Saturday, October 31, 2009

Plane vision

When we flew to Kansas City recently for my brother-in-law's wedding, I noticed again how amazing the earth looks from way up there. I love to look down on the farms, seeing the streams and rivers snaking around the topography. The cars look like little bugs. The cemeteries are orderly with small specks lined up in rows. The farms make interesting quilt-like patterns.

Of course when you're down on the ground you can't see those patterns. You're too close. Life is like that, isn't it? We are too close to ourselves and our daily existence to see the quilt God is making out of it all. She is the craftsperson, the artist, who is putting together something beautiful. The pattern is obvious to God; but not to us. That's why the Bible tells us to trust God. She can see what's really going on from the perspective of heaven; we cannot.

What Scripture does is to give us an airplane view of life. It takes us up into the heavenlies where Christ reigns and shows us reality from his point of view. (cf. Eph. 2.6) Then it gently sets us back down on the earth and tells us to remember what we've seen from up there. Paul writes to the Colossian Jesus-followers:

3:1 Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ,

keep seeking the things above,

where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

3:2 Keep thinking about things above, not things on the earth,

3:3 for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

If the Bible is wrong and there is no way to transcend our earthly viewpoint, then we are limited to a human speculation about the larger meaning of life. The Bible is there to give us to 'higher' viewpoint. Its message rises above our egotistical smallness to show us the largeness of God's purpose.

Perhaps that is why humans have always thought of God (or the gods) as being 'up there.' Because we instinctively know that there must be a loftier perspective on life than just the day to day cycle that ends in worm-eaten extinction.

As we learn and recite the Biblical Story we are able to be lifted up out of the hum-drum of quotidian existence into the Gestalt of eternal life.

 

The eyes have it

I went for my annual eye exam the other day. It had been four years since my last exam. Oh well. After reading all the little letters and having lights shined in my eyes, the doctor said I have good eyes. No problems. Just the normal deterioration from aging. I bought new lenses (wow – that sets you back!) and drove home with that funny glare that you get after 'seeing' the eye doctor.


I guess I'm lucky. So many people have eye problems. By the way, the doctor told me that reading a lot doesn't hurt the eyes. Anyway, human eyes are mysterious things. Some conservative Jesus-followers argue that the complexity of the human eye proves Intelligent Design. Secular scientists disagree and say that evolving complexity over millions of years is just natural.


I think it's significant that the Gospels have a number of stories about Jesus healing the blind. The story in John 9 is particularly powerful. One could say that a major spiritual problem is spiritual blindness. We don't see life as it really is. But God gives us 'new eyes' as we learn to see things the way Jesus sees them. God gives us right vision.


I wonder why all Christians don't see things the same way? Why so much disagreement?

Of course the main problem we humans have in relation to God and each other is an 'eye' problem. It's the eye right in the middle of the word sin.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Proportionality in war

David Cortright wrote an article in the journal America (Oct. 19, 2009) about the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. He is director of policy studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

He raises questions about the ethical nature of this war. In Afghanistan, civilian casualties have risen in the last two years to a level of approximately 1000 per year. A thousand civilians a year! Who are we out to kill? (source: Afghanistan Body Count compiled by Marc Herold at the University of new Hampshire)


According to David Kilcullen, former Pentagon adviser, drone strikes killed 14 alleged senior Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan from 2006 through early 2009. During that same period drone strikes killed nearly 700 Pakistani civilians. No wonder we aren't welcomed!

Mary Ellen O'Connell, law professor at the University of Notre Dame, says that these drone attacks lack legal justification and violate fundamental moral principles. 

According to the "Just War Theory" of the Christian tradition, the principles of "proportionality" and "discrimination of civilians" must be observed for a war to be considered "just." These principles are obviously not at work in this war.

It's the whole Vietnam thing over again: destroying villages in order to save them. Cortright recommends this: a smaller number of foreign troops; special operations forces to maintain pressure on Al Qaeda and disrupt attempts to re-establish terrorist bases; increased international commitment to development, responsible governance, and the promotion of human rights.

I think Al Qaeda has gotten what they wanted. Our soldiers are dying. We are killing civilians and being hated more by people in those regions. We are using up our economy in military costs. They have drained us of resources. Our hostile actions are helping them recruit more terrorists. It's a never-ending cycle. They get us to come over there where our soldiers can be sitting targets--they don't even have to come over here. Is this intelligent on our part? It doesn't work. 

But what do I know? I'm not a General. I'm just a specific.

Me/We in the Sea




I read recently in the newspaper The Christian Science Monitor an article about the nature of God's existence in relationship to space.
(Oct. 25, 2009 edition)


The article said:

Sojourner Truth once said, "God is the great house that holds all His children; we dwell in Him as the fishes dwell in the seas."
 

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, described God as infinite Mind, filling all space. She wrote, "It would require an infinite form to contain infinite Mind. Indeed, infinite form involves a contradiction of terms." 
Therefore, since Mind includes all, there is no "outer" space to God.


[my comments]:

The Bible agrees.
Everything lives in God.
Paul said, "In God we live and move and have our being."

We tend to think of God as "out there" somewhere.
But not so.
We are IN God.
God is not remote.
We need no remote control to connect with God.
God is our home.
We dwell in him.
He is the Sea.
Our being is in BEING.

Where is God?
Here.
All around.
In us...through us...beyond us.

We shall dwell in the House of the Lord forever.
He is the House.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Let's have some more married priests, says the Pope

Another blogger I read led me to a new blog I hadn't read, and it's deliciously well written and funny. Maybe you have read about how the Pope is inviting schismatic Anglicans (Church of England folks) into the Catholic Church. Take a look at the Wasabi Mama blog.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Burning Bibles

What to get rid of all those Bibles you have that aren't really God's Word? Well, here is a church that will burn them for you...

See this video



Saturday, October 17, 2009

Nun Sense

In 1965 there were 180,000 nuns in the U.S. In 2009 there are 59,000. The median age is 75. So, the Presbyterian Church has something in common with nuns.


But here is something interesting: There seems to be a liberal caucus of nuns and a conservative caucus. A national organization called the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) relates to the liberal nuns. And the Conference of organization. (I'll refer to them as the L nuns and the C nuns.)


These two types of nuns come from different theological perspectives. Father Timothy Radcliffe compares the two groups. He says that the L nuns emphasize the Incarnation of Christ. The C nuns emphasize the Cross. The L nuns see Christ as breaking through boundaries; the C nuns see Christ as gathering folk into community. The L nuns see religious life as being in solidarity with the poor and working for justice for the oppressed; the C nuns see religious life as divine espousal with Christ. Of course these polarities are generalizations and are about emphases. This dichotomy of sisterhood represents two different responses to Vatican II. The whole Catholic Church continues to debate the meaning of that historic Council of the Church. Pope Benedict was there as a theological advisor. And he takes a conservative view of the implications of the Council. But there is a diversity of opinion about Vatican II among theologians, priests, etc.


Sister Ilia Delio, writing in the Jesuit publication America (Oct. 12, 2009) says that from her perspective (as an L nun) the difference between the two groups is the fear of change. Her personal experience began as a C nun and journeyed beyond that perspective into the land of L nuns. She felt restrained and claustrophobic in the C nun world. It wasn't the type of spirituality she was made for. When she came in contact with a different breed of nuns, a more activist, liberal-minded order, she discovered that there are nuns and there are 'nuns.' The newly discovered nuns had none of the numbing characteristics of the old nuns. The new nuns had a habit of wearing jeans and sweatshirts. They seemed more alive. Her vocation as a nun was saved by her connection with fun nuns.


My own perspective is that there is a place for both C nuns and L nuns. It takes all kinds. Recently the Vatican has begun an investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (L nuns). Let's hope this doesn't become a habit.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Super Pastor



In Bruce Feiler's new book, America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story, he says that the character Superman was partly modeled on Moses. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, both from Cleveland and both Jewish, used the Moses narrative as the backdrop for Superman. Just as baby Moses was put in a basket in the Nile River to escape being killed, baby Superman is launched into space in a rocket ship to avoid extinction. And just as Moses was reared in the foreign environment of Egyptian royalty before receiving the vocation of liberating the Jewish slaves, Superman is raised in an alien place before being called to help humanity.


Moses, of course, was the preeminent leader in the Hebrew Scriptures. You want a model for a great leader, study Moses. Churches these days are looking for effective leadership. There is a wide-spread myth that all a congregation needs is a great charismatic leader in order to grow and increase the tribe. But Christian churches skip over Moses and go straight to Superman. (There are a few churches that look for Wonder Woman, but most seek a macho man.)


Yes, if we just get the right kind of pastor, one who can leap tall buildings, stop bullets with his teeth, make everyone tithe, and attract scores of people (especially young people) to join the church, we'll be alright. This wonderful pastor will look like an ordinary man most of the time. He will always know when someone is in the hospital, even though they notified no one. He will be able to challenge people with the truth about themselves without offending anyone.


He will have the energy to play with children and run with teenagers, yet will also relate to old people with his great wisdom and experience. Reverend Superman will bring innovations to the church which will draw younger families into the fold, while keeping all customs and traditions which will make older people happy. In fact, Pastor Superperson will have the uncanny ability to make everyone happy, even if they don't want to be happy.


His cape is hidden under his robe. His big 'S' cannot be seen by the average person. He never gets angry. He is an expert in administration, planning, evaluations, finances, budgets, investments, custodial supplies, church music (he plays the guitar), counseling, conflict management, public relations, marketing, acoustics, public speaking, liturgy, systematic theology, ethics, church history, Biblical archeology, demonology, fortune telling, ESP, marital relationships, adolescent psychology, schmoozing, listening to old ladies, rituals, computer technology, negotiating, golf, hermeneutics, philosophy, telling jokes, exegesis, epistemology, NASCAR, angelology, copy machine repair, the New Testament canon, ecclesial polity, brief prayers, predicting the weather, memorizing names, reading body language, mingling, story-telling, fund-raising, writing, motivating people, and he gets lots of sleep.


Well, motivating people is one of the main things that Super Pastor has to do. After all, church leaders want the church to grow, but they don't want to do it themselves. They think they need a 'leader' to motivate everyone to do something that they don't want to do. A real leader can get people off their haunches and inspire them to evangelize and give more money and give hours and hours of volunteer service. The trick is to get people to do things they don't want to do. The Superman minister can do that.


Of course I suppose one could look to Jesus as a model leader. But then you get into all that suffering and crucifixion stuff. No, better stick with Superman. He'll save the day. He will swoop down just in time and rescue the church. Perhaps it would be good if we could find out which seminary Superman graduated from.

Jazzy Religion



Pat and I got to hear clarinetist virtuoso Ken Peplowski recently. He played with the Dayton Philharmonic plus the sax section and drummer from the Air Force Band. It was billed as the Benny Goodman's Big Band Birthday concert. It was a blast. My foot tapped for two hours.

My favorite sound on the clarinet is the low, mellow ballad. Usually I don't care for the high-pitched sound of the clarinet. But watching this man play, and hearing the big band behind him, was a fascinating experience; and even the high-pitched sound brought pleasure to my hears. His fingers moved at incredible speed as he tickled that skinny reed instrument. I had the sense that he and the clarinet were one organism making music.

Peplowski actually played in the Benny Goodman band when it re-emerged in the 1980s. Mel Tormé said about him: "Since the advent of Benny Goodman, there have been too few clarinetists to fill the void that Goodman left. Ken Peplowski is most certainly one of those few. The man is magic."

Along with the art of Peplowski's playing, I enjoyed seeing and hearing the big band drummer up front and let loose. (We were only five rows from the stage.) The pounding percussion filled my body with exciting rhythmic joy. I'm thankful that God created humans with musical capabilities. Melody, harmony and rhythm combined in the right way can truly be a sacred experience.

In the concert notes Peplowski is quoted as saying, "Everything's a learning experience in jazz music – there's always an element of the unpredictable." I've often thought that there is a parallel between jazz and religion. Both have a basic framework within which to improvise. There is creativity and risk and adventure in the practice. Each player has their own 'voice' and style. But it is a communal experience. Playing with others gives the necessary 'communion' to make transcendent music.

Each time we gather to play/pray/worship it is unpredictable. God moves in mysterious and improvisational ways. The Holy Spirit is God's improviser. Christ is God's harmony. The Father is the key signature.

Maybe we Christians are too timid with our faith. Perhaps we should jazz it up more. Perhaps we need to loosen up and let it rip. We can't be afraid of making mistakes. In jazz, a mistake is an opportunity to create something new. It's a blip on the staff that turns into a grace note.

The wind that blows through the horn is the breath of God. The clash of the cymbal is the vibration of spiritual energy. The beat is the heart of God.

When Luther wrote Melanchthon and said, "Sin boldly," he was saying, Don't be afraid to improvise…Make music with God.

If, in our life of faith, all we are concerned about is playing the right notes at the right time, we will never be in tune with God's wild music. We have to take chances. The melody is there not just to play, but to play with. We have to break free and make something up. Newness is what God likes. He says at the end of Revelation, "Look, I make all things new." Taking a basic melody line and a basic chord progression and making something new out of it is the kind of creativity that our Creator likes to hear from us. To jazz up our faith is to create variations on the melody and to play alternative harmonies underneath. Good jazz musicians play in the Spirit. They let go of the right way and simply play on the Way.

Too much scrupulosity in religion makes the music boring.

Dear Lord, Great Composer, thank you for the magic of music and the particular delight of big band jazz.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Iris Murdoch’s Good is not good





I've tried to read a couple of novels by Iris Murdoch, but couldn't get past ten pages. I thought they might grasp hold of me since she deals with religious and philosophical themes. Maybe I'll try again later.

Then I decided to go straight to her non-fiction writings. I just read a little book about philosophy by Murdoch called The Sovereignty of Good. (Not 'God,' but Good.) In the three essays of this book, Murdoch mounts a force of resistance against existentialist-behaviorist schools of thought. She emphasizes the universal over the concrete, the objective over the subjective, and action over thought. She poses 'perfection' as the ultimate standard that should move philosophy.

Iris Murdoch is an unabashed Platonist. She argues that there must be some transcendent 'Beyond' that judges all that we assert. I like this emphasis on transcendence. It sounds very Lutheran, i.e. we are judged and saved only by that which comes from outside us. She is very hard on the Nietzschean emphasis on 'will,' just as Lutherans are on works righteousness.

The plumb line for her philosophy is the 'incorruptible.' This is the Platonic Ideal. She refers to 'art' as the perfect model for understanding the transcendent Ideal that is the measure of all things. Beauty exists not in the eye of the beholder, but beyond us in the eternal realm and manifests itself in our artistic expressions. She writes, "Art pierces the veil and gives sense to the notion of a reality which lies beyond appearance" (p. 86). And, "It is a kind of goodness by proxy" (p. 85).

Murdoch also refers to Plato's myth if the cave and makes the image of the 'sun' the analogy for the transcendent Good. It is by the light of the sun that we see; but looking directly at the sun blinds us.

Simone Weil's notion of 'attention' is used by Murdoch to express her belief about the 'gaze of love' that brings real knowledge.

This all sounds a lot like a Christian philosophy, and, after all, St. Augustine's theology is laced with Platonic thought. But the stinger for me was to find out that Murdoch does not believe that human life has a purpose. "We are simply here," she says (p. 77). Her realism about human nature is to the point, but her notion of pointlessness seems odd. She says, "I assume that human beings are naturally selfish and that human life has no external point or telos" (p. 76). It's hard for me to make sense of the viewpoint that there is an Eternal Good, but that life has no purpose. She says that we can be good, but we ought to be "good for nothing." She is clear: "The acceptance of our death is an acceptance of our own nothingness" (p. 100).

I wish Murdoch had a sense of the meaning of it all. Without that, I can't see a real foundation for the morality she is aspiring to. She says that the transcendent Good is the source of moral thinking and action. But a Good which has no purpose doesn't seem good to me. She tries to answer the philosophical What, but can't answer the Why. She even quotes Ecclesiastes, "All is vanity." But Ecclesiastes does not a gospel make. Where is the Good News in Murdoch's Good? Nowhere. It is truncated. It is Good without News. Which turns out to be Bad News—life without purpose. I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm too teleologically wired. But aren't we all? If there is no reason to be, why be?

I believe Murdoch is on the right track in some ways. She is not willing to accept the relativistic direction of modern philosophy. But she doesn't go far enough. No is no reason to accept a Real Road if the road doesn't go anywhere. Perhaps she can accept a Jesus who is the Truth and the Life, but not one who is the Way, since her philosophy is going nowhere.

I was hoping to find more. But I was shocked to discover the Murdochian dead end. Perhaps we could call it the Murdochian murder of meaning. Not exactly a thriller.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

poof!


 
George, who was 70-years-old, went for his annual physical. All of his test results came back normal. Dr. Smith said, "George, everything looks great physically. How are you doing mentally and emotionally? Are you at peace with yourself, and do you have a good relationship with God?" 

George replied, "God and me are real tight. He knows I have poor eyesight, so he's fixed it so that when I get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, POOF the light goes on when I pee, and then POOF the light goes off when I'm done."

"Wow," commented Dr. Smith, "That's incredible!" 

A little later in the day, Dr. Smith called George's wife. 

"Thelma," he said, "George is just fine. Physically he's great, but I had to call because I'm in awe of his relationship with God. Is it true that he gets up during the night and, POOF the light goes on in the bathroom, and then POOF it goes off when he's done?"

Thelma exclaimed, "That old fool! He's peeing in the refrigerator again!"

Burkean questions

Leon Wieseltier, writing in The New Republic, brings up Edmund Burke's philosophy in relation to the topic of 'change.' [October 7, 2009, "With Respect to What"] Burke has been the champion of conservatives and traditionalists. But Wieseltier says 'not too fast.' Burke is more complex than that. The author says, "If Burkeanism means a hostility to change, then Burke was himself not a Burkean." He was more dialectical than that. Burke said, "mind must conspire with mind." Wieseltier writes, "The Burkean retort to the call for change is, with respect to what? The idea of changing everything and the idea of changing nothing are both merciless."

So, in regard to change, the answer is yes and no. You can't not change. Change happens. To be against change is to be for death. The questions are: What kind of change? How much change? Change for what reason?

For the church, the question may be: Will we keep changing the way we have been changing, or will we change in a more life-giving way?

The way we are now changing is to become older and more traditional and less open to the new. The way we could be changing is to be more open to younger ideas, more open to different ways of doing things, and more willing to hand over the direction of the church to another generation.

To hang onto power looks like a way of not changing. But it actually means to change in the direction of non-growth. Corpses change. They decay. Expensive caskets and steel vaults do not stop change. Babies change too, but in the opposite direction.

To share power is to be willing to loss something in order to gain something. We give up 'our way' in order to assimilate 'their ways' into the system, so that new life is allowed to ferment.

Burke's notion of 'at once to preserve and to reform,' is a realistic way forward. What kind of change do we need? In Burkean terms 'change' cannot be some theory held only in the mind. We must put wheels on it. For example, the Nominating Committee needs to be made up of people who wish to bring new people into the structures of power and ministry. The Session, Trustees, and Deacons have to have much more representation from the under 50 age group. Groups for people in their 30s and 40s need to be established for the purpose of getting to know one another and giving support in parenting, marriage enrichment, and entertainment. A pastor who is an extrovert and has entrepreneurial tendencies can whip up interest in activities, events, and missions that involve younger families and their friends. Subtle sifts in planning, worship, and decision-making can initiate a steady movement toward more openness, flexibility, and enthusiasm.

The Church has institutional form. In order to survive the Church has to be packaged in some kind of institution. But forms can be transformed. But only if individuals have been transformed first. To follow Jesus is to be led down the Way of self-emptying. He who did not 'grasp hold of divinity' (Phil. 2) leads us toward painful letting go.

Burke was a Christian gentleman of the 18th and 19th centuries. But Jesus is no gentleman. He is a rebel. And that's the problem. His ultimate commitment is not to institutions, but to abundant life.

Eating peas

Paul Lindbergh says this: "Sometimes I feel like a man who practices eating peas with a knife. I'm losing too many. I'm dying of starvation. I can either sit here shoveling peas as fast a I can, trying to stay alive, or use a spoon."

I wonder--what is the church's 'knife'? What is the church's 'spoon'?

Sunday, October 4, 2009

T-shirt theology

Did you hear about the students at a Florida high school that were wearing T-shirts with the words "Islam is of the Devil"? Those students were sent home. Some people argued that it was a free speech issue—that the students have the right to express their opinions, no matter what they are. Other people argued that clothing with that kind of message was disruptive to the educational environment.

I shall now pontificate. Free speech: yes. Why can't we use situations like that to educate? Isn't that what a school is for? What are we afraid of? That someone will learn something? That we might actually teach young people how to rationally debate subjects? This could be a teachable moment.

I shall pontificate the opposite viewpoint. Free speech: yes. But irresponsible speech: no. Just because we have the right to say anything doesn't mean that anything is beneficial to say. (Does that sound like something is Paul's letters?) It seems to me that the message on those students' shirts (Islam is of the Devil) is not a helpful statement to make if you want to show love to people of a different religion. (I know—you might say that telling the truth is a loving thing to do—assuming you believe the statement is true.)

My own feeling is that a Jesus-way to engage people of different beliefs is to begin with respect. Why be belligerent? Those T-shirts convey to me a sense of arrogance. The students may have felt that they were being courageous and truthful in bearing witness to Christ. I hope they grow up. I hope they will learn from Jesus that he is gentle and meek and humble of spirit (cf. Matt. 11). Young people can get a kick out of being in-your-face. But I hope they find a more excellent way.

What about a T-shirt that says, "God loves all people"? What about going to your Islamic neighbors and ask if you can rake their leaves? I think love packs a punch.

Random Randian Thoughts

It was years ago when I read Ayn Rand's large novel, The Fountainhead. I loved it. At that time (back in the 80s) I didn't realize that it was written by a philosopher of selfishness. Rand has been one of the most important foundational writers for the Libertarian movement. Now, there are some things about Libertarianism that I like. But the Randian emphasis on self-interest to the point of praising selfishness is too much for me. Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Rand, but I don't know how much her philosophy influenced his economic theory. Certainly his belief that the Market should be left alone is consistent with her viewpoint.

Ayn Rand was influenced a great deal by Nietzsche. Part of the pull of her writing is its emphasis on individualism and non-conformity. Those are American values to some extent. But Rand's atheism gave her no foundation for a transcendent guarantee of her values. It's one thing to affirm individualism; it's another to go to the extreme of neglecting the need to share and care for one another.

Ayn Rand called her philosophy 'Objectivism.' It was supposedly totally scientific and based on reason alone, without emotion. The trouble is that when you absolutize reason you are left with only a partial view of reality.

Rand has influenced the contemporary debate about economics by her theory that the rich have no moral obligation to share with the poor. We hear her philosophy repeated by Rush Limbaugh and others when they claim that liberals want a class war. Any talk of distribution of wealth is quickly kicked out of the discussion with a strong Randian objection to requiring any reciprocity from the well-off toward the economic system that has rewarded them with wealth. In Ayn Rand's thought capitalism becomes a god. Sharing is an evil, socialist idea.

Reason is important. Individualism in proper perspective is good. Capitalism is a wonderful invention. But the lack of balance in Ayn Rand's system of thought is dangerous to our society, and to an individual's spiritual health.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

The Sunflower

I've just finished an evocative book. Simon Wiesenthal's book, The Sunflower, recounts his experience in a concentration camp during WWII. But the book is not just a story, it's a question. Wiesenthal tells the reader about an unusual encounter he had as a prisoner and asks the reader to respond.

Wiesenthal was brought to a hospital in a town near the camp and taken to a room where an SS officer lay dying. The officer had asked for a Jew to be brought to him. He asks Wiesenthal to sit down next to him and begins to confess his murderous actions as an SS officer. Then he makes an extraordinary request. He asks the Jew to forgive him—to be his 'priest' as it were and give absolution before he died. Wiesenthal responds with silence—then walks out of the room. He ends the story by asking the reading, "What would you have done? Would you have forgiven the contrite Nazi?"

The second half of the book contains the answers of 53 people. Each writes anywhere from one to five pages in response, analyzing the situation, and giving reasons why they would or would not have forgiven the officer. Approximately 24 of the respondents are Jews. Not one of them would have offered forgiveness to the Nazi officer. Other respondents are Protestants, Catholics, a couple of Buddhists, one Native American, and one Muslim. As far as I can discern, eleven of those said Yes, I would have forgiven him. Which means that there were about 11 yeses and 41 nos. (I say 'about' because some answers were not completely clear in terms of the question posed.)

I gained some new insight into Jewish theology as contrasted with Christian theology. But each person's brief essay gave various rationales for their viewpoint or emotional reaction. The analyses open up many questions about the meaning of forgiveness, repentance, responsibility, accountability, etc.

Wiesenthal's story has more detail than I have given, which makes the analysis of the situation more complicated than it might seem. I think this book would make a very useful study for discussion in a Sunday School class or small group.

I found myself empathizing with differing responses. Some of the Jewish writers had gut-wrenching hostility toward the SS man. This is understandable. But having just read Golda Meir's book recently I think I understood the anger more clearly. The Jewish people are fighting for their lives. The Shoah ('holocaust') was an attempt to exterminate their whole race. Millions of Jewish children were thrown alive into furnaces. It was such a barbaric experience for Jews that the newly formed nation of Israel and Jewish life elsewhere cannot afford to be 'tender' toward anyone who smells of anti-Semitism. The Jewish consciousness has been changed forever. They cannot forget or forgive. I empathized.

Yet, I found myself still leaning toward the rightness and wisdom of forgiveness. I don't know if I could forgive under those circumstances. But given the opportunity to be at a distance and reflect on it, I come down on the side of mercy. Still, I wouldn't presume to tell Simon Wiesenthal that he was wrong in that situation. It would be like telling an abused wife to lighten up. The Jews have been forced into a corner, so to speak. And like a scared animal, they have their defenses up. Survival is what matters in their minds.

I recommend The Sunflower as a thought provoking book. It evokes spiritual emotion and ethical rumination.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Kennedy vs. Graham

The celebrity pastor, Dr. Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (PCA), died last year. The church called a grandson of Billy Graham as the new pastor. But some of the flock balked at the new shepherd and left--starting their own church. Charismatic pastors do not a church make. An intriguing plot thickens...

Goodbye, TNIV

I am upset by what I've just read. It seems that the TNIV is not going to be published anymore. Instead, a revision of the NIV is going to be done (which will come out in 2011). Dang! I love the TNIV. I use it as my primary version. I don't quite understand if the revised NIV (last updated in 1984) will keep the good attributes of the TNIV or throw them out. The language of the TNIV (which came out in 2002) is more accurate. This whole thing is because of pressure on the publisher from evangelical leaders who are afraid of inclusive language, i.e., when the generic word 'man' is changed to 'people' – as in "let your light shine before people" (instead of 'before men'). This is a scandal.

I may have to revert to the NRSV, which is a fine translation. For some occasions (particularly for public reading) I like the CEV. And of course The Message is very useful for reading and reflecting on the Bible's meaning.

I also like the REV, the NCV, and the NJB. I also sometimes watch NBC, and I belong to AARP.