Friday, January 22, 2016

An Old and Incomplete Observation

Three years ago* I wrote this piece on Matthew’s account of the temptation of Jesus:

This morning I came across a note I had attached to Deuteronomy 8:3[1]: “How does that fit with Maslow? Does deprivation followed by satisfaction of a basic need produce a greater appreciation of higher needs?” The reference is to Abraham Maslow, the psychologist who proposed a hierarchy of human needs, ranging from the basic means of survival (water, food, shelter, etc.) to what he called “self-actualization,” the stage of development at which those who have attained it feel themselves to be most fully human. Most interpreters of Maslow make the generalization that higher level needs can only be satisfied, or even perceived as needs on the highest (most abstract) levels, when the most basic needs are met. This would suggest that extreme poverty and hardship do not produce great philosophers or mystics.

* I began this post on 28 April 2014, so it has been five years now. I do not now recall where I was going with this post, so here it is, as it is.
[1]“He (God) humbled you by making you hungry and then feeding you the manna that neither you nor your ancestors had ever experienced, so he could teach you that people don't live on bread alone.” Common English Bible with Apocrypha - ePub Edition. Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

A Sophoclean Conundrum

According to PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on January 19, 2010, a volcanic eruption in Indonesia 70 thousand years ago killed all but 15 thousand humans on Earth. That means, if we trace our ancestry back to the aftermath of that disaster, we have only 15,000 ancestors at most for the entire 7+ billion of us now.
I am sure you have noticed, looking at your family tree, that you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so forth, each preceding generation having double the number of ancestors as the one after. Assuming the average age at which my ancestors begat my ancestors was twenty years (a conservative  estimate, I believe) that means 3500 generations have passed since that terrible event in Indonesia nearly pre-empted my existence.
To calculate how many ancestors I have in a particular past generation, I need only raise 2 to the power of the number of generations back from me. That is, my parents are one generation before me, so I have 21, or 2, parents; 22, or 4, grandparents, etc. Since 70 thousand divided by 20 equals 3,500 (generations) the number of direct ancestors I would expect to have in the generation that survived the Indonesian catastrophe is 23500, or more than 4X101053 (four billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion; that’s nine zeros for each billion) ancestors in that one generation alone. Clearly, in the words of Desi Arnaz, we have some ‘splainin’ to do.
There are four explanations that come to my mind:
  1. Some of my male ancestors had multiple wives/mates (polygyny).
  2. Some of my female ancestors had multiple husbands/mates (polyandry).
  3. There was quite a bit of mate swapping among the two groups above (polyamory).
  4. Some of my male and female ancestors were close relatives (incest).
The first should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the Old Testament or Tales from the Arabian Nights, the second to no one who has taken a class in sociology, but the second two go a bit farther than what we were told in Sunday school or at bedtime.
Could it be that we owe our existence, individually and as a species, to both free and compulsory love, rather than the one-man-one-woman family values some would tell us is the divinely mandated norm of all but this wicked and perverse generation?

Saturday, April 26, 2014

On Which Road Again?

This week’s lesson in a popular evangelical Sunday school guide[1] focuses on Luke 24:13-25, the encounter on the road to Emmaus. I find it wholly unsatisfying in that it provokes no real inquiry into the dilemma faced by followers of Jesus, then or now, seeking to reconcile his supposed status as anointed (Christ, Messiah) with his failure to restore Israel.[2] Rather, the writer skims the surface of the narrative, recounting the “proofs” of Jesus’ identity as Messiah in certain ancient Hebrew writings. I’ll not discuss the most obvious problem with this approach, other than to repeat what many scholars have suggested – that the Jesus narratives were tailor made to fit the Hebrew scriptures, a much more likely scenario than the popular notion among Christians that the Hebrew authors unwittingly wrote history hundreds of years in advance.

The Emmaus incident is unique among canonical accounts of Jesus’ post-mortem appearances in that it does not involve Mary Magdalene or any of the twelve apostles and that the persons to whom Jesus appears do not recognize him until the moment he disappears. Only one of the two disciples, Cleopas, is named. Cleopas is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament – unless he is the husband of the aunt of Jesus named in John 19:25[3]. Either way, the principles in the story are a faceless name and his nameless companion.

In his sermon, “Undercover Jesus” Clay Nelson suggests that Luke names only one of the two on the road to Emmaus because he is inviting the reader to be the companion of Cleopas, to embrace the cognitive dissonance between the hope that God had sent Israel a savior in the person of Jesus and the ignominious death he suffered. I like this approach because it draws the reader out of any presumed historical context into the realm of personal experience. Also, the fact that Luke cites none of the scriptural proofs Jesus offered the companions invites the reader to search the text for her or himself.

Emmaus or Oulammaus?

A little research on Emmaus reveals an interesting fact: Luke may not have mentioned Emmaus at all. One of the oldest extant manuscripts of the gospel, the Codex Bezae, has the companions walking to Oulammaus, not Emmaus. Oulammaus, it seems, is a nonexistent location, but Luke would not have known that, because the version of the Hebrew scriptures to which he had access, contained an error in its translation of Genesis 28:19.
 [Jacob] named that sacred place Bethel, though Luz was the city's original name.[4]

The Septuagint (LXX) to which Luke had access translated Luz as Oulammaus, an error that would not be corrected until 100 CE; some years after Luke had written his gospel. This suggests that Luke was linking the disciples’ experience of the risen Jesus with Jacob’s encounter with YHWH[5] at Bethel:

Jacob left Beer-sheba and set out for Haran. He reached a certain place and spent the night there. When the sun had set, he took one of the stones at that place and put it near his head. Then he lay down there. He dreamed and saw a raised staircase, its foundation on earth and its top touching the sky, and God's messengers were ascending and descending on it. Suddenly YHWH was standing on it and saying, "I am YHWH, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will become like the dust of the earth; you will spread out to the west, east, north, and south. Every family of earth will be blessed because of you and your descendants. I am with you now, I will protect you everywhere you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done everything that I have promised you." When Jacob woke from his sleep, he thought to himself, YHWH is definitely in this place, but I didn't know it. He was terrified and thought, This sacred place is awesome. It's none other than God's house and the entrance to heaven. After Jacob got up early in the morning, he took the stone that he had put near his head, set it up as a sacred pillar, and poured oil on the top of it. He named that sacred place Bethel, though Luz/Oulammaus was the city's original name. Jacob made a solemn promise: "If God is with me and protects me on this trip I'm taking, and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear, and I return safely to my father's household, then YHWH will be my God. This stone that I've set up as a sacred pillar will be God's house, and of everything you give me I will give a tenth back to you."[6]

Jacob was fleeing his home after having defrauded his brother Esau of his birthright. In a dream, he sees a passage between earth and heaven and his father’s god, YHWH, reiterates the promise made to Abraham, making Jacob, not Esau, the recipient of that promise. Though Jacob had claimed what was not his and had to flee for his life, his god committed to bringing his scheme to fruition in ways Jacob could not have foreseen. Likewise, Jesus had claimed to be the anointed instrument of a restored Israel, but had lost his life without realizing his goal. His disciples, however, in searching the scriptures, envisioned a restoration that far surpassed what they had understood to be their master’s plan.

If Luke indeed had his companions walking to Oulammaus, not Emmaus, then it would have been the work of a post-100 CE scribe to change the text to make some sense of a story based in a mistranslation of Genesis. Why would a scribe have substituted Emmaus, other than the identical endings of the two names? Is Emmaus mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures?

It is not, but the Christians of the early 2nd century did not read the bible in Hebrew. They read it in Greek and the LXX , which was their Greek bible, contained writings that did not exist in Hebrew. Among them were accounts of the Hasmonean revolt led by Judah Maccabee and his brothers. First Maccabees records a battle at Emmaus in 166 BCE:

Lysias selected Ptolemy…, as well as Nicanor and Gorgias…. He sent them with forty thousand infantry and seven thousand cavalry to go into Judah and destroy it, as the king had commanded. So they headed out with their whole force. When they arrived, they set up camp in the plain near Emmaus. When traders in the region heard about their plan, they took a great amount of silver and gold, together with shackles, and went to the camp intending to obtain some Israelites for slaves….

Judas and his brothers saw that the situation was becoming increasingly difficult, as the military forces were encamped in their territory. They learned also that the king had commanded their complete destruction. But they spoke to each other, "Let's restore our people after all they've suffered, and fight for our people and the sanctuary.” So the congregation gathered to prepare for battle, and to pray and ask for mercy and compassion.

Jerusalem was deserted
like a wilderness.
None of her children moved around.
The sanctuary was trampled,
and strangers held the elevated fortress.
Gentiles lodged there.
Joy was taken from Jacob.
The flute and the harp
were no longer heard….

They fasted for a day and put on mourning clothes, sprinkled ashes on their heads, and tore their garments. In addition, they opened up the Law scroll to find answers to the kinds of questions Gentiles would ask of their idols…. They stirred up nazirites, who had completed the duration of their solemn promises. Then they cried aloud to heaven:

"What should we do with these people?
Where should we take them?
Your sanctuary is trampled and degraded.
Your priests mourn in humiliation.
The Gentiles are gathered here against us,
planning to destroy us.
You know what they are plotting.
How will we be able to withstand them
if you don't help us?"

Then they blew the trumpets and gave a loud shout… Then the army went on the march and camped south of Emmaus.

Judas said: "Arm yourselves and be fearless. Be ready early in the morning to fight these Gentiles who have gathered here against us to destroy us and our sanctuary. It would be better for us to die fighting than to see the misfortunes of our nation and the sanctuary. Whatever may be heaven's will, that's what the heavenly one will do."

Gorgias took five thousand infantry and one thousand select cavalry, and this division moved out secretly at night…. But Judas heard about it, and he and his warriors moved out to attack the king's forces in Emmaus while the division was absent from the camp. So when Gorgias entered Judas' camp during the night, there was no one there. He started looking for them in the hills, because he said, "These men are running away from us."

At daybreak, Judas appeared in the plain with three thousand men…. Judas said to those who were with him: "Don't fear their numbers or be afraid when they charge. Remember how our ancestors were saved at the Red Sea, when Pharaoh was pursuing them with his forces. So let's cry to heaven to see if the heavenly one will favor us and remember his covenant with our ancestors and crush this army in front of us today. Then all the Gentiles will know that there is someone who redeems and saves Israel."

The foreigners looked up and saw the Israelites coming against them. They went out from their camp to engage them in battle. The men with Judas blew their trumpets, and the battle began. The Gentiles were crushed and fled into the plain. All those who were in the rear were killed by the sword…. Three thousand Gentiles died. Judas and his forces stopped pursuing them. He said to everyone: "Don't be greedy to plunder, for there is still a battle ahead of us…. Stand now against our enemies and fight them. Then afterward boldly seize the spoils."

...So Judas went back to plunder the camp. His army took a great amount of gold and silver, cloth that was dyed blue and purple, and great riches. As they returned, they sang hymns and songs of praise to heaven: "God is good, because his mercy endures forever." That day Israel had a great deliverance.[7]

There is no direct correlation between this narrative and the passion/resurrection narratives in Luke’s gospel, but that is to be expected if Emmaus was chosen as a substitute reference for the original Oulammaus, which some alert scribe realized no longer fit the Genesis 28 back story. The reader is now asked to see her/himself, not as Jacob witnessing a break in the veil between heaven and earth through the experience of the risen Jesus, but rather as one of a spiritual army under the leadership of a heavenly Jesus who, like Judah Maccabee, leads the faithful against the forces of darkness – not in the flesh, but in the spirit. Christ’s apparent defeat is in fact a victory, but only the faithful can perceive it as they open up the scriptures to “find answers to the kinds of questions Gentiles would ask of their idols.”[8]

The lesson I think we must take from this is that our understanding of scripture cannot be static. As our knowledge increases, as our life situations change, we must either discard scripture as no longer relevant, or we must reconfigure and reinterpret its meaning for ourselves. This is not news to those familiar with rabbinic thought, but many Christians would do well to open their imaginations.

[1] Publishing, Standard. Standard Lesson Commentary 2013-2014 New International Version. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Pub, 2013. Print.
[2] Lk. 24:21
[3] Clopas
[4] Common English Bible with Apocrypha - ePub Edition. Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. Slight modifications by aek.
[5] YHWH is the English transliteration of the sacred name of God in Hebrew, possibly pronounced Yahweh, but traditionally read aloud as Adonai (lord) and rendered as the LORD in most English translations.
[6] Gn. 28:10-22. Common English Bible with Apocrypha - ePub Edition. Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.
[7] 1Mac. 3:38-4:25. Common English Bible with Apocrypha - ePub Edition. Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.
[8] Cf. 1Mac. 3:48.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

For most of the world's Christians, this is the weekend to remember and celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, which Christians have proclaimed from the earliest days of their faith. Anyone who has attended an Easter service has surely heard one or more of the Gospel narratives of the death and burial of Jesus, followed by the finding of the empty tomb on Sunday morning and various subsequent appearances of the risen Jesus. It is these narratives that shape most Christian and non Christian understandings of what the church has always proclaimed: a corporeal resurrection some forty hours post-mortem.

This, however, is not the oldest account we have of what became of Jesus. The oldest description, such as it is, comes from a letter composed some twenty years after Jesus was put to death. We know it as First Corinthians, a letter or, more likely, a composite of two or more letters written to a first century Christian community in Corinth by Paul the apostle. Paul writes:

I passed on to you as most important what I also received: Christ died for our sins in line with the scriptures, he was buried, and he rose on the third day in line with the scriptures. He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve, and then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at once--most of them are still alive to this day, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me, as if I was born at the wrong time. (1 Cor. 15:3-8; Common English Bible with Apocrypha, Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.)

Read through the lens of the passion narratives in the gospels, tinted with nearly two thousand years of Christian tradition and a century of Hollywood, this account seems in line with what the churches proclaim. But Paul wrote nearly twenty years before Mark, almost certainly knew some of the actual followers of Jesus and, though his account is brief, differs in important ways from the commonly received account. Let us look at that account which is, in fact, four similar but not very consistent accounts.

The earliest, according to most scholars, was written about 70 CE, forty years after the death of Jesus and nearly twenty years after Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they could go and anoint Jesus' dead body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they came to the tomb. They were saying to each other, "Who's going to roll the stone away from the entrance for us?" When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (And it was a very large stone!) Going into the tomb, they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right side; and they were startled. But he said to them, "Don't be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised. He isn't here. Look, here's the place where they laid him. Go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you. Overcome with terror and dread, they fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mk. 16:1-8; op.cit.)

So, according to Mark, three women, followers of Jesus, came to the tomb, found it empty, were told by an unnamed young man that Jesus had been raised and that they should tell his disciples to expect him back in Galilee. However, out of fear they told no one. This oldest version of Mark records no post-mortem sightings of the risen Jesus.

The next account comes from Matthew, written about ten years after Mark.

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb. Look, there was a great earthquake, for an angel from the Lord came down from heaven. Coming to the stone, he rolled it away and sat on it. Now his face was like lightning and his clothes as white as snow. The guards were so terrified of him that they shook with fear and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Don't be afraid. I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He isn't here, because he's been raised from the dead, just as he said. Come, see the place where they laid him. Now hurry, go and tell his disciples, 'He's been raised from the dead. He's going on ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there.' I've given the message to you." With great fear and excitement, they hurried away from the tomb and ran to tell his disciples. But Jesus met them and greeted them. They came and grabbed his feet and worshipped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Don't be afraid. Go and tell my brothers that I am going into Galilee. They will see me there."
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted. (Mt. 28:1-10,16-17; op.cit.)

Next comes Luke's account, not long after Matthew's.

Very early in the morning on the first day of the week, the women went to the tomb, bringing the fragrant spices they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they didn't find the body of the Lord Jesus. They didn't know what to make of this. Suddenly, two men were standing beside them in gleaming bright clothing. The women were frightened and bowed their faces toward the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He isn't here, but has been raised. Remember what he told you while he was still in Galilee, that the [Son of Adam] must be handed over to sinners, be crucified, and on the third day rise again." Then they remembered his words. When they returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles. Their words struck the apostles as nonsense, and they didn't believe the women. But Peter ran to the tomb. When he bent over to look inside, he saw only the linen cloth. Then he returned home, wondering what had happened. (Lk. 24:1-12; op.cit.)

And, finally, near the end of the century, almost 70 years after Jesus died, John writes:

Early in the morning of the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. She ran to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don't know where they've put him." Peter and the other disciple left to go to the tomb. They were running together, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and was the first to arrive at the tomb. Bending down to take a look, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he didn't go in. Following him, Simon Peter entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. He also saw the face cloth that had been on Jesus' head. It wasn't with the other clothes but was folded up in its own place. Then the other disciple, the one who arrived at the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. They didn't yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to the place where they were staying. (Jn. 20:1-10; op.cit.)

Some of the obvious inconsistencies among these accounts are:

  • The differing numbers and identities of women who go to the tomb on Sunday morning — in Mark, three (Mary Magdalene, James's mother Mary, and Salome); in Matthew, two (Mary Magdalene and another Mary); in Luke, at least five (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James's mother Mary and "other women"); according to John, only Mary Magdalene — what all four agree on is that Mary Magdalene was at the tomb before any of the apostles and she is named first in all four accounts, indicating her great status in the early church.
  • The manner in which the stone is removed — in Mark, Luke and John, the stone is gone before anyone witnesses it, while Matthew reports an earthquake and an angel rolling the stone away in the presence of guards, who are so terrified they faint
  • The messenger(s) at the tomb — Mark reports a young man dressed in white; Matthew, "an angel from the Lord;" Luke, two men in radiant clothing; and John, none.
  • The failure of the women to tell anyone what they saw or heard at the tomb in Mark's account, while some or all of the apostles are told in the other three gospels — all eleven according to Matthew and Luke (Judas has committed suicide in Matthew's account, while Luke saves the mystery surrounding the betrayer for the sequel to his gospel) but only Peter and an unnamed disciple in John's account.
  • The fate of Judas — all four evangelists agree that Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, but only Matthew records his repentance and suicide; neither Mark nor John mention him again after he identifies Jesus to the temple guards; Luke, as I mentioned above, saves the fate of an unrepentant Judas for another story:

During this time, the family of believers was a company of about one hundred twenty persons. Peter stood among them and said, "Brothers and sisters, the scripture that the Holy Spirit announced beforehand through David had to be fulfilled. This was the scripture concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus.This happened even though he was one of us and received a share of this ministry." (In fact, he bought a field with the payment he received for his injustice. Falling headfirst, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines spilled out. This became known to everyone living in Jerusalem, so they called that field in their own language Hakeldama, or "Field of Blood.") [Acts 1:15-19; op.cit.]

John's lack of concern for Judas stands out because both Matthew and Luke refer to the apostles as "the eleven" after Jesus is raised, indicating that Judas is no longer one of the twelve, either by death or resignation. John, however, continues to refer to the apostles collectively as "the twelve" (20:24). Though he never mentions Judas as one of them, he actually only identifies five in any of the post resurrection appearances: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael and "Zebedee's sons." (21:2) So John seems either disinclined to dignify the memory of Judas even by omission, or he teases his readers with the possibility that Judas, like Peter (who denied knowing Jesus in his hour of greatest need), was forgiven and welcomed back by the risen Jesus.

Going back to Paul's account of the risen Jesus, it may seem there is no serious inconsistency, other than that Paul, like John, refers to the twelve rather than the eleven when referring to the Lord's apostles. He does not seem to deny that Jesus appeared to them in corporeal form. But he ends his account with Jesus' appearance to Paul himself. Does he maintain that he also saw Jesus as an embodied, resurrected Lord? Two accounts would indicate not.

First is Luke's account of Paul's conversion in the Acts of the Apostles (Paul had not yet changed his name, so Luke refers to him here as Saul):

[Saul] went to the high priest, seeking letters to the synagogues in Damascus. If he found persons who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, these letters would authorize him to take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. During the journey, as he approached Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven encircled him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice asking him, "Saul, Saul, why are you harassing me?"
Saul asked, "Who are you, Lord?"
"I am Jesus, whom you are harassing," came the reply. "Now get up and enter the city. You will be told what you must do." Those traveling with him stood there speechless; they heard the voice but saw no one. (Acts 8:1b-7; op.cit.)

The fact that others were present yet saw nothing, while Saul/Paul conversed with a blinding light, makes it clear that Luke did not believe Paul had ever seen a corporeal Jesus. But this is a second hand account written years after the death of Paul. What does Paul himself say about the nature of his encounter with the risen Jesus?

"Even though we used to know Christ by human standards, that isn't how we know him now." (2 Cor. 5:16b; op.cit.)

Paul, who asserts he has seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1) insists that Jesus can no longer be known as a human being. So, even if some "witnesses" to the resurrection of Jesus experienced him in a human form, that was not the nature to which Paul believes he was raised: it was temporary or, as the Gnostics believed, illusory.

What of the tomb? Was there a tomb? Four evangelists say yes, but Paul, who wrote about the death and resurrection of Jesus twenty to forty years before the evangelists must have known nothing of these amazing proofs of Jesus' resurrection, or he surely would have mentioned them. He simply says he was buried, which may have been based on accounts given him by followers who did not care to admit that they abandoned Jesus rather than die with him. The unpleasant historical likelihood, according to Reza Aslan (Zealot, 2013) and others is that Jesus was not buried, but rather was left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers, which was the usual fate of victims of Roman crucifixion.

Why am I so skeptical? How can I believe that so many people in the years following the death of Jesus would subscribe to the same outlandish story, which they knew to be outlandish in the normal way of things, yet were so convinced of its truth that they would rather die than deny it? Because I know how quickly myths can arise full blown from the flimsiest of beginnings. Neuroscience tells us that the human brain is hard wired by evolution to find patterns and meaning as an aid to survival and to bind communities together. Our need to find meaning is so deeply ingrained that we even find meaning where there is none.

In 1971 I became involved in a movement that would now be identified as emergent Christianity. We operated outside the formal structures of any established denomination, meeting to worship in homes and coffee houses. We had no name for ourselves but "church" or "house church." Among the evidences we believed showed us to be acting according to the will of God was that many of us "spoke in tongues," apparently communicating to God miraculously in languages we had never learned.

I recall one occasion when I, with one or two other members of our group, were praying with a friend who was not a believer in Jesus. He was, in fact, a member of the Baha'i Faith who had been attempting to convert us as we attempted to convert him. He came from a Jewish family and had studied biblical Hebrew. As we were praying, some of us in tongues, our friend looked at me and stated, "That's Hebrew." He said that I had uttered what sounded like a Hebrew phrase meaning "because the Lord...." The rest was unintelligible. Within months of this, it had spread among other members of our movement, who had not been there, that I had recited, in Hebrew, the Suffering Servant passage from the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, which must have been a sign from God that what we were telling this friend was the truth. Though I assured people who mentioned it to me that it was not so, that at most I had said two words in Hebrew, I know the story was believed and repeated as recently as ten years ago. I suspect that everything I said while speaking in tongues was complete gibberish, but I am not surprised that I could come up with four syllables that sounded like Hebrew to an emotionally overwrought young man.

Compare that to what we know of the experience of grief for a loved one. Many people report seeing or hearing their deceased in times of stress. Imagine what followers of Jesus, some of them members of his immediate family, who were convinced that he was the promised Messiah (Lk. 24:21), would have made of reports that he had been seen alive, especially since they could not find any remains of his lifeless body. My experience was of no historical significance. Theirs could and did change the history of a planet.

Why do I care? What difference is it to me if people wish to believe in an empty tomb, a living, breathing Messiah who invites doubters to feel his wounds and watch him eat fish? (Jn. 20:27; Lk. 24:38-43) It matters to me because any good that may come of the Christian message is lost in the wake of fantastic tales that make us not a bit better than we are. We fall prey to charlatans who manipulate us with tales of borrowed tombs and a death that must have been for us, even though non Christians like Mahatma Gandhi live far more exemplary lives than most followers of Jesus — despite the example of Christians like Martin Luther King, whose sacrifice unto death has demonstrably changed the lives of people we all know, for the better. I can say with far greater confidence that Gandhi and King died for me, than I can say that Jesus died for anyone in the last nineteen hundred years.

That is my Easter message.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Gov. Haley Does the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason

SC Governor Nikki Haley has vetoed a bill that would have provided HPV immunization to all seventh graders whose parents did not explicitly decline. Her reason, according to her public statement, is that it would lead to "another taxpayer-funded health care mandate."

Her analysis is correct.
Her objection is incorrect.
Her veto is correct.

Before attempting to override the Governor's veto, the General Assembly ought to consider why she ought to have vetoed.

Indulge me for a moment while I state a belief that cannot be repeated too often: a child is not property -- not of the parent, not of the state. Any public debate that seeks to establish who "owns the child" is misguided and inevitably leads to harmful decisions.

The proposed law would have authorized the immunization of every seventh grader, unless a parent or guardian chose to opt out. This is the wrong way around, not because the parent, as opposed to the state, owns the child but because the parent is the only individual who has a natural interest in the welfare of the child, to the exclusion of all other children save siblings. Parents are held legally accountable for decisions that bring or permit harm to a child, whether or not the intent was malicious. Any action by the state to improve the welfare of a child should be contingent on the express consent of the child's natural or legal guardian, except when there is sufficiently compelling reason to override parental consent.

Does this mean that all immunizations should be optional? In my opinion, no. The efficacy of immunization in stopping the spread of crippling and killing childhood diseases, not to mention the worldwide eradication of smallpox in the 20th century through mandatory immunization programs, convinces me that the collective benefits outweigh the individual risks in most cases.

This has not been established in the case of HPV. The long term risks are not yet known and the public health benefits of immunity to but one type of cervical cancer are questionable at best. I see no reason to bypass the default option of leaving the child's welfare in the hands of the natural guardians, the parents. This is why Governor Haley ought to have vetoed the bill and why the General Assembly should rewrite it before attempting to pass it without her consent.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Progressive Racism

SC Prog Blog has a piece this week titled, "The tale of the infamous goddess Nimrata," a satirical blend of fact and fiction concerning SC Governor Nikki Haley and her decision to adopt a mainstream American image, ostensibly for political reasons. This is but one of a number of instances of left-wing racism directed at Haley since her decision to seek the Governorship.

One passage will suffice to illustrate my point:

"Once upon a time there was an adorable little girl in Bamberg, SC, whose name was Nimrata Randhawa. The beautiful daughter of Indian immigrants from the Punjabi region, she was raised to follow the religious teaching of the Sikh religion from their native land. From her early years, Nimrata developed a profound interest for money and power. The story goes that by the age of 13 Nimrata was already in charge of the exotic coins of her family.

"The transformation continued and by the time she reached adulthood she adapted her birth name to a more Americanized version and took her husband’s last name. Fearing public perception, Nimrata willed her skin to change and by the time she reached complete transformation, she claimed to the be officially white and of the Christian faith."

Last things first: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Had she chosen to become Jewish, Muslim or Pagan, I doubt there would be any sniping from the Left.

More offensive to me is the author's presumption that Governor Haley is bound by others' perceptions of her as belonging to a particular "race." As Dorothy Roberts has compellingly argued in Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century, race is a social and political, not a biological category. The Human Genome Project has confirmed that there is but one human race. The inherited diversity that does exist defies traditional concepts of race and rather reflects ancient patterns of migration. There is more genetic diversity among the black peoples of Africa, whose ancestors never migrated off the continent, than among any two groups on the rest of the planet. As far as Governor Haley's self-identification as white is concerned, the people of India have long considered themselves to be of Aryan descent and recent DNA studies confirm that Indians of South Asia are more Caucasian than Asian in terms of ancestral groupings. Put simply, Nikki Haley and I share a more recent common ancestor than either of us shares with Mao Zedong, yet we both are closer cousins to Mao than Desmond Tutu is to Idi Amin.

There are so many legitimate reasons to criticize the Governor. Her choice of race and religion are not among them. Whether or not the Right is prone to a generalized racism I cannot say. I do believe many on the Left practice a selective racism that targets those who fail to conform to their stereotypes concerning ethnicity and politics.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Reflections on Reaching the Seventeenth Prime of my Life: Confessions of a Reformed Progressive


This is a significant departure from my attitude for most of my life. Rarely have I demurred to offer an opinion on any subject with which I have a passing acquaintence and often but a feigned familiarity is sufficient to justify a judgment on my part. I also like playing with words.

It is increasingly clear to me that my vision is very unclear, when it comes to the Big Picture. I see mostly small things at close range and have no idea how they connect to everything else. They do connect, I think, but how and to what effect is a mystery I do not expect to grasp. So my opinions on politics, religion, social reform, world peace or public policy are no more likely to be any good to humanity than those of anyone else who knows a thing or two.


Though most of my attempts at self improvement seem to have been dead-ends, I am more inclined to view them as Thomas Edison assessed his 40,000 trials leading to the invention of the incandescent lamp: I have never failed; I have discovered so many things that do not work.

Progress for me is often no more than the avoidance of things experience has taught me are unwise. I try new things; many are unwise; each is a new discovery. Progress is a long and winding road that leads to the next turn.


Continuing the twisted trail metaphor, one does not so much reach the end of the road as one reaches a stopping point. There is always one more thing that could have been done, but time runs out for us all. I do not intend my time to expire soon, but eventually it will and I shall leave things undone, trips untaken. The trail I leave behind may or may not be of interest to others. If anyone chooses to pick up where I left off -- if one can even do that -- no doubt that one will discover more things that do not work and that will be progress.