My Theology Hour

An expert on theology I’m not, but I give it the honor of thought and reflection. I love the Galilean and like to keep up with him. Also, I read the Good Book through and through every few years. It does me no harm and I believe that one can’t truly begin to understand western literature without it. Last week, I mentioned, following the death of my only brother, my long-time problem with the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

See, I always felt that my parents favored my brother over me. Maybe it was true, maybe not. In my more rational moments, I imagined that my perception had some truth due only to the fact that he needed extra love and understanding. I’ve had more than one parent tell me that happens.

At any rate, my reconciliation with the parable came about when I considered it in a chronological context. There is a tendency for folks who’ve never read the whole Bible or studied its origins (seems to me that most fundamentalists fall into that category), to imagine that the books in the New Testament were written in the order presented in the store-bought version of the document.

Not true, say the experts. Many believe that the book of James is the oldest in the New Testament. They say it was written about, maybe AD 47-50. It’s one of my favorites. I treasure many lines, such as the ones about looking at your face in the mirror and then forgetting what you looked like. But … my real favorite is Verse 26: “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.” Can’t tell you why, it just is.

Anyway, there was an active Christian community by the time the Gospels were written starting in AD 50-50. And if one believes, as I do, that that individual humans, with personal agendas, wrote those Gospels, there could have been some hidden motivations. Some of those early Christians were a fairly rowdy lot, I mean, getting drunk on the communion wine? When they weren’t doing this, or worse, I can imagine that they bitched about everything and anything, much like some (certainly not all) of their contemporary brothers and sisters. Which brings us to the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Imagine with me, if you will, that some of those early Christians may have drifted from the fold for a spell. Even the ultra-conservative Amish send their youth away temporarily to taste and, it is hoped, reject the foul and bitter fruits of the ungodly. As for those early Christians who did so, what happened when the wandering ones returned? Can’t you hear the rest of the congregation? “So we are just supposed to let them back in and feast upon the fatted calf, the calf, by the way, that we tended and nursed while they partied heartily? What about those of us who have stuck with one another through thick and thin and now see you letting the apostate return as if nothing happened? Is that what one gets for faithful and unbroken service? Well I never … .”

See the problem? What might work to sooth them better than, “Shut up?”

That’s right, a little teaching story from the (literary) lips of the Galilean himself. It won’t take away from the great words he uttered on the Mount and it might shut up the whiners. We’ll just slip it in and not say a word.

That’s the story of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in my opinion, for what the opinion of a “heathern” is worth.

Next, we’ll consider the parable that seems to suggest that rich men can pay their workers whatever the heck they choose and we should keep our mouths shut about it.

Embrace your wandering brother.
Better safe than sorry.

Sailing To Oblivium: August 8, 2017

The so-called “Beatitudes” attributed to the Galilean tantalize me. You’ll rarely encounter them in religious services anymore. A Methodist minister on local TV, Britt Skarda of Little Rock’s Pulaski Heights Methodist, preached a nice sermon on them recently. Other progressive pastors mention them on occasion. But I haven’t heard an evangelical use the term in years. And don’t hold your breath waiting for them to emanate from Washington.

They intrigue me to the point of obsession, though, the Beatitudes do.

The Greek word translated “blessed” means “happy, blissful” or, literally, “to be enlarged.” In the Sermon on the Mount, the Galilean uses the word to refer to more than a superficial happiness; in this context, blessed refers to a state of spiritual well-being and prosperity, so one source tells us.

That’s how some religious thinkers interpret them. Others disregard them as superficial meanderings taken totally out of context. They think blessing the “poor in spirit” might lead us to excuse, … well, any number of things.

 What intrigues me is that secular humanists seem to refer so often to the Beatitudes, and to value their message quite highly. They discuss them in terms of humankind’s responsibilities to one another. They often award their source, the Sermon On The Mount, as described in the Gospel of Matthew, as one of the most beautiful pieces of literature in Western civilization. I agree, but it is a bit odd that the Galilean’s most famous sayings are valued more highly by his doubters than his followers.

There are eight of them in Matthew. Luke presents four Beatitudes and four “woes.” The Luke version (6:20-26 NIV) deserves review:

20 Looking at his disciples, he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,

    for yours is the kingdom of God.

21 Blessed are you who hunger now,

    for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now,

    for you will laugh.

22 Blessed are you when people hate you,

    when they exclude you and insult you

    and reject your name as evil,

        because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,

    for you have already received your comfort.

25 Woe to you who are well fed now,

    for you will go hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,

    for you will mourn and weep.

26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,

    for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Oh my. A lesson for many of us. They are a bit harsher. Notice also the replacement of “poor in spirit” (Matthew) with simply “poor.” Since the author of Luke is considered by some to be associated with the Apostle Paul, we can fly off into multiple lines of thought. And I know, I’m getting above my pay-grade here.

In closing, the translation of “blessed” as “happy” is, to me, a bit demanding. At least I’ve struggled with it, even after reading countless works of exposition. But, a religious assignment based on “reward in Heaven, would make sense. You’re happy in expectation of your coming reward. I’m just not sure how an abandoned mother with three starving children in the Arkansas Delta would respond to that.

I know. I know. The “Social Gospel” is far out of style these days, replaced by the “Prosperity Gospel. Too bad, in my opinion.

I can understand how some would conclude, after a study of the Beatitudes, that their purpose refers to Heavenly reward as a justification of present suffering or righteousness. I just wish we could apply them more often and more secularly here on Earth. I think the Galilean would like that.

Just thinking …

Reconciliation: 17

Remember how Captain Kirk, from the Starship Enterprise, would confound computerized foes by introducing so much illogic that their electrodes would catch fire? That odor you smell is from mine frying.

Was doing some reading in the Holy Bible. Came across this from the Old Testament: “You shall not commit adultery.” That’s from what they call the Ten Commandments, a pretty important item in Judeo-Christian theology.

Later, I moved over to the New Testament and read this, attributed to The Galilean. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Can we assume then, that the attitude of Jesus on adultery mimics the words Calvin Coolidge, according to Will Rogers anyway, when he reported, to his wife, his preacher’s attitude on sin: “He was a’gin it.”

If so, then imagine my reading where POTUS, the current head of the Republican Party, is nominating Callista Gingrich as ambassador to the Vatican in Rome.

She is the one, remember, who hooked up with Newt Gingrich for years while he was married to his second wife, having divorced his first while she lay in the hospital with cancer.

Oh, it is reported that Callista claimed Newt never “sent her flowers” during the six-year affair. I’m doing a Biblical search now to determine if this constitutes grounds for a “waiver of sin,” so to speak.

I know I’m supposed to be in a reconciliation mode. I will strive to be. Really. I will get over it. I willingly grant that POTUS has the right to nominate ambassodors according to his preferences,

But do I have some slight right to be flabbergasted?

Suffering from a major case of flabergastion