Here's a picture of our new chihuahua, Naruto....
10.29.2006
10.19.2006
An Episcopalian Pantheistic Quaker
Sorry I haven't been able to post with the regularity of last month. This month's teaching schedule has been busy, and I'm trying to finish my PhD dissertation. But, my love affair with Blogger continues....
I think I've said somewhere before that I am addicted to labels, despite my postmodern midset. I suppose it's a leftover trait from my fundamentalist, evanglical days. I've been thinking lately about what label to apply to myself. I'm sure some readers of this blog would be more than happy to jump in with "heretic" or "pagan", and they might not be too far off the mark~
There are three traditions that really appeal to me, though traditionally they have been at some odds: Episcopalianism, Pantheism, and Quakerism. God, I love to talk about -isms!
Though I have only been to a handful of Episcopalian worship services, my immediate reaction to the pomp - the sights and smells of worship - was one of sheer spiritual ecstacy. In worshiping a God as grand as He/She is, I cannot fathom there being too much pagentry in the process. The stained glass, the incense, the garments, the community of it all! Episcopalian worship takes my breath away, and leaves my feeling as if I have truly encountered the faceless, mysterious God.
Pantheism, though often at odds with Christian doctrine, has found a deep place in my heart as well. My recent subscription to ecopsychology (the topic of my dissertation) has even furthered that place. It seems evident to me that everything is somehow interconnected, and that the smallest action in one place effects other things elsewhere. I have always been a monist as well, which presented problems when I felt the need to belive in the Trinity. I see the earth as the body of God. Most characteristics that has traditionally been assigned to God can also be assigned to the earth & the universe (i.e. omnipresence, omnipotence, creativity, etc). Nature has been a sanctuary to me more times than I can remember, producing feelings of awe, inadequacy, and love simultaneously.
Modern Quakerism probably has more in common with pantheism than with Episcopalianism. Quakers believe in three main things that resonate with my S(s)pirit: the Inner Light in each individual, the value of listening, and a commitment to pacifism. Whereas I relish the ornate worship of the Episcopal church, I also find deep meaning simply in the practice of being still and listening to the Spirit within. Each person, as part of creation and a part of God, has the ability to hear the voice of God within. The gospel of John tells us that Light entered the world, and this Light is the Light of men. Quakers also take the teachings of Jesus seriously about loving neighbor as self, the neighbors being our fellow human beings.
So, I'm an EPQ, at least for the time being. I treasure parts of each of these traditions, and find additional meaning outside of these traditions. The journey continues....
Peace & Blessings.
I think I've said somewhere before that I am addicted to labels, despite my postmodern midset. I suppose it's a leftover trait from my fundamentalist, evanglical days. I've been thinking lately about what label to apply to myself. I'm sure some readers of this blog would be more than happy to jump in with "heretic" or "pagan", and they might not be too far off the mark~
There are three traditions that really appeal to me, though traditionally they have been at some odds: Episcopalianism, Pantheism, and Quakerism. God, I love to talk about -isms!
Though I have only been to a handful of Episcopalian worship services, my immediate reaction to the pomp - the sights and smells of worship - was one of sheer spiritual ecstacy. In worshiping a God as grand as He/She is, I cannot fathom there being too much pagentry in the process. The stained glass, the incense, the garments, the community of it all! Episcopalian worship takes my breath away, and leaves my feeling as if I have truly encountered the faceless, mysterious God.
Pantheism, though often at odds with Christian doctrine, has found a deep place in my heart as well. My recent subscription to ecopsychology (the topic of my dissertation) has even furthered that place. It seems evident to me that everything is somehow interconnected, and that the smallest action in one place effects other things elsewhere. I have always been a monist as well, which presented problems when I felt the need to belive in the Trinity. I see the earth as the body of God. Most characteristics that has traditionally been assigned to God can also be assigned to the earth & the universe (i.e. omnipresence, omnipotence, creativity, etc). Nature has been a sanctuary to me more times than I can remember, producing feelings of awe, inadequacy, and love simultaneously.
Modern Quakerism probably has more in common with pantheism than with Episcopalianism. Quakers believe in three main things that resonate with my S(s)pirit: the Inner Light in each individual, the value of listening, and a commitment to pacifism. Whereas I relish the ornate worship of the Episcopal church, I also find deep meaning simply in the practice of being still and listening to the Spirit within. Each person, as part of creation and a part of God, has the ability to hear the voice of God within. The gospel of John tells us that Light entered the world, and this Light is the Light of men. Quakers also take the teachings of Jesus seriously about loving neighbor as self, the neighbors being our fellow human beings.
So, I'm an EPQ, at least for the time being. I treasure parts of each of these traditions, and find additional meaning outside of these traditions. The journey continues....
Peace & Blessings.
10.10.2006
A Flexible Relationship to the Truth
*The following additions come from a discussion I am having on a message board concerning the reliability of scripture in achieving absolute truth:
The purpose of this reponse is not to vilify faith, but actually to strengthen it. Truth is not so easily obtained, and the more difficult truth is to obtain, the more faith is required. The criticism I have of the biblical writers is not a criticism of their faith or belief, but a simple acknowledgement that truth is just as elusive within Scripture as it is within the secular world.
The term redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen in his work, Mark the Evangelist, pg. 21. This type of textual criticism is useful during investigations of all types of historical literature, and is not only applied to the Bible. In What is Redaction Criticism, pg. 1, Perrin defines the practice of redaction criticism as the discovery of "the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangment, editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." Conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars all use redaction criticism to some extent in addressing biblical interpretation.
Marxen explains that there are three "settings in life" to consider when interpreting each of the gospels. The first setting is the authentic tradition deriving from the life of Christ; the second is the use to which the early Christian community put said tradition; and the third is the environmental situation of the author(s) of the gospel since they are not only collectors, but also writers. Unless one believes that God Himself wrote the words in stone, then all of this makes sense. Scholars do the same analysis with any historical document of study.
Now, on to some examples of biblical redaction. I should start by saying that just because material is redacted does not automatically mean you should not believe it - it simply means you should know it is redacted, and not part of the original story. Personally, I have faith in many redacted teachings. Of course, the most major doctrine in all of traditional Christendom is the divinity of Christ. As everyone knows, before movable type printing, volumes were copied by hand. In the case of Scripture, many thousands of scribes laboriously hand-copied sections of the Bible. At times, these copyists were tired; at times they were in a hurry; at times they were theologically motivated to make changes. Hence, "errors" entered into the biblical manuscripts, now accounting for tens of thousands of variations in readings, some minor, some not-so-minor.
One of the not-so-minor variations is found in the opening line of Mark's gospel, which reads, "This is the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." The tiny, yet theologically powerful, "Son of God" is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is a later scribal addition to bring Mark into line with later developments in Christology, and the other gospels (which almost all scholars acknowledge were written after Mark). What makes "the Son of God" so strange in the context of Mark's gospel is that, throughout the rest of his gospel, Mark takes the prophet Daniel's lead in referring to Christ as the "Son of Man(kind)."
Another vital Christian doctrine is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Along with a [now heretical] version of Christ's divinity, I also believe in the traditional version of Christ's resurrection. But again, Mark gives us redactionary issues on the resurrection. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the discovery of the empty tomb in 16:8. Later manuscripts add verses 9-20, which include post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and even some assumed words of Christ himself in verses 15-18. Of course, if the reader of Mark's gospel is already a committed believer in the resurrected Christ, then he will just fly through verses 9-20 like they are the most natural words in the world. However, if an unbeliever were to stop at verse 8, the empty tomb, then there are myriad explanations for the emptiness of the grave. The later verses were added to confirm an evolving belief in a resurrected Christ. Interestingly enough, the supposed words of Christ in verses 15-18 have led to a variety of fundamentalist Christianity in Appalachia known as "snake-handling." Scores of believers have died for words that most likely were never spoken by Jesus.
A third important doctrine of Christianity, and one which I do not personally hold, is the belief in the Trinity. This is actually one of the more interesting and obvious redactionary biblical doctrines. In Matthew 28:19, the writer states, "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is not included in early manuscripts, and the Church did not officially assent to the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, most of the churches having a doctrine of "the holy two" previous to this (see the Council at Nice). One would think that if pro-Trinity scriptures were in the text from the beginning, it would not have taken Church leaders four centuries to make a decision on the issue. Another example of trinitarian interpolation is found in 1 John 5:8, which reads, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is an extremely late addition as well, and is not found in early manuscripts. The 1 John passage has actually been removed in most modern translations, but is still included in some traditional translations.
Though the next two examples are not necessarily doctrinal, they are very interesting to me in the sense that one shows how the Matthean author(s) and redactors struggled with their contemporary religious environment (i.e. the debate concerning allowing Gentiles into the Christian movement), and the second gives an example of an obvious historical inconsistency. The redactors were not always on the ball.
In much of Matthew's gospel, gentiles are referred to as dogs, or they are normally ignored. However, portions of Matthew, such as the parable of the Roman centurion, exhibit gentile healings. Other portions of Matthew claim that gentiles from east and west will sit down together in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Jewish people will be thrown out. Most scholars believe that the pro-gentile material is original material, but that anti-gentile additions were added later when the Jewish Christian community received the gospel. Old traditions die hard I suppose.
There are two versions of what happened to Judas after he supposedly betrayed Christ: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:16-18. The Matthew version tells us that Judas, full of guilt, threw his thirty pieces of silver on the floor and immediately went to hang himself. The Acts version (traditionally attributed to Luke) tells us that Judas purchased some land with the money, and one day while walking through his fields, he tripped and fell, his guts spilling out on the ground. The stories could not be more different.
Peace & Blessings.
The purpose of this reponse is not to vilify faith, but actually to strengthen it. Truth is not so easily obtained, and the more difficult truth is to obtain, the more faith is required. The criticism I have of the biblical writers is not a criticism of their faith or belief, but a simple acknowledgement that truth is just as elusive within Scripture as it is within the secular world.
The term redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen in his work, Mark the Evangelist, pg. 21. This type of textual criticism is useful during investigations of all types of historical literature, and is not only applied to the Bible. In What is Redaction Criticism, pg. 1, Perrin defines the practice of redaction criticism as the discovery of "the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangment, editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." Conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars all use redaction criticism to some extent in addressing biblical interpretation.
Marxen explains that there are three "settings in life" to consider when interpreting each of the gospels. The first setting is the authentic tradition deriving from the life of Christ; the second is the use to which the early Christian community put said tradition; and the third is the environmental situation of the author(s) of the gospel since they are not only collectors, but also writers. Unless one believes that God Himself wrote the words in stone, then all of this makes sense. Scholars do the same analysis with any historical document of study.
Now, on to some examples of biblical redaction. I should start by saying that just because material is redacted does not automatically mean you should not believe it - it simply means you should know it is redacted, and not part of the original story. Personally, I have faith in many redacted teachings. Of course, the most major doctrine in all of traditional Christendom is the divinity of Christ. As everyone knows, before movable type printing, volumes were copied by hand. In the case of Scripture, many thousands of scribes laboriously hand-copied sections of the Bible. At times, these copyists were tired; at times they were in a hurry; at times they were theologically motivated to make changes. Hence, "errors" entered into the biblical manuscripts, now accounting for tens of thousands of variations in readings, some minor, some not-so-minor.
One of the not-so-minor variations is found in the opening line of Mark's gospel, which reads, "This is the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." The tiny, yet theologically powerful, "Son of God" is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is a later scribal addition to bring Mark into line with later developments in Christology, and the other gospels (which almost all scholars acknowledge were written after Mark). What makes "the Son of God" so strange in the context of Mark's gospel is that, throughout the rest of his gospel, Mark takes the prophet Daniel's lead in referring to Christ as the "Son of Man(kind)."
Another vital Christian doctrine is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Along with a [now heretical] version of Christ's divinity, I also believe in the traditional version of Christ's resurrection. But again, Mark gives us redactionary issues on the resurrection. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the discovery of the empty tomb in 16:8. Later manuscripts add verses 9-20, which include post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and even some assumed words of Christ himself in verses 15-18. Of course, if the reader of Mark's gospel is already a committed believer in the resurrected Christ, then he will just fly through verses 9-20 like they are the most natural words in the world. However, if an unbeliever were to stop at verse 8, the empty tomb, then there are myriad explanations for the emptiness of the grave. The later verses were added to confirm an evolving belief in a resurrected Christ. Interestingly enough, the supposed words of Christ in verses 15-18 have led to a variety of fundamentalist Christianity in Appalachia known as "snake-handling." Scores of believers have died for words that most likely were never spoken by Jesus.
A third important doctrine of Christianity, and one which I do not personally hold, is the belief in the Trinity. This is actually one of the more interesting and obvious redactionary biblical doctrines. In Matthew 28:19, the writer states, "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is not included in early manuscripts, and the Church did not officially assent to the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, most of the churches having a doctrine of "the holy two" previous to this (see the Council at Nice). One would think that if pro-Trinity scriptures were in the text from the beginning, it would not have taken Church leaders four centuries to make a decision on the issue. Another example of trinitarian interpolation is found in 1 John 5:8, which reads, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is an extremely late addition as well, and is not found in early manuscripts. The 1 John passage has actually been removed in most modern translations, but is still included in some traditional translations.
Though the next two examples are not necessarily doctrinal, they are very interesting to me in the sense that one shows how the Matthean author(s) and redactors struggled with their contemporary religious environment (i.e. the debate concerning allowing Gentiles into the Christian movement), and the second gives an example of an obvious historical inconsistency. The redactors were not always on the ball.
In much of Matthew's gospel, gentiles are referred to as dogs, or they are normally ignored. However, portions of Matthew, such as the parable of the Roman centurion, exhibit gentile healings. Other portions of Matthew claim that gentiles from east and west will sit down together in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Jewish people will be thrown out. Most scholars believe that the pro-gentile material is original material, but that anti-gentile additions were added later when the Jewish Christian community received the gospel. Old traditions die hard I suppose.
There are two versions of what happened to Judas after he supposedly betrayed Christ: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:16-18. The Matthew version tells us that Judas, full of guilt, threw his thirty pieces of silver on the floor and immediately went to hang himself. The Acts version (traditionally attributed to Luke) tells us that Judas purchased some land with the money, and one day while walking through his fields, he tripped and fell, his guts spilling out on the ground. The stories could not be more different.
Peace & Blessings.
10.08.2006
Consistently Christ-like
Sorry for the lateness of this post - the Chuseok (Korean) holiday just ended, and I am back to work. It is always encouraging to hear of the Amish consistency in being Christ-like when faced with situations of violence. This article from the AP shows yet again the seriousness with which the Amish take Christ's teachings of pacifism:
Dozens of Amish neighbours came out to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.
Charles Carl Roberts, 32, was buried in his wife's family plot behind a small Methodist church, a few kilometres from the one-room schoolhouse he stormed on Monday.
His wife, Marie, and their three small children looked on as Roberts was buried beside the pink, heart-shaped grave of the infant daughter whose death nine years ago apparently haunted him, said Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Colorado who attended the service.
About half of perhaps 75 mourners on hand were Amish.
"It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed," said Porter, who had come to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could. He said Marie Roberts was also touched.
"She was absolutely deeply moved, by just the love shown," Porter said.
The massacre sent out images to the world not only of the violence, but also of a little-known community that chooses to live an insular, agrarian way of life, shunning cars, electricity and other modern conveniences.
Leaders of the local Amish community were gathering yesterday afternoon at a firehouse to decide the future of the schoolhouse, and of the school year itself.
The prevailing wisdom suggested a new school would be built.
"There will definitely be a new school built, but not on that property," said Mike Hart, a spokesman for the Bart Fire Company in Georgetown.
Roberts stormed the West Nickel Mines Amish School on Monday, releasing the 15 boys and four adults before tying up and shooting the 10 girls. Roberts, who had come armed with a shotgun, a handgun and a stun gun, then killed himself.
Roberts' suicide notes and last calls with his wife reveal a man tormented by memories - as yet unsubstantiated - of molesting two young relatives 20 years ago. He said he was also angry at God for the November 14, 1997, death of the couple's first child, a girl named Elise Victoria who lived for just 20 minutes.
Hart is one of two non-Amish community members serving on a 10-member board that will decide how to distribute donations that have come in following the global news coverage. One stranger walked into the firehouse and dropped a $US100 bill ($134AUD) in the collection jar.
The condolences flowing into the Bart Post Office filled three large cartons today - two for the Amish children and one for the Roberts clan.
"(It's) envelopes, packages, food and a lot of cards," clerk Helena Salerno said.
More than $US500,000 ($671,907AUD) has been pledged, some of which is expected to cover medical costs for the five surviving girls. They remain in hospital and one is said to be in grave condition.
As the Sabbath Day approached, close friends expected to spend tomorrow paying visits to the victims' families.
The funerals for the five slain girls - Marian Fisher, 13; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Naomi Rose Ebersol, 7, and sisters Mary Liz Miller, 8, and Lena Miller, 7 - were held Thursday and Friday.
AP
Peace & Blessings.
Dozens of Amish neighbours came out to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.
Charles Carl Roberts, 32, was buried in his wife's family plot behind a small Methodist church, a few kilometres from the one-room schoolhouse he stormed on Monday.
His wife, Marie, and their three small children looked on as Roberts was buried beside the pink, heart-shaped grave of the infant daughter whose death nine years ago apparently haunted him, said Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Colorado who attended the service.
About half of perhaps 75 mourners on hand were Amish.
"It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed," said Porter, who had come to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could. He said Marie Roberts was also touched.
"She was absolutely deeply moved, by just the love shown," Porter said.
The massacre sent out images to the world not only of the violence, but also of a little-known community that chooses to live an insular, agrarian way of life, shunning cars, electricity and other modern conveniences.
Leaders of the local Amish community were gathering yesterday afternoon at a firehouse to decide the future of the schoolhouse, and of the school year itself.
The prevailing wisdom suggested a new school would be built.
"There will definitely be a new school built, but not on that property," said Mike Hart, a spokesman for the Bart Fire Company in Georgetown.
Roberts stormed the West Nickel Mines Amish School on Monday, releasing the 15 boys and four adults before tying up and shooting the 10 girls. Roberts, who had come armed with a shotgun, a handgun and a stun gun, then killed himself.
Roberts' suicide notes and last calls with his wife reveal a man tormented by memories - as yet unsubstantiated - of molesting two young relatives 20 years ago. He said he was also angry at God for the November 14, 1997, death of the couple's first child, a girl named Elise Victoria who lived for just 20 minutes.
Hart is one of two non-Amish community members serving on a 10-member board that will decide how to distribute donations that have come in following the global news coverage. One stranger walked into the firehouse and dropped a $US100 bill ($134AUD) in the collection jar.
The condolences flowing into the Bart Post Office filled three large cartons today - two for the Amish children and one for the Roberts clan.
"(It's) envelopes, packages, food and a lot of cards," clerk Helena Salerno said.
More than $US500,000 ($671,907AUD) has been pledged, some of which is expected to cover medical costs for the five surviving girls. They remain in hospital and one is said to be in grave condition.
As the Sabbath Day approached, close friends expected to spend tomorrow paying visits to the victims' families.
The funerals for the five slain girls - Marian Fisher, 13; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Naomi Rose Ebersol, 7, and sisters Mary Liz Miller, 8, and Lena Miller, 7 - were held Thursday and Friday.
AP
Peace & Blessings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
