The Bible & Same Sex Relationships

The U.S. Supreme Court has now heard oral arguments on two cases about same sex marriage. Rulings on both are expected by late June 2013.

For Christians and non-Christians, much of the debate swirls around competing perceptions of ethical, moral and religious values with respect to sex and marriage. Despite much talk about the religious angle, there is widespread confusion about what the Bible says (and doesn’t say) on this topic.

So, the question addressed by this blog is: What does the Bible have to say about same sex relationships and marriage? The answer may surprise.

While both the Old and New Testaments have something to say, what they say is not enough to make a strong biblical case either for or against same gay marriage.

There may be good reasons to either support or object to gay marriage. But the reasons will need to be found somewhere else than in God’s revealed word.

And about the headliner photo with this blog - a mosaic of Amazons (lesbians?) at Sepphoris – just four miles from Jesus hometown of Nazareth. Sepphoris was destroyed about the time of Jesus’ birth after an uprising following the death of Herod the Great. Sepphoris was rebuilt by son Antipas as the capitol city of Galilee while Jesus was growing up. Did Joseph the carpenter (and possibly his son as apprentice) contribute to the rebuilding? One can only speculate.

Old Testament Accounts. So here we go. The earliest clear biblical reference to an attempted same sex relationship occurs in Genesis as the first book of the Bible. A person named Lot is the nephew of a man named Abraham who happens to be the spiritual patriarch of Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Lot is visited by two strangers (angels it appears) who arouse the sexual spirits of the men in the town of Sodom. They surround Lot’s house and call out: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

In an effort to protect his guests, Lot offers up his two virgin daughters instead. In the end, the two male angels end up protecting Lot and his daughters but tell him to leave quickly as God will destroy the city.

Looking out to the Dead Sea from Masada … Is Sodom out there somewhere?

Today, the act of anal penetration is known by the name of Lot’s home town as sodomy. However, it is noted that the real sin of the men of Sodom was less about same sex intercourse and more about forcible intercourse, i.e., rape.

A similar and, in many ways, even more bizarre case of attempted same sex action replaced by a raped female substitute is recorded in Judges 19. There are also several instances of what appears to be male cultic prostitution reported in 1 Kings 14, 15 and 22 and in 2 Kings 23.

A more specific prohibition is given by Moses to Hebrew men in Leviticus 18: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. ‘Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.”

In Leviticus 20, this prohibition is repeated but with the additional sanction of death for violators. The same death penalty is also proscribed for those involved in adultery with another man’s wife, or for those who mate with an animal.

New Testament Testimony. Moving to the New Testament, the first thing to note is that Jesus is not recorded by any of the four gospels as having anything to say about same sex relations.

On matters of sexuality, what Jesus has to say is directed at heterosexuals. And his warnings are stern. He stipulates clearly that any man who even “looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” If you think Jesus is kidding, the next words out of his mouth warn of judgment: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.”

In danger of hell-fire?! And all for just one longing gaze at a comely babe. Even pure-as-the-driven-snow former President Jimmy Carter stands condemned.

Jesus doesn’t stop there, but goes on to observe that “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” Well, that’s it for the roughly half of so-called American Christian adults who have divorced.

Admittedly, whether or not Jesus had ever desired or consummated sexual relations has long been a matter of some speculation at the margins of Christianity. The most persistent rumor (not without foundation) is that Jesus had a relationship with or perhaps even married Mary Magdalene. In recent years, this story was given added prominence by the Dan Brown novel The DaVinci Code.

An entirely different perspective in recent years has come about as a result of the supposed post-World War II discovery of a Secret Gospel of Mark suggesting a possible sexual relationship between Jesus and Lazarus. This fragmentary and disputed manuscript posits a same sex relationship between Jesus and Lazarus occurring in conjunction with the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. The account states that:

“Then Jesus went up and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. He went right in where the young man was, stuck out his hand, grabbed him by the hand, and raised him up. The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg to be with him. Then they left the tomb and went into the young man’s house. (Incidentally, he was rich). Six days later Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent that night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God’s domain. From there <Jesus> got up and returned to the other side of the Jordan.”

The author of this text is tentatively identified as the second century Clement of Alexandria. This secret Gospel of Mark was reputedly discovered by Morton Smith, professor of ancient history at ColumbiaUniversity at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958. Unfortunately, the document has never been independently authenticated.

On to Paul. The one New Testament writer with definite opinions about homosexual activity is the Johnny-come-lately apostle Paul. In the opening paragraphs of his letter to the Romans, Paul goes on a rant about those whom God has given up to “vile passions,” stating that: “For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful…”

An to the denizens of Corinth, Paul writes about the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God, boldly proclaiming that:

“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

And to Timothy who he was mentoring, Paul writes that:” the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”

Note two things with both of these Pauline passages. First, homosexuality is identified as a sin on a par with such other acts as fornication and adultery. Gay relationships may be viewed as not desired but they are no worse than sexual issues common to a broad cross-section of straight society.

Second, Paul notes (in his Corinthian letter) that, while a flaw, these and other sins are all subject to sanctification (or being made right) through Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit. In short, the kingdom of God is not necessarily closed even to those whom Paul would regard as guilty of ungodly behavior, no matter what the issue.

Back to Paul. Was Paul reacting primarily from his Jewish tradition? Or was he attempting to reflect what Christ had taught? The evidence suggests that the latter is the case.

What is fairly clear is that homosexual contact was generally not considered appropriate within 1^st century Judaism – though diverse opinions abounded with regard to matters of human sexuality. For example, the 1^st century BCE Jewish philosopher Hillel clearly disapproved of polygamy. In contrast, his more conservative counterpart Shammai approved.

Homosexual activity was widely known and practiced in the Roman world. Julius Caesar was as renowned for his dalliances with comely men (or boys) as for his liaison with Cleopatra. In his biography of the Caesar, Suetonius observes that “he was every woman’s man, and every man’s woman.”

Lesbian relationships were also the stuff of both myth and reality in the Greco-Roman world. Amazon women found their way into mosaics just a stone’s throw from Jesus boyhood home in Nazareth. And Paul the apostle –  a man of Jewish heritage and Roman citizenship – was sophisticated enough to be aware of both male and female homosexual relationships. Paul operated in multiple worlds.

By legend, Amazons mated with men only by necessity to maintain an all-female warrior race. This mosaic is also from Sepphoris (or Tzippori), a 1st century principal city of Galilee situated only 4 miles from Nazareth.

So while Paul claimed that much of his Christian teaching came from direct divine utterances, he does not claim this for his views related to same sex relations. In fact, Paul clearly distances himself from the other apostolic leaders of the early church who relied on what they had heard directly from Jesus. In a letter to the Galatians, Paul writes: “But from those who seemed to be something (like Church leaders James, Peter and John) —whatever they were, it makes no difference to me.”

In effect, Paul’s antipathy toward anything smacking of same sex contact appears to be rooted in: a) his own personal views rather than anything Jesus explicitly taught; and b) his personal practice based on a lifetime of asceticism that favored remaining celibate over marriage, and then marriage over homosexual behavior.

As he wrote to the church in Corinth: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

What conclusions can we draw from this? Three are offered here:

1. While same sex relationships may not be spoken of as favorably as those of the heterosexual variety by the Almighty, they clearly are not viewed any less favorably than other sexual activities – notably adultery and fornication – in which the majority of heterosexual and so-called American Christians have engaged. And there is evidence, particularly the testimony of Jesus, indicating that good old heterosexual issues like adultery were more pressing concerns to be addressed during his brief earthly ministry.
2. Homosexuality is less the issue than the nature of the human-human relationship. Rape is rape – whether of the homosexual or heterosexual variety. The true nature of the crime committed by the Sodomites of old has been misrepresented. Forcible intercourse – whether attempted or actualized – is the true evil.
3. There are undoubtedly arguments that can be made for and against gay marriage. But those arguments need to be made on grounds other than what is offered by Jewish and Christian scripture. Leave the Bible out of the gay marriage debate.

—————

To check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com

One Step Closer to Jesus’ Economy?

March 27 was supposed to be the day the U.S. government shut down. But surprise! That didn’t happen as the U.S. Congress (with surprising bipartisan support) and President agreed to a stop-gap measure funding federal agencies through the September 30 end of the fiscal year.

The sequester sticks but with more agency discretion in deciding how $85 billion in automatic spending cuts are to be made. Despite earlier claims of painful effects to the American consumer (as in long airport lines), that has not happened (at least not yet).

Wittingly or not, the Ds and Rs in Congress finally caught on to Jesus’ economic guideline #7 to “settle disputes quickly” (see February 24 blog post). The U.S. Congress and President may even be catching on to guideline #2 to “count the cost” (i.e., budget in advance).

Quick settlement is the first but by no means the only step to getting America’s financial house back in order. And there is growing realization of the steep cost of doing nothing.

For Mr. Obama, the too-painful-to-happen sequester is now the law of the land, potentially threatening to undermine his 2nd term agenda. For the fractured Republican opposition, the $85 billion sequester has been like using an axe for surgery that requires a scalpel. America’s national defense is on the sacrificial alter.

There will be many more quick settlements ahead. Implementation of Obamacare must be brought under control to avoid gobbling up all available GDP. Everyone – especially the consumer – needs to have skin in the game.  

Social Security needs to be reconfigured for long-term solvency – to avoid bankrupting Gen X adults 20-30 years down the road. Medicare and Medicaid need to be means tested and remove incentives for needless tests, procedures and pass-through billing. With increased longevity, threshold age limits for benefits need to be raised. And we need to get over the idea that it’s ok for a sacrosanct elderly generation to rob their kids blind.

What’s the key test ahead? Well, it comes from Jesus’ economic guideline #4: “Get your fair share, no less and no more.” As Jesus is reported to have said (by the non-canonical but very early Gospel of Thomas): “Give the emperor (i.e., government) what belongs to the emperor, give God (i.e., charity) what belongs to God, and give me (we know what that means) what is mine.”

This is the pivotal balancing act in what lies ahead. Determining what belongs to:

• The emperor (i.e. federal, state and local governments)
• God (as acts of unmerited mercy)
• Me (as the fruits of my labor and incentive to keep on giving rather than taking)

My prediction: America will spend the next generation figuring out how to reconfigure this balance. The future prospects of this grand democratic experiment may well hang on the new social compact realized.

————–

And, to check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com

Jesus’ Economy

 Did Jesus of Nazareth have anything to say about money and the economy? Anything relevant to today?

The answers are yes and yes! Seven observations are made by the master – all of which are relevant to issues ranging from the U.S. fiscal cliff to European recovery to Chinese protection of intellectual property. Here they are – seven economic guidelines that still echo true today:

1. Incentivize work. Incentives are like a double edge sword. As Jesus said when sending out his followers to cure the sick among the towns of the land: “the laborer deserves to be paid.” That’s the positive message – reward those who put forth the effort. If this is the carrot, there is also the stick or disincentive applied to those who don’t perform. Describing his followers as branches of a tree of which he is the trunk or the vine, Jesus warns: “Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.”
2. Budget in advance. Rhetorically, Jesus asks: For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him,saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand?
3. Help those in need, but be realistic about the results. No question about it, Jesus was an advocate for those of lesser means and the outcasts of society, calling out: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”
   

   Here or nearby – overlooking the Sea of Galilee – is where Jesus delivered his time-honored Sermon on the Mount. He blessed the poor (or the poor in spirit) and also counseled quick reconciliation with adversaries.

   But while we can aspire to do better, the issues of poverty and inequality will never be fully solved. Jesus the realist observes: “The poor will always be with you.” Help those who can not do it on their own and those ready help themselves – with a helping hand. Or as he would say to one seeking healing: “Take up your bed and walk.”

4. Get your fair share, no less and no more. As Jesus is reported to have said (by the non-canonical but very early Gospel of Thomas): Give the emperor (i.e., government) what belongs to the emperor, give God (i.e., charity) what belongs to God, and give me (we know what that means) what is mine.” The right balance of payment is subject to negotiation (essentially a market transaction). But government would be well advised to follow in the footsteps of the Master who suggested that: “My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
5. Expect return on investment. While Jesus suggested that wealthy followers sell their possessions and give to the poor, he also counseled prudence. In a well known parable (or story) told by Jesus, a wealthy nobleman rewards two servants who invest on the nobleman’s behalf and generate a profit back to the owner while punishing a third servant who stored his share of investment money in a handkerchief, avoiding loss but showing no return. For Jesus, the moral of the story is very simple and stark: “to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.”
6. Live abundantly – and for the moment. With money, Jesus suggested a long-term view. With life, he offered a different perspective, saying: “I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly.” For some, the abundance might be monetary. For most, abundance of life will be found in the realm of relationships with others and with the divine rather than economic success. And he made clear that life is about the here and now:

Don’t worry and ask yourselves, “Will we have anything to eat? Will we have anything to drink? Will we have any clothes to wear?”Only people who don’t know God are always worrying about such things. Your Father in heaven knows that you need all of these. But more than anything else, put God’s work first and do what he wants. Then the other things will be yours as well.

7. Settle disputes quickly. Jesus makes this clear in the context of clearing one’s conscience before spiritual worship. He advises to be first reconciled with your adversary with these words: “Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.”

If there is a single them running throughout the kingdom economy of Jesus, it is summed up by what his perhaps his best known saying: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

And so it should be two millennia later, whether struggling fiscal cliff issues in the U.S., continued financial crisis in the European Union, piracy of intellectual capital in China, or even those warring factions in hot spots like Syria and Afghanistan.

——

And, to check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com

Jesus & Earthly Authority

Thank God! The 2012 U. S. elections are now well behind us. And the voters appear to have gone for … no change. They stuck with the people, the parties and the positions that they knew – in the White House, Congress and the statehouse.

Before, during and after now the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, we’ve asked the questions:

How would Jesus of Nazareth respond if he were in our shoes?

How does he deal with earthly authority?

Even better, how would he (and should we) respond in a world where our leaders clearly have no sense as to where they are headed?

And how might this apply to a how a nearly majority disaffected and disaffected nation might deal with a continued mediocre Democratic Presidency and more Democratic Senate? Or how the again triumphant party might treat an ever-obstinate Republican majority in the House of Representatives? Or how you and I might deal with our elected officials – whether in WashingtonD.C., our state capitol, or home town?

Which brings us back to the WWJD question: What would Jesus do – or suggest? For possible answers, we turn to the subject of how Jesus actually interacted with earthly authority during his earthly sojourn some two millennia ago. Recorded interactions with authority occur on three levels: imperial authority (similar to our federal government), vassal kingdoms (similar to state and local authorities of today), and ecclesiastical authority (indicative of church congregations and denominations of today).  

What we will find is one common theme. For Jesus and for his follower(s) today, the most thoughtful and productive interactions occur when and where respect is mutually earned. And when there is no 2-way street paved with mutual respect available to be found, Jesus (and we) should not be above tactics ranging from willful disregard of earthly authority to direct public confrontation.

Childhood Encounters of Jesus

Let’s travel back in time to the birth of the Savior. The first interaction with a definite authority figure is probably one that Jesus might not personally remember but would have been undoubtedly recounted by his parents. We all know that the king of the land – Herod the Great – heard of the birth of a potential future rival via three wise men (or magi) traveling from the east. Herod asks these that he be apprised of this future ruler’s whereabouts. After finding Jesus, these three ‘wise men’ are warned via a dream to return home to Persia via another route.

Jerusalem palace remains, even today a continuing symbol of the Herod the Great’s lasting legacy of wealth and bloodshed.

Becoming aware of the deception, Herod orders the death of all children age 2 and under in Bethlehem. Joseph, Mary and Jesus have already left after being warned by an angel in a dream to flee to Egypt. Only after Herod dies does Joseph take his young family back home – but not to Bethlehem. Being rightfully fearful of Herod’s son Archelaus, Joseph moves north to the village of Nazareth located within the kingdom of Herod’s other son – Antipas – viewed as a (somewhat) more benign ruler than his brother.

We are never told but this undoubtedly would have been a searing experience for Joseph and Mary – with the account retold on numerous occasions to Jesus and his siblings as he was growing up. This narrow escape shaped the family outlook toward Herodian authority for years to come.

Jesus has one other recorded childhood brush with authority – this time with Jewish religious leaders. This occurs in his 12^th year in the course of a visit to Jerusalem for Passover festival. He upstages the teachers at the Jewish Temple with his questions as “all who heard him were amazed as to his understanding and answers.”

As to parental authority, well, he missed the caravan with his parents. When they find him still in Jerusalem, he scolds them – trumping Joseph’s authority in particular – when he replies to his parents question of “why have you treated us like this?” with the even more tart rhetorical question: “Did you not know that I must be in my (heavenly) Father’s house?”

However, Luke is quick to point out that, after this incident, he went back home to Nazareth with his parent and “was obedient to them.”

—-

Herodian Sidebar: As the oldest surviving son of Herod the Great, Archelaus was given the portion of his father’s kingdom that consisted of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. And he carried on in the worst tradition of his father. After 10 years, he was charged in Rome with mismanagement of his vassal kingdom and exiled to Gaul. From that time forward, Judea would be managed by a directly appointed Roman procurator.

As the second surviving son of Herod the Great, Antipas ruled as Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to 39 AD – extending beyond the full course of Jesus’ growing up, ministry, death and resurrection. At the time of his father’s death in 4 BC, the city of Sepphoris (just 4 miles from Nazareth) revolted and was leveled. Antipas rebuilt Sepphoris which served as his capital through Jesus’ boyhood. About 20 AD, Antipas relocated his capital to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee situated, about 10 miles from Capernaum which was the home of Peter and early base of Jesus’ ministry.

Antipas became notorious for marrying Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Philip. This was a union vigorously opposed by John the Baptist, for which the Baptist was beheaded.

Despite their pivotal importance as seats of secular government in Galilee, neither Sepphoris nor Tiberias receive any mention in the New Testament.

—-

Virtually nothing else is known of Jesus childhood and early adulthood in Nazareth or the broader Galilee region.

Was Jesus father a country rube – an impoverished carpenter working with primitive tools?

The popular perception is that Nazareth was an isolated village, with Joseph as a carpenter working with rudimentary tools. This could have been the case if Jewish communities resettled the Galilean countryside like post-World War II isolated kibbutzim – avoiding contact with Herodian and Roman society.

An alternative view would be that Joseph availed himself of abundant work opportunities with the opulent rebuilding of Sepphoris – commuting by foot to work. Perhaps Jesus went along, perhaps as an apprentice once he reached the age of adulthood with Bar Mitzvah at age 13.

Or was Joseph a highly skilled craftsman capable of sophisticated joinery as with this fishing boat from the Sea of Galilee (dated to about the time of Jesus)?

Similarly, there is evidence that Jesus had moved to Capernaum as his home at about the time of John the Baptist’s arrest by Antipas. (Matthew 4:13). We have no record as to whether Jesus had contact with the less-Jewish world of the new capital Tiberias either before or after his move to Capernaum.

In the absence of solid evidence, we can are left to conjecture on the important question of whether and under what circumstances Jesus brushed up against and his views of the secular governmental authorities of Sepphoris (in childhood) or Tiberias (early adulthood). Either place would have placed him in more direct contact with both Herodian and Roman authority.

Earthly Ministry

We know virtually nothing about Jesus’ life from age 12 to about 30 when he bursts on the Galilean scene as an itinerant preacher. But he can’t avoid brushes with both secular and ecclesiastical authorities for long.

The ruling behavior of Herod Antipas goes from benign to obsessed as he executes Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist. Antipas then hears rumors of another prophet, Jesus, and wants to see him. Even the Pharisees warn Jesus to “get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.”

Jesus response is nothing but pithy:

Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work. Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.’ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’

To Jesus, Antipas is nothing less than the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. And there is no way that the authorities are going to catch up with this successor to the Baptist until the time and place of Jesus’ choosing.

More regular and continuing are the run-ins of Jesus with the Jewish religious authorities of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. A couple of examples illustrate the range of Jesus reactions to the spiritual authorities of his day.

At one extreme is the case when Jesus casts the demon out of a man who was blind and mute. The Pharisees reaction is condemnatory: “It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.”

The retort from Jesus is even more scathing: “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil?” 

But there are other times (a minority to be sure) when Jesus took the opportunity to engage in more mutually satisfying dialogue. The Sadducees, with not the best of motives, try to trip Jesus up with a question about multiple marriages and the resulting true wife in heaven (a concept about which they are dubious). No ad hominem here as Jesus pointedly but clearly explains that marriage is not recognized in heaven. In response, the scribes are forced to concede: “Teacher, you have spoken well.” And Luke concludes by noting that they “no longer dared to ask him another question.”

And there is the highly personal, almost intimate encounter recorded by John’s gospel of Jesus interview with a man named Nicodemus, a respected Jewish leader. This provides the opportunity for Jesus to expound on what is probably the most widely known Christian view of salvation of being “born again” or, more literally, “born from above.”

Numerous other encounters between Jesus and the religious leaders of his day are recounted by the New Testament Gospels. These range from the Pharisee for whom Jesus pointed out that the greater the sin, the greater the forgiveness … to Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple at Jerusalem. In some cases, Jesus used the opportunity for constructive advice, more often it was for stern rebuke. In all cases, he acted because he cared.

Jesus also had at least one encounter with Roman imperial authority during the period of his earthly ministry – with a centurion of the Roman military – and in the otherwise Jewish village of Capernaum. A centurion appeals to Jesus to heal his paralyzed servant. Jesus readily consents but the centurion then deferentially suggests: “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

Jesus not only picks up on this extraordinary display of Roman contrition but expresses his amazement to those around him, saying: “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.”

Face-off @ Trial

We now come to the final encounters of Jesus with all three sets of authorities that had been nipping at his heels for 33+/- years – the religious establishment, the local rulers and the Roman imperial authorities.

First up are the members of the high priest’s party who arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. All four gospel recount portions of this not-so-pleasant interaction – with the most succinct account provided by Luke:

When day came (after the nighttime arrest of Jesus), the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council. They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us.” He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

All of them asked, “Are you, then, the Son of God?” He said to them, “You say that I am.” Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!”

Jesus is condemned and struck by those assembled. However, the Jewish leaders realize that execution requires Roman approval and so send the accused to the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate. The accusation is that this man is “…perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.”  

So Pilate asks succinctly asks: “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus’ answer is even more brief: “You say so.” Pilate can find no basis for the accusation.

Hearing that he is a Galilean, Pilate happily passes Jesus on to a hearing before Antipas, the Roman approved tetrarch of Galilee – who just happens to be in town for the Passover. Only Luke’s gospel records this next encounter, noting that: “When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had been wanting to see him for a long time, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some sign.” However, Jesus does not give the “old fox” any satisfaction and refuses to answer all of Herod’s inquiries.

Finally, Antipas gives up with Luke’s gospel commenting that “Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him, and sent him back to Pilate.” Luke then makes one last observation of political significance, as: “That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies.”

Back under imperial jurisdiction, Pilate tries one last ruse to get around sentencing what he sees as an innocent man – offering to release Jesus as a show of clemency at Passover. But the crowd now is whipped up to demand the release of the political agitator or bandit Barabbas instead.

As with Herod, Jesus this time offers no response to the now fearful questions of a trapped Roman procurator. In desperation, Pilate finally asks: “Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?”

At this, Jesus finally answers similar to his response early to the Jewish Sanhedrin. To the Roman procurator, Jesus now summarily responds: “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Confronted with a prisoner he believes to be innocent (perhaps divine) and a crowd that is accusing Jesus of sedition against Pilate’s employer, the procurator relents. He washes his hands of the matter, effectively condemning the prisoner to death by crucifixion.

What are we to say with this final encounter between Jesus and earthly authority? From Jesus’ perspective, this is played out to achieve the result of execution that he had earlier self-prophesied. Jesus interacts with the authorities when it serves this purpose; at other times withdrawing into silence (and clearly contemptuous when confronting Herod Antipas).

For the three sets of authorities represented, Jesus trial and execution represents a marriage of convenience – despite the widely divergent interests of the high priest and Sanhedrin, Antipas and Pilate. New political bonds were forged that day between participants “thick as thieves” in what all recognized as conspicuous miscarriage of spiritual and secular justice. 

How Did Jesus Interact with Religious and Governmental Authority?

Four overall conclusions are suggested from this discussion:

• Jesus interacted intensely with both ecclesiastical and secular authority throughout his life – from birth to death – and especially with the religious Jewish and vassal Herodian authorities.
  

  Secular and religious politics … always a part of the picture

• His attitudes toward authority ranged from empathy to aloofness to combative behavior – depending on the situation.
• The most give and take was experienced with the Jewish leaders (a love / hate relationship) and the Roman authorities (surprisingly as relationships of mutual respect though with much less frequent interaction). With the Herodian leadership, Jesus remains most aloof and disdainful (perhaps not surprising given the Great’s attempt to murder Jesus at birth and his son’s successful execution of Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist).  
• Finally, when Jesus does engage with the authority figures around him, it is always to point the human leaders around him to the real authority beyond the earthly realm – and to heavenly values that endure beyond those of any humanly created regime.

So, WWJD Today?

How would Jesus deal with the American president today? With congressional leaders, governors, state representatives and mayors? With rabbis, pastors and lay (or self-proclaimed) religious leaders?

Jerusalem … one of but not the only place on the globe with displays of conspicuous religiosity – and a phenomenon shared across varied faiths

While the experiences of those who interacted with Jesus varied widely, there is one common theme. The most thoughtful and productive interactions have occurred when and where respect is mutually earned. In situations where secular or religious authorities honestly search for how to do their job better and where the Christ centered follower of the way has something useful to say.

And when there is not this 2-way street paved with mutual respect, Jesus (and we) should not be above tactics ranging from willful disregard to direct public confrontation. And in all cases, to point to those values that transcend the secular and ecclesiastical politics of the here and now.

——

And, to check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com

Obama, Romney & Eternal Values

What is it about a presidential candidate whose pastor goes on a rant praying that “God damn America?” Or about a sitting president who four years later goes on national TV to declare his opponent a perpetual liar, saying that “nothing Mr. Romney has said is true.”

And what is it about a challenger who can promise to balance the federal budget in one sentence – while promising to cut taxes in the next? All without saying how these two contradictory objectives can be simultaneously accomplished.

Why this behavior? Well, it’s time we meet Barack Obama, the 21^st century Puritan. And Mitt Romney, the unrepentant Universalist. Remarkably, these differences can be reduced to one common denominator – a perspective that extends beyound this human realm. Reflecting fundamentally different viewpoints about the eternal reward of human beings after this earthly life. To bring this perspective into even clearer focus, let’s reach back a bit in history.

Two millenia ago,  Jesus of Nazareth emerged on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean to earth to bring salvation and break the bonds of death. He came “not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.”

Jesus’ lead disciple, Peter, would later write that while Jesus was “put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient.”

In short, it appears that Jesus went to Hell after death to offer forgiveness to those unrepentant in their life if they would only repent given a “second chance” post-mortem. At least this was the view of subsequent leaders (or patriarchs) of the early church. People like Origen (the most famous theologian of the 2^ndcentury) and Tertullian (the person who coined the term “New Testament”).

Stepping into Gehenna – the most used New Testament term for “Hell” – still a foreboding place just beyond the western Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem’s Old City. Representative of the potential Middle East apocalypse which dominated the 3rd and final 2012 debate of U.S. presidential contenders.

And in more recent times, these views were also endorsed by persons as diverse as C. S. Lewis (the 20^th century theologian and fiction writer) and Joseph Smith (the 19^th century founder of the Mormon church). What Joseph Smith brought to the table was a different twist on the concept of the second chance, via retroactive baptism for the dead – a practice only briefly alluded to in the New Testament.

Between the times of the early church leaders and our modern era, there were others who took Christianity in a different direction, leading to church orthodoxy that prevails to this day. Seemingly disparate figures proclaimed that life without salvation meant damnation to the torments of a never ending hell.

The change in church doctrine started with Augustine, who feared that a doctrine of universal reconciliation or a post-mortem second chance would create apathy and weaken people’s desire to repent, receive baptism, and keep the commandments. The vision of what Hell might be about was intensified by none other than Muhammed, then by Dante and even Martin Luther (in part due to Luther’s objections to the Catholic church putting salvation up for mercantilist grab via the sale of indulgences).

And in 1741, a Puritan minister named Jonathan Edwards, widely acknowledged as America’s most important and original philosophical theologian, preached that “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”

Rodin’s infamous Gates of Hell – or Hades as the 2nd most common used term for “Hell” in the New Testament. The Greek Hades is the post-death abode of both the evil and the good. America’s next generation?

To the Puritan, life is but a part of a cosmic struggle between good and evil. All spheres of activity – family, work, spirituality, politics – are defined in terms of black and white, good or evil. There is no middle ground. This is the politics of the just war, of calling out the financiers of the 2008 financial crash as evil people rather than searching for the systemic reason for the problem, and then working to improve the system so that a recurrence is less likely in the future.

To the universalist, there may be good and evil but the fix doesn’t necessarily require the elimination or shunning of the person who has caused evil – whether intended or not. There is not necessarily just one path to rightness and Godliness. There may be multiple avenues, though some may be more efficacious than others. And for those who believe in an afterlife, there may be a second chance for those who did not make the grade the first time around. There is hope for all – and all are worthy of hope.

So, what does this have to do with Election 2012? Religious Puritanism as practiced in England and then America quickly died out. No more Salem witch trials. Massachusetts would morph, over time, from the most conservative to seemingly most liberal state in the American nation.

But, American Puritanism lives on – and not just in the form of our celebrate Puritan work ethic. In the cause of moral purity, there is always a new crusade – whether it be civil rights in the mid-19^th century, women’s suffrage in the early 20^th, social justice in the mid-20^th or the environmentalism and anti-corporatism of the early 21^st.

Despite his Chicago politics but perhaps because of his Harvard education, our current president has taken the mantle of the 21^st century Puritan. Four years ago, he promised the “audacity of hope.” However, as president, he has proven himself not a uniter but divider. He has left behind the deal brokering of Daley’s Chicago for the “take it or leave it” politics of Obamacare, the largest accumulated deficit in U. S. history and homeowners who have lost accumulated wealth equal to 40-45% of U.S. GDP.

Given the opportunity, Mr. Obama would replace the vitality of America’s entrepreneurial spirit for the rules of a bureaucratically driven world – where Uncle Sam defines the winners (or at least holds harmless the protected losers). And where those who screwed up in the last economic collapse get prosecuted or nationalized rather than a second chance to get up and do better the next time around.

Challenger Romney not only believes in but lives for the action of the marketplace. Rather than a rule-maker, this would-be president would be America’s chief deal-maker.

Social commentator and Nobel prize-winning liberal economist Paul Krugman debunks Romney’s claim to be a typical small business man, commenting that:

It’s true that when Bain Capital started, it had only a handful of employees. But it had $37 million in funds, raised from sources that included wealthy Europeans investing through Panamanian shell companies and Central American oligarchs living in Miami while death squads associated with their families ravaged their home nations. Hey, doesn’t every plucky little startup have access to that kind of financing?

The Universalist might answer: “So what?” Doing business, closing the deal, isn’t necessarily about morality. This is why a person like Governor Romney has often, perhaps justifiably, been considered as amoral, a guy who is “all over the map,”  no matter what the issue.

For universalists like Romney, what is important is getting the job done. In seeing to it that the individual, the business, yes even the overall economy, is better off at the end of the day than at the beginning.

Unlike the Puritan, this Universalist believes that there is always a second chance. There is no right or wrong answer; the best answer is what works now.

Mr. Obama criticizes his rival for never having a straight answer, but rather a response of “it depends.” For Mr. Romney that’s the way it should be. There is never a reason to take an “apology tour.” Rather, the real world is about situational ethics, economics, social justice, morality.

Rather than adhere to the multi-leveled bureaucratic rules of today’s Scribes and Pharisees, this transactor says the details are less important than getting the deal done. Yes, some win and some lose. But there’s always another deal waiting around the corner. And even if we fail, God’s mercy in the end will prevail. Even the losers eventually win in this kingdom.

Where do our VP candidates stand in all this? Remarkably and for the first time in our nation’s history, both VP candidates are Roman Catholics. Now, they share very divergent perspectives – with Joe Biden representing the social justice side of Catholicism and Paul Ryan the personal accountability wing.

But when it gets to the hereafter, Catholics stand in-between the hell versus heaven perspectives of the Puritans and the potential of heaven for all with the Universalists – due to Catholics belief in the intervening step(s) of purgatory. With either Obama or Romney as president, look for the (rather remarkable) possibility of a VP serving as a bridge to the other side of the Puritan / Universalist spectrum.

So, here’s the choice. Returning a sitting president who believes in rewards and punishments – even to the potential detriment of the nation. Or the challenger who would say we’re all in this together – even if we have to break a few rules to get there . And, let’s do better the next time around.

You decide.

——–

And, to check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com

Campaign Tips from Jesus

Israel’s first king – David (pictured here) – knew something about campaigns. Amazingly enough, so does Jesus.

And in the U.S. today, the debates are on; we’re nearing the final stretch. So it’s time to ask: What (if any) advice could the historical Jesus of Nazareth offer to today’s 2012 U.S. presidential aspirants?

Presidential campaigns these days are becoming a 2-3 year affair – about the same length of time as the public campaign ministry of Jesus starting in Galilee and ending in Jerusalem. Even a quick read of the gospels is enough to make you realize that Jesus was strategic. He knew where he was going and how to get there.

So, what pointers might he offer up to candidates Obama and Romney? Seven items:

1. Keep it simple. Jesus mastered the KISS principle. Consider his most famous campaign speech – the Sermon on the Mount. As recounted by the gospel of Matthew, the first words out of the Jesus’ mouth were “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

In presidential debate #1, Mitt Romney went simple; Obama meandered. Guess who won this first go-around – hands down?

2. Tell stories.Jesus used stories (known as parables) to convey complex ideas in terms to which everyone within earshot could relate. Even if he skipped a lot of detail in the process. The parable of the prodigal son reflects a universal theme and offers a clear message of hope for the future. The moral of the story is that God the father is always on the lookout and ready to accept his wayward children back home, no questions asked. Our presidential aspirants need stories that are real, that resonate, and that offer a hope worth reaching to achieve in the next four years.

The scene from the Mount of Beatitudes – as it appears today. A lofty place for a sweeping message.

3. Stay on message. But be prepared to flex. It appears Jesus had a set of stump speeches which were repeated in town after town, but varied to fit the needs and interests of the local listeners. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount becomes Luke’s Sermon on the Plain. Matthew’s Jesus begins by saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Luke’s Jesus says yet more simply “Blessed are the poor.” Amazing how the meaning can shift so radically with the deletion (or addition) of just a couple of words!

But watch out! Even in Jesus day, differently nuanced messages were remembered. These critical variations in meaning were recorded by the writers of what became the New Testament. In today’s world of email, Facebook and Twitter, differences between what is said in one village versus another are more difficult to hide than ever. Don’t say it if you won’t be prepared to defend those words with the next news cycle.

4. Don’t suffer fools. Jesus certainly wasted little time with on those who aimed to bring him down for reasons of their own personal gain. He went after the religious and social leaders of his day. He was unafraid of using tough language when required, for example, calling out the leaders of his Jewish world as follows: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! … Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”

But Jesus backed up his ad hominem personal attacks with substance. In this case, he was criticizing the way in which these supposed leaders emphasized trivialities rather than paying attention to “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.”

Jesus also knew there was a price to pay for going rogue. He knew (or intentionally planned) that these deeply personal insults would lead to his eventual trial and execution. I suspect that neither Obama nor Romney have this in mind as a desired outcome.

  5. Go long. It’s football season so most of us know what this means. Perhaps not as dramatic as the “hail Mary” pass, but sell the crowd on a vision for the long term. For Jesus, his kingdom was “not of this world.” The long bomb is the pass play into the kingdom of heaven.

Our candidates are more earthly bound, but the ability to clearly articulate how tomorrow can be better for us and our kids is pivotal to a successful campaign outcome. Four years ago, Mr. Obama sold us on the “audacity of hope.” This time around, the vision is much hazier; there is little willingness to take responsibility for what happened on his watch over the last four years.

For Mr. Romney, we have heard a lot about what he doesn’t like – Obamacare, higher taxes, regulation. Finally, with the first debate we began to get a sense of his vision might be – a nation that can again offer “prosperity that comes through freedom.”

6. Time the peak. Jesus had an incredible (if surprising) gift for timing. He know when and how to pull in a crowd and when and how to escape through a crowd unnoticed. He seemingly timed the climax of his career with a triumphal entry and the praises of the crowd into Jerusalem – only to be put to death a week later. That result could be viewed as disaster except that, for Jesus, death and resurrection were really the point of it all.

With a presidential race that again looks like it might go down to the wire, the trick is not too peak too soon and certainly not to peak too late. To get to the right place at the right time, humility helps. Picture Jesus’ masterful entry on a donkey.

7. Wrap it in love. If there is an Achilles heel for either of our current candidates, this is it. The incumbent stands aloof; the challenger wrote off 47% of the electorate (a stumble for which he is now finally working to make amends).

Look to the example of Jesus. When arrested, Peter showed momentary bravery by slicing off the ear of the of the high priests servant. Jesus healed the ear. When crucified, Jesus prayed that God would “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

And after resurrection, to whom did Jesus pay special attention? To Mary Magdalene who had ventured to attend him, to Peter who had betrayed him, to Thomas who doubted him.

Will either of our candidates show this type of caring? Look for the candidate who will be gentle and magnanimous, whether in victory or defeat.

——–

And, to check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com

Of Conventions and Desolation

America is like watching a couple travel together but yet out of step.

Looking down from the wall encircling the Jerusalem’s old city wall, a man on his cell with woman in tow.

Having viewed the 2012 Republican and the Democratic presidential conventions, I am reminded of Jesus brooding over his beloved eternal city:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! “See! Your house is left to you desolate …”

Some conventions are about drawing a grand vision of what the future  could be. Others are about “how to” make it happen.

In 2012, American politics is about neither. The seeming sole objective of both parties seems to be solely about bludgeoning the other side. And the house is left desolate.

The 10 commandments opined: “Do not kill.” 2012 campaigning is all about maximizing “road kill.”

Jesus said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In a world of cryptic texts and tweets, this has been reduced to “love yourself.” Associate only with those who feel and act just like you.

As the challenger, Romney’s campaign suggests getting more for less – by cutting taxes when we already can’t pay the nation’s bills.

As the incumbent, Obama suggests getting more for less – by universalizing health care but with no way to pay an ever mounting price tag with what is already the most expensive, least efficient medical delivery system in the civilized world.

Republican George Bush started us down the path to rescue GM and Chrysler; Obama finished the job; Romney would just as soon let both companies go under - a tribute to Darwin’s survival of the fittest.

In 1998, then President Bill Clinton spoke to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff concerning the need to deny Saddam Hussein the weapons of mass destruction. In 2003, George Bush acted on a continuing (but ill-conceived) suspicion of WMD and authorized the invasion of Iraq. In 2008, Barack Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. He did and Iraq threatens to descend into either renewed civil strife or the arms of nuclear prone Iran. What little constancy of purpose and wisdom!

As follow-up to the Republican convention, a presidential-sounding Barack Obama has predictably denigrated Romney’s acceptance speech: “It was a rerun; we’d seen it before. You might as well have watched it on a black and white TV.”

And Mitt Romney has critiqued Mr. Obama and the Democrats for removing “God” and reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from their platform – citing this as ”one more example of Israel being thrown under the bus by the president.”

And so it goes … on and on and on and on again. Where is the substance and where is this all taking us?

Jesus believed in creative conflict – but not just for the sake of inflicting maximum punishment. The purpose is to reach beyond each conflict to new solutions, in ways we might never have previously imagined. As the master said: “I am come that they (meaning all of us) might have life and have it more abundantly.”

Jerusalem as viewed today from the Mount of Olives. Not hard to understand why Jesus felt so protective, yet despairing, of his city on a hill.

And rather than simply denigrating his opponent by words, Jesus demonstrates his capacity to set things right by stressing what he’s doing — as when he tells his detractors to let King Herod know that he (Jesus) is not just talking but actually doing something, like healing the sick.

America is confronted with massive issues, not readily addressed by the usual partisan conventions. Left untreated or maltreated without a renewed social compact between haves and have nots, between do-gooders and bean counters, the malaise only deepens.

Less than 40 years after Jesus looked down on his City and a bleak future, Jerusalem was reduced to rubble. Will the same be said of our city on a hill – this global beacon of freedom, opportunity and equality –  1-2 generations hence?

As Jesus said to his own family and to the scribes – the leaders – of his day: “And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” So, let this be fair warning again today…

——–

And, to check out our full web site, click: www.jesustheheresy.com