grammar-like possible correction necessary, i will change it. I will do the same if I find or am told that there is a logical problem within the context of the argument.
- There are footnotes to these texts, for further reading or from which direct quotes were derived.
Two weeks ago we entered the desert for Lent. The desert experience of Jesus, from the stories in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, is also ours. It was not unique to him, but to all humanity. The temptations or testing that he faced there in that dry and difficult place of the spirit and the flesh were three very real and very human temptations or testings. We do not know how Jesus faced them throughout his life, but we know our own responses to them.
Last week the text confronted with the first of the three, that of bread or consumption. This temptation or time of testing tempts us to make a god out of what we consume, to assume that we are only animals with enormous stomachs. The challenge of this test was to consider ourselves to be more than biological entities that consume, that we do not exist to serve the holy market of goods and services. It should exist to serve us as a useful and valuable tool, but only a tool. Bread is the subtlest temptation while the one we consider today is the most deadly for ourselves and others. This is the temptation that comes with the desire for power, the temptation to control, not love, humans and YHWH.(1)
An example of this temptation is the story of Herod Antipas, which is often read at this time of year. He had taken John the Baptist’s head.(2) This is unchecked power: the power to control, coerce, manipulate, and kill. This is power that emphasizes a human being’s arrogance and love of self rather than love of neighbor, power that creates dreadful pride, pride that says: ‘I am god’.
In the story of Jesus in the desert, Jesus’ personal daemon takes him to some high place and shows him the kingdoms of the world and tells him that if he would but worship him (the devil or the daemon) that he could have all that the kingdoms of the world can offer. What is Jesus’ response through Matthew and Luke? “Worship the Lord your YHWH and serve only him” (Deuteronomy 6:13). I tied this quotation to another section in Deuteronomy (5:22-27). When the people were at the mountain where Moses received the Torah they saw no form of YHWH; a voice yes, but no form.(3) When they enter Canaan, they were not to make idols of the YHWH they think was there, because they cannot capture YHWH in images. If they do attempt to make such images. They will end up worshipping and serving something else, a pale copy and imitation of the real thing.(4)
Luke and Matthew tied this test to nations, kingdoms. What is it about nations and kingdoms that would be so tempting? Power. The term ‘nation’ implies a ruler or a king, someone with, then, had absolute power. In last week’s discussion about the testing by bread or consumption, we saw what would seem to be an obvious point: that what we buy or even the ability to buy itself can become an idol. Power is perhaps the most desirable idol of all. Think of how delicious it is: the ability to manipulate, move at will or control nature, nations, companies, institutions, even churches or other human beings (family, friends, employees-all those with whom we have relationships). It is the most compelling temptation. Why?
Because we can be like YHWH for a limited time without, to a point, human limits. Indeed, there are some who believe that is the next step in human evolution: that we should become gods. YHWH is dead, long live creatures of dust and water! That is why Matthew and Luke made power the chief temptation; it leads us from worship of YHWH who cannot be portrayed in any form; power gives us the illusion that we are gods. Rather than gods of stone and wood, which is what the Israelites sometimes made in trying to be like their neighbors, we make idols of flesh and blood; ourselves and other humans. Are we worthy of such adoration?
There is a difference between power and authority. Power is something that has little or no accountability attached to its use. Power, in the church in particular and not obvious. It operates in secret. It uses silence more effectively than litigation or a fist, though there are plenty of obvious examples of both. Power is something that is taken, not earned. Authority, however, has checks and balances. It operates in the open. There are clear lines of accountability. It is earned, not attached to a role because the role exists. Jesus was someone with authority, but no power. When he went into the temple and drove out merchants and bankers, he did so as someone with authority but no power. The Romans killed him because they and a few of the leaders in Jerusalem recognized his authority and they were afraid.
Such authority changes the world.(5) That is why this temptation would have been so appealing to Jesus and especially for his followers: to have power and authority at the same time would enable one to change the world, to bend others to one’s own will. And in fact, after 312 C.E. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (and under Theodosius I in 381 c.e. made it the official religion of the Empire), the church acquired that: authority with power, together at last, for good and for evil.
There is not any temptation or test as disturbing for us or for the ancients as this one. It is the most alluring because we then would no longer be servants, but masters. We think we can depose YHWH and take YHWH’s place. For we have great power. We have unlocked many secrets to the universe that would, to people living even 100 years ago, seem miraculous. Our technological wizardry will increase. Our understanding of the universe will no doubt increase. To our ancestors, we might seem like gods. Or would we?
Would some of them perhaps be driven to ask us questions? For example: yes, you (moderns) understand much about the universe and the world. You can map the human genes that tell us about what we shall look like, even of what some of us might die. You have gone into the void of space and returned. It is possible to increase yields of crops that can feed millions. We, your ancestors, could not do such things and could not explain or make sense of such things. Yet, do you know it all? Can you explain everything? Can you know all the implications of your actions for the future, and the generations to come? If you could do all this, does this mean that increasing knowledge and wisdom is at an end? That mystery is gone? Is not by your own science the universe revealed to be much more mysterious than we have ever known it to be? Are we humans superior political animals, doomed to react to a kind of Darwinian, cutthroat, only the-strong-shall-survive impulse? Is wisdom found only in modern technology and understanding? Is the essence of humanity tied up only in our technological abilities, or also in our capacity for wisdom and compassion? A recognition that the blood of one is shared by billions? Does not our ancient wisdom have anything to say to you?(6)
We in our society do not ask such questions as much as we ought, as we used to do, especially the profound one about whether we are gods and who have the authority to manipulate, control nations and peoples, nature itself. The test in the desert is to think of ourselves as divine. Because we can, does not mean we ought. YHWH, through nature, has made us into intelligent creatures, with brains and the ability to understand and learn. The Christian version of the Shema, the ‘Hear, O Israel’ (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and Mark 12:29-30): affirms that “You shall love the Lord, YHWH, with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.” No one should be required, or even choose, or encouraged to leave their brain at the door of any worshipping community. That said, however, the power that human beings have been able to gain should make us pause and to think about its use, especially since it is human to be fallible, to make mistakes. And of course the texts remind us that there is only one who is worthy of our love, our worship, and that is not ourselves. As soon as we open the door to authority, we can no longer act without a sense of responsibility for the same.
These are questions not alone for philosophers, theologians and scientists. They are questions for us all because even the weakest and smallest of humans is not immune to the lure of human will to power. To be like gods permeates the human experience, especially at the level of personal morality, how we conduct ourselves as living souls. We all love to pretend that we are higher than the average human, that we can play god in our relationships at work, home, in tour worship communities, to our own benefit and not to the benefit of others. We each know when we do this or when someone else has done the same to us. As Christians, we forget or ignore the admonition by Jesus and the early church that Jesus was a servant, not a king, that he had no power but authority, that he died as a criminal and through that death we Christians point at him and say this is what YHWH is like and therefore that we humans are called to become more like YHWH.
YHWH’s power—miraculous or divine, is not like that of Herod’s,—mastery over something, the ability to control, manipulate, even kill at will. YHWH’s self-giving, emptying nature, for the sake of humans is revealed. YHWH’s power is only that of persuasive love, not force of arms or absolute control. All this is, of course, grist for the mill of another reflection in a few weeks.
One other point, before we end this reflection about this testing of power. In our desire to be more than intelligent, created star dust we make one more assumption: that we can control the thing we worship. I suspect that the ancient Israelites, when they decided to, on occasion, build stone and wood figures of what they thought YHWH was like, did so because they thought that by imaging YHWH they could control YHWH, or the power of the YHWHs. The essence of the sin of idols is not the idols themselves but the human temptation of the will to power,(7) the power of what we imagine is that of a god. It is our pride that assumes that we can be such and unless we are very careful, such will to power can, has done, and continues to, cause enormous harm.
Last week the text confronted with the first of the three, that of bread or consumption. This temptation or time of testing tempts us to make a god out of what we consume, to assume that we are only animals with enormous stomachs. The challenge of this test was to consider ourselves to be more than biological entities that consume, that we do not exist to serve the holy market of goods and services. It should exist to serve us as a useful and valuable tool, but only a tool. Bread is the subtlest temptation while the one we consider today is the most deadly for ourselves and others. This is the temptation that comes with the desire for power, the temptation to control, not love, humans and YHWH.(1)
An example of this temptation is the story of Herod Antipas, which is often read at this time of year. He had taken John the Baptist’s head.(2) This is unchecked power: the power to control, coerce, manipulate, and kill. This is power that emphasizes a human being’s arrogance and love of self rather than love of neighbor, power that creates dreadful pride, pride that says: ‘I am God’.
In the story of Jesus in the desert, Jesus’ personal daemon takes him to some high place and shows him the kingdoms of the world and tells him that if he would but worship him (the devil or the daemon) that he could have all that the kingdoms of the world can offer. What is Jesus’ response through Matthew and Luke? “Worship the Lord your God and serve only him” (Deuteronomy 6:13). I tied this quotation to another section in Deuteronomy (5:22-27). When the people were at the mountain where Moses received the Torah they saw no form of a god; a voice yes, but no form.(3) When they enter Canaan, they were not to make idols of the YHWH they think was there, because they cannot capture YHWH in images. If they do attempt to make such images. They will end up worshipping and serving something else, a pale copy and imitation of the real thing.(4)
Luke and Matthew tied this test to nations, kingdoms. What is it about nations and kingdoms that would be so tempting? Power. The term ‘nation’ implies a ruler or a king, someone with, then, had absolute power. In last week’s discussion about the testing by bread or consumption, we saw what would seem to be an obvious point: that what we buy or even the ability to buy itself can become an idol. Power is perhaps the most desirable idol of all. Think of how delicious it is: the ability to manipulate, move at will or control nature, nations, companies, institutions, even churches or other human beings (family, friends, employees-all those with whom we have relationships). It is the most compelling temptation. Why?
Because we can be like YHWH for a limited time without, to a point, human limits. Indeed, there are some who believe that is the next step in human evolution: that we should become gods. YHWH is dead, long live creatures of dust and water! That is why Matthew and Luke made power the chief temptation; it leads us from worship of YHWH who cannot be portrayed in any form; power gives us the illusion that we are gods. Rather than gods of stone and wood, which is what the Israelites sometimes made in trying to be like their neighbors, we make idols of flesh and blood; ourselves and other humans. Are we worthy of such adoration?
There is a difference between power and authority. Power is something that has little or no accountability attached to its use. Power, in the church in particular and not obvious. It operates in secret. It uses silence more effectively than litigation or a fist, though there are plenty of obvious examples of both. Power is something that is taken, not earned. Authority, however, has checks and balances. It operates in the open. There are clear lines of accountability. It is earned, not attached to a role because the role exists. Jesus was someone with authority, but no power. When he went into the temple and drove out merchants and bankers, he did so as someone with authority but no power. The Romans killed him because they and a few of the leaders in Jerusalem recognized his authority and they were afraid.
Such authority changes the world.(5) That is why this temptation would have been so appealing to Jesus and especially for his followers: to have power and authority at the same time would enable one to change the world, to bend others to one’s own will. And in fact, after 312 C.E. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (and under Theodosius I in 381 c.e. made it the official religion of the Empire), the church acquired that: authority with power, together at last, for good and for evil.
There is not any temptation or test as disturbing for us or for the ancients as this one. It is the most alluring because we then would no longer be servants, but masters. We think we can depose YHWH and take YHWH’s place. For we have great power. We have unlocked many secrets to the universe that would, to people living even 100 years ago, seem miraculous. Our technological wizardry will increase. Our understanding of the universe will no doubt increase. To our ancestors, we might seem like gods. Or would we?
Would some of them perhaps be driven to ask us questions? For example: yes, you (moderns) understand much about the universe and the world. You can map the human genes that tell us about what we shall look like, even of what some of us might die. You have gone into the void of space and returned. It is possible to increase yields of crops that can feed millions. We, your ancestors, could not do such things and could not explain or make sense of such things. Yet, do you know it all? Can you explain everything? Can you know all the implications of your actions for the future, and the generations to come? If you could do all this, does this mean that increasing knowledge and wisdom is at an end? That mystery is gone? Is not by your own science the universe revealed to be much more mysterious than we have ever known it to be? Are we humans superior political animals, doomed to react to a kind of Darwinian, cutthroat, only the-strong-shall-survive impulse? Is wisdom found only in modern technology and understanding? Is the essence of humanity tied up only in our technological abilities, or also in our capacity for wisdom and compassion? A recognition that the blood of one is shared by billions? Does not our ancient wisdom have anything to say to you?(6)
We in our society do not ask such questions as much as we ought, as we used to do, especially the profound one about whether we are gods and who have the authority to manipulate, control nations and peoples, nature itself. The test in the desert is to think of ourselves gods. Because we can, does not mean we ought. God, through nature, has made us into intelligent creatures, with brains and the ability to understand and learn. The Christian version of the Shema, the ‘Hear, O Israel’ (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and Mark 12:29-30): affirms that “You shall love the Lord, YHWH, with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.” No one should be required, or even choose, or encouraged to leave their brain at the door of any worshipping community. That said, however, the power that human beings have been able to gain should make us pause and to think about its use, especially since it is human to be fallible, to make mistakes. And of course the texts remind us that there is only one who is worthy of our love, our worship, and that is not ourselves. As soon as we open the door to authority, we can no longer act without a sense of responsibility for the same.
These are questions not alone for philosophers, theologians and scientists. They are questions for us all because even the weakest and smallest of humans is not immune to the lure of human will to power. To be like gods permeates the human experience, especially at the level of personal morality, how we conduct ourselves as living souls. We all love to pretend that we are gods, that we can play YHWH in our relationships at work, home, in the church, to our own benefit and not to the benefit of others. We each know when we do this or when someone else has done the same to us. As Christians, we forget or ignore the admonition by Jesus and the early church that Jesus was a servant, not a king, that he had no power but authority, that he died as a criminal and through that death we Christians point at him and say this is what YHWH is like and therefore that we humans are called to become more like YHWH.
YHWH’s power—miraculous or divine, is not like that of Herod’s,—mastery over something, the ability to control, manipulate, even kill at will. YHWH’s self-giving, emptying nature, for the sake of humans is revealed. YHWH’s power is only that of persuasive love, not force of arms or absolute control. All this is, of course, grist for the mill of another reflection in a few weeks.
One other point, before we end this reflection about this testing of power. In our desire to be more than intelligent, created star dust we make one more assumption: that we can control the thing we worship. I suspect that the ancient Israelites, when they decided to, on occasion, build stone and wood figures of what they thought YHWH was like, did so because they thought that by imaging YHWH they could control YHWH, or the power of the gods. The essence of the sin of idols is not the idols themselves but the human temptation of the will to power,(7) the power of a god. It is our pride that assumes that we can be such and unless we are very careful, such will to power can, has done, and continues to, cause enormous harm.
Footnotes
(1) YHWH is the tetragrammaton. Another way of referring to YHWH is by G_D. For this reflection I will use YHWH when referring to the G_D of Israel, as a sign of respect but also of avoiding male and female language to refer to the Deity.
(2). Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9; Matthew 14: 1-12. Another is the story of Pilate ‘mixing the blood of certain Galilean worshippers at the temple with their sacrifices’ at Luke 13:1). A further one about Antipas’ father, Herod the Great, apocryphal or not, murdering the children of Bethlehem makes the same point: Matthew 2:16-18. As John Dominic Crossan wrote in a similar context: “This never happened; it happens all the time.”
(3) In that time it was a puzzling notion, as Pompey and Titus discovered, that there were no images of the Jews’ God. How do you kill a people’s trust in their YHWH if you cannot chop of their wood or stone heads? Their YHWH was unknowable, dark, hidden: “I am who am”, “I am what I am” or “I will be what I will be” or even “I create what(ever) I create.” Or more literally, “I am”, “I was”, and “I will be.” Exodus 3:14. See Stone, Robert E, II (2000). “I Am Who I Am”. In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. Eerdman’s dictionary of the bIble.
(4) Paul refers to one of these stories in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, using it as a way of talking about deep spiritual realities to his Gentile converts and readers.
(5). Consider Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parkes, that young Chinese man who stood in the way of the tanks at Tiananmen square, Power alone of course has changed the world as well. Think of the usual persons of this type: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol pot; indeed any similar intended Caesars who are still alive, unlike those who die through the implementation of their policies. These persons had/have naked power, unclothed; no checks and balances, completely non-limited.
(6). Wade Davis, The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World, being the 2009 CBC Massey Lecture (Toronto: Anansi, 2009).
(7) There is considerable debate about what Friedrich Nietzsche meant by this phrase. I prefer the following: “My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (“union”) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on—” Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, a new translation by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage books, a division of Random House, 1967), 339-340 (636 March-June 1888).
by michael | Mar 5, 2023 | Christianity Blog
Important qualifications:
- I use YHWH (YHWH) because it saves me from calling YHWH by any male/female pronoun. I am also a cousin to YHWH’s people and so a better respect for YHWH is due.
- This text, like the others, are works in progress. If someone writes to let me know of a misspelled word etc or some other grammar-like possible correction necessary, i will change it. I will do the same if I find or am told that there is a logical problem within the context of the argument.
- There are footnotes to these texts, for further reading or from which direct quotes were derived.
Last week the writers of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke invited us to walk for a time in the desert, a place where we could unpack our baggage and struggle with our personal daemons. Times of testing are varied in their kinds and their severity, depending upon the individual. The three temptations of Jesus in the desert are universal and very human opportunities (or daemonic curses) through which we confront our humanity, as did Jesus. Most of our private temptations or daemons connect with these three central temptations. In this reflection we will examine the first, the temptation or testing by bread.
Matthew and Luke stated this temptation in the same way. Jesus’ daemon challenges him to make stones into bread, in order to survive. The author of the Gospel has Jesus quote a part of Deuteronomy (8:3): “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
The author of Deuteronomy reminds the people that YHWH led them through the desert for forty years, “in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart… he let you hunger to understand that one does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” YHWH used suffering in the desert to teach or discipline the people. And so the authors of the Gospels have Jesus go into the desert for forty days, following a similar path and, like them, learn discipline through (inevitable) suffering.
What is the test or temptation here? The temptation is to believe that bread is enough, that what we have is not only sufficient for all our needs but that that assumption is proper as the sum of human existence. To put it in a modern way: the temptation here is to believe that we are only animals that consume, that we are mere mall rats, that we are nothing more or less than servants (slaves?) or units or cogs in the market of goods and services. For our society, this temptation is not a temptation: it is a fact. Those who benefit from the dictates of the market assume that you and I are units of a consumer society and that ‘bread and circuses’, food and entertainment, we keep us pacified. We will ignore the bigger and more important issues.
The circus or entertainment-in-order-to-numb(1) us into lethargy about anything significant exists in most TV programs. Will they, do they, inform us of reality or are we numbed from reality? They entertain us at a base and banal level. As we watch, we consume (or are we consumed?). Is this all we are to live for, all for what we exist? If the result is numbness in the mental and spiritual limbs, then some other purpose is being served than our benefit.
A few other statements from our culture that underscores this reality of bread and circuses:
Time Magazine (2005)[2] published a passionate discussion about evolution and the belief of some that the Genesis story of the world’s creation is a literal, even scientific description of that event. In subsequent issues of the magazine the inevitable letters-to-the-editor arrived. Among them was this one: “Anyone who thinks that there is only one kind of Homo Sapiens on this planet has never shopped at Walmart!” Though humorous, it points at our culture’s love (passionate intensity or lust) for shopping, our being defined as consumers, buyers and sellers.
Another quote that reflects this bread and circuses theme. At the turn of the twentieth century a baron of industry in the United States was asked: “when will you have enough money?” This chap said: “after the next dollar.”(3)
A few pithy sayings from our culture: “Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.” “More is better.” “Greed is good.” And one of my favourites: “Life is a race; he or she who has the most toys at the end, wins.”
Of the three temptations in the story of Jesus in the desert this one, of bread, is the subtlest. It is so because we need to be consumers. Food, clothing, and houses are things we need to buy. As well, we must invest, plan for retirement. To keep our economy healthy, we need to consume. Yet quietly, and with our most peaceful acquiescence we give in to the assumption that we are only an animal that consumes; nothing less, nothing more.
Our economic system has moved from what Italian economist Pier Luigi Sacco said was once an economy of necessity versus an economy of desire.(4) This assumption that we ‘buy, therefore we exist’ is so subtle that unless we step back from our whole life and start examining it piece by piece, we will never see how much the market controls and dictates to us our desires and even our needs rather than us seeing the market as a useful tool or a means to an end.(5)
The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have Jesus speak about this issue of being a consumer and being a spiritual creature. We are both, yet in our role as a consuming animal we often neglect our spirits or souls. Matthew’s Jesus says it interestingly. He says that we must not worry about such things as clothing, housing, food and so forth. This is exaggeration of course. We must worry or think about such things to a certain point. The issue is: do not worry about it. If you do, the worry will consume you and then all that is left you is your animal instinct, your nature as a consuming animal. The weightier matters of the soul or the spirit, says Matthew’s Jesus, are more important. Why? Because who you are or who you are becoming is more important than what you have.
Our culture is not the only one of course that struggles with the difficulty of being both creatures that consume and creatures that, as the Judeo-Christian tradition puts it, made in the image of God. Our culture in North America and the rest of the West, which consumes the vast majority of the world’s goods, is like 17th century Holland. It too was a time when opportunity to amass great wealth and possessions was a key goal for most people. Holland was on the cusp of radical change. Its citizens had a love for the shopping bag and had become a society that saw itself as a market for buyers and sellers. There were some, however, who had seen more deeply into the roots and reality of the situation, recognized it for what it was and put things into perspective. These artists thried during the Dutch Golden Age.(6) They painted wonderful scenes of flowers in vases, of dining room scenes as if the diners had left the table a few moments before.
When one sees these paintings for the first tim, their beauty and precision are captivating. But as one admires and examines them more closely, one notices a few odd bits and pieces. One might notice a bug, cockroach, ant or centipede or fly on the flowers, the table, or frozen in flight. One might notice that certain flowers are quite dead and dripping its leaves, caught at that precise moment between being dead and the whispy last colours and vitality of life yet remains.
Their point; yes, life is beautiful and wondrous and having things beyond what we need and enjoying the wealth that we have is akin to being among the blessed, but all of it will come to an end. Everything we have, possessions, children, everything, are loaners. Things decay, decompose and go the way of the natural world. ‘You are dust and to dust you shall return’, the Ash Wednesday service reminds us (cf. Genesis 3:19b). These paintings were both a protest and a critique; that life is more than about buying and selling. They would agree that human beings are not mere consumers, intelligent animals with inexhaustible desire for more (cf. Philippians 3:19). If we are not mere animals with enormous bellies, consumers driven like cattle before the holy financial market of our time, then what are we?
Deuteronomy’s author wrote, “human beings do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of YHWH.” You are not only a creature that consumes; you are more than that. You are also a creature of YHWH. You are a creature that exists between heaven and earth, a mixture of biology and intellect/spirit/soul, whatever name you wish to give to the essence within us that enables us to know that we are both finite biological creatures and creatures that ‘know that they know’ and wonder about eternity and the sometimes almost painful and startling beauty that surrounds us but which we can never possess.
We are creatures, also, which fight a battle between higher values and responsibilities and lower ones. We are animated stardust; creatures of earth, atoms, chemicals and water, and yet we are more precious to YHWH than anything we can possess or purchase. Human beings are, in YHWH’s estimation, of infinite value. To cheapen such existence through calculation only of purchasing power, or how much we have/earn or are worth (our net asset value) is to cheapen our worth.
This is the first ubiquitous human temptation. In it we can find a few of our own daemons buried somewhere in our baggage. One of those daemons is idol worship: the idol of the thing possessed and of the ability to possess or buy a thing and above all else the value that we place on the things. At its worst, succumbing to this temptation leads to an anti-god, anti-faith point of view because we become self-centered and resent anyone questioning the current prime value of being able to buy whatever we would like, whenever we like, regardless of the cost to others or the planet.(7) Struggling with this testing leads us to question the values of our culture and to consider another claim to truth: that we are called to higher value, a value that we find in our relationships with YHWH and with our neighbors. We are a union of soul and body, spirit and flesh; to neglect either is to stunt both.
As you continue to walk the path of the desert during these weeks of Lent, following Jesus’ own journey, consider your participation in the market’s life. Is it a tool to be used for the benefit of everyone, including your own? Do you wish to be ruled by a tool? Does it rule you, or do you walk your own path? Are you an animal with a belly or an animal also with a soul?
(1) See Neil Postman, Amusing ourselves to death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1985).
(2) Various authors, ‘The Evolution Wars,’ Time Magazine, August 5, 2005. See on the Web also: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601050815,00.html.
(3 This was probably J. Paul Getty, who also said: “If you can count your money, you are not rich.” Another candidate for the quote is John D. Rockefeller who said: “I believe the ability to make money is a gift from God.” George W. Bush once said to a group of some of the wealthiest individuals in the U.S: “This is an impressive crowd; the have’s, and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” On the Web at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls.
(4) Sacco taught ‘economics of culture’ in Venice, Italy and was in conversation with commentator Avi Lewis on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Ideas program, ‘Economics and Social Justice’. Toronto CBC Radio one, 2006. On the Web at http://library.avemaria.edu/title/economics-social-justice/oclc/265222891.
(5) This is not to say that the corporations which are the chief architects of the market as we know it today are all ‘evil’. See Jim Collins and Jerry I. Porras, Built to last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperBusiness, 1994). Alternatively, see Wade Rowland, Greed Inc., Why Corporations Rule Our World (Arcade, 2006) and John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (London/New York; Verso, 2002).
(6) See for example Balthasar van der Ast (1593-1657), c. 1629, Still life of Flowers, Fruit, Shells and Insects, [med], institution; Pieter Claesz (1597-1660), c. 1625, Vanitas, [, Willem Claesz Heda, (1593/94-1680), c.1635, Banquet Piece with Mince Pie, [ and c. 1645 Breakfast Still Life with Blackberry Pie, [, Abraham Mignon (1640-1679), c.1675, Still Life with Fruit, Fish and a Nest, [, Jan Davidsz de Heem, (1606-1683/84), c. 1660, Vase of Flowers [, . Wendy Beckett, SNDdeN, with contributing consultant Patrica Wright, The Story of Painting: The essential guide to the history of Western Art (Toronto/Boston/New York/London: Little Brown in association with the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., 1994), 206. See Madlyn Millner Kahr, Dutch Painting in the seventeenth century, second ed. (New York: Harper-Collins Publishers Inc.,1993, 1st published in 1978), 198 and E. De Jongh, Questions of Meaning: Theme and motif in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting, trans., and edited by Michael Hoyle (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2000), 130-148. An early 21st century brilliant musical composition by the Swedish band, Kent, upon their ceasing as a band is Då Som Nu För Alltid. (“Then as now for always -or former), in which Death pounds a drum beat as a huge crowd and varius living creatures follow on a march. Production company: INDIO, Director: Adam Berg, DoP: Mattias Montero.
(7) An excellent example of this writ large is Leopold II and his turning the Congo into his private company town, the repercussions of which continue. See Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa (Houghton/Mifflin Harcourt, 1997).
by michael | Feb 22, 2023 | Christianity Blog
Ash Wednesday is the start of the Christian tradition of Lent, which lasts for forty days, ending on Easter Sunday (this year, April 9).
Lent is for hunting demons. Yours.
Every faith tradition has something like Lent. And each of them are similar in what they offer to humans. I mean these traditions are not meant to wholly and exclusively focus on one’s sins (read: moral failures, errors the result of which cause harm). I mean such traditions are meant to help a human being, not to bemoan their sins or wear hair shirts, but learn about their humanity, and improve.
They encourage us during the 40 days to ask ourselves questions: 1) Paul Gauguin: “Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?” These questions one can ask when thinking about humanity (and G_d knows of late we need to be asking them). But for lent it is appropriate to ask them of ourselves. 2) Hillel the Elder: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” Other questions might be similar but more personal: Who am I? What makes me happy? How do I maintain a moral stance in a world where the line and the balance between what is good and humane versus what is not? Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labour on what does not satisfy? (Isaiah 55:1).
We also ask questions of G_d. Does G_d exist? How can I know for sure? How can a good G_d exist with so much harm happening in the world? If I were to commit myself in trust (not ‘faith’ as in credenda) to G_d, how do I do that? If I do that, how will it help me answer all these other questions? Regarding Christianity, on what basis would I trust myself to God in any of the institutions known as churches at this point in history?
Participation in Lent is a starting point, to add to or development a practice that can help us address (or scream at, or think about, or share about) some of those questions above. Or perhaps just one, whatever one thinks is the most important. One adds or subtracts activities during those 40 days. Add or subtract food or drink, read a book or two or more that challenges our perception of ourselves and the world, gather for sacred meals with others who are of a similar disposition.
One thing I have learned in walking this road of 40 miles (days) is that i have to work at being committed to whatever I feel I need to do, but also have compassion for myself when I fall down (as long as it does not turn into narcissism) . The second most important thing I have learned is that I have to learn to have compassion for others at the same time. I imagine the journey to be walking the El Camino. One is alone walking the dusty road, heavy loads on the back and in thee ind or heart, imminent sore parts of the body, the weight of a conscience perhaps and then sometimes we walk with others for a time, share a meal, learn kindness and generosity but still trust that this walk is not only worth it, but necessary.
But one has to know that this journey, travelled with integrity, commitment and a trust in the spiritual nature of the work, one never knows what will come up or out of our minds or memories. After all these years, it may be ancient feelings of hurt or shame. Guilt over something we didn’t feel guilty about before, but now that we have grown a little, we have become conscious of it is another feeling. We may find there is a good deal more work for us to do, beyond this year’s lent. Whatever we might call these things that arise, I call them demons. I believe and have complete faith that demons exist. They are not the ones you are thinking of; it is not a personal devil or demon or a dude named ‘satan’, but they are real. And they are ours, and ours alone; it is they that claw their way into our soul and hearts and minds, invited in by ourselves or let in by others.
This is the genuine work of Lent: to hunt our demons, root them out and find a place to put them so we know where they are. And never forget. The threat is that we start out well but then get nervous or afraid or angry and we take a byway off the road, throw our burdened backpack into a closet and lock it all away again, this time forever. Be warned: this journey, this work, is serious stuff. It is hard work. If one continues to the end, they can be healthier, saner, less anxious. Not perfect or ‘done’, but more human and more humane to others.
Over the course of the next 40 days I will add a piece each week to this blog. I am doing this because i need to be reminded again about what I am doing, about my struggle with trust, about this journey and answering questions. These submissions will be based upon a text from the Abramic Codicil (the scriptures of the Christians) that is read on the first Sunday of Lent (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-12-Mark has a much shorter version).
These texts are about Jesus, as a human being. He faced the same demons and temptations as do we. through this story over the next few weeks, we will explore our psychic, spiritual and mental realities of our humanity, not about Jesus as divine or his story. This story is about the human beings who read and ponder these texts. They can be a guide and a help.
***
Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the tempter** He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. The tempter came and said, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
Then the tempter took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you,’ and. ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” The tempter took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and the tempter said, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Begone, tempter! for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”
The tempter left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him.
**The author of Matt’s Gospel uses two terms in greek for the being (five times) that meets Jesus in the desert: ‘satan’ and ‘diabolos’ Translators have used ‘devil’ or tempter for the latter. ‘Satan’ was a specific but quite obscure figure with the same kind of role. Four of the times written were diabolos. Why the writer chose to use ‘satan’ for the last is odd because both words have to do with literally someone who, “casts through,” i.e. making charges that bring down,” (destroy), to slander, accuse with a vengeance. Diabolos was turned into ‘devil’ centuries later. Think of an unscrupulous or nasty lawyer in a courtroom who has been paid off to get a conviction when you see the word ‘devil’ (diabolos). Jesus is being tempted, not threatened with fire and damnation.
***
