Scrutiny

Scrutiny

Lord, during these forty days of Lent, let us walk beside you in the desert. When we are tempted, let us respond as you did, fully knowing your hunger, fear and loneliness, accepting your human frailties, but refusing to let them move you from your path. Give us the strength to look into our own hearts, and observe our selfishness, anger, lust and greed. Then, let us choose to master our weaknesses -- not to ignore them, nor to dress them up as virtues, and never to project them onto others. Let us see ourselves as God see us -- foolish, fallible and flawed -- but also salvagable, redeemable and lovable. May we come to the end of this walk together more temperate, loving and forgiving -- of ourselves, and of our fellow walkers in the sand. Amen.

Secret Christianity

A group of us were reflecting on the Ash Wednesday readings, especially the gospel reading from Matthew 6. The reading includes three teachings against ostentatious public piety – one involving almsgiving, one involving prayer and one about fasting – the three mainstays of the Lenten season.

 

Here’s a sampler:

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites,
who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners
so that others may see them.

Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

But when you pray, go to your inner room,
close the door, and pray to your Father in secret.
And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

When I cast my mind back into Jesus’s time, I became intrigued by the problem he was solving, and the way he went about solving it. First of all, I don’t see Jesus as making unearthly utterances, utterly disconnected from the world around him. His teachings, even when the gospels don’t supply the context, are possible to connect to situations in his world, and often, in ours. In the case of Matthew 6, Jesus teaches one’s proper relationship with God – as well as what does NOT make for a proper relationship. He is concerned with the way that human beings encounter the divine. What enhances that encounter? What thwarts it? The irony is that being explicitly religious can actually increase our distance from divinity!

Like many problems that stem from the human personality, ego and personal agenda are the primary sources of trouble. Each of the gospel’s examples deals with ego and need to shine up one’s public persona. There’s the man (presumably) who literally trumpets his charity. The one whose prayer is conspicuously public. The one who stumbles around, unwashed and uncombed to show how much his fasting is affecting him. All have chosen public displays, probably not with ill intent, to show how much they have done for God. And, perhaps, what God owes them.

But Jesus objects. He sees something deeply wrong with public displays of piety. So wrong, that they fail to bring about what they hope to accomplish, namely, regard and reward from God.

If public manifestations of devotion miss the point, it is because they are often not about God at all, but about oneself. But an encounter with God cannot be about self-regard. There is no way that we will put one over on God. For God knows us better than we know ourselves. Our public displays replace God’s vision of us with a false, flattering image of ourselves, one that amplifies our goodness out of proportion to its value. Instead of intimacy, depth, vulnerability and humility before God, we present ourselves as worthy and exemplary. Instead of becoming naked before the Lord, radically aware of our shortcomings, we ask the Lord to be as awed by our goodness as we are. Instead of the possibility of getting beyond our sins and faults, we choose to gaze upon the awesomeness of who we think we are.

It seems to be part of the human social DNA to do fool ourselves. Which may be why Jesus spends so much time tearing down a bad way of living and painstakingly building up a new one. He could have said, “Your relationship to the Father must be intimate and open!” and left it at that. But seemingly, this would not have been comprehensible to his followers. Why do I think that? Precisely because Jesus had to give specific examples of a) the behavior that met with his disapproval, and b) behavior that he would approve. First, don’t do what the hypocrites (those with ego-driven agendas) do when they pray and fast. Don’t publicize it with announcements, or even with a hang-dog, sloppy appearance. The purpose of those actions is clearly to bring attention to yourself, not to have an intimate and honest relationship with God. If attention is what you want, Jesus teaches, you will get it. And no more. A relationship with the Father is radically incompatible with ego and personal agendas. Second, Jesus tells us how we MIGHT have a relationship. Give in secret. Pray in the most hidden recesses of your home. Spruce yourself up so others can’t give you credit for holiness.

It’s reading between the lines, for sure, but it seems that this lesson – in which bad behavior is called out repeatedly and good behavior suggested – must have been an extremely difficult one. I can imagine how easy it would be for the disciples to take ostentatious public prayer as normal. They might even have been intimidated and impressed by those assertive enough to bring attention to themselves when they did religious works. For Jesus to call out this behavior -- not as merely tasteless, but as actually counter to the very intention of the religious display – must have been unexpected. That he had to provide three separate examples displays how a) important the lesson was and b) how counter-intuitive it must have been in Jesus’s world.

Lest anyone think this is a Jewish or a first-century problem, you might want to check out the ostentatious religiosity of our politicians, athletes and media stars. Not to mention our religious leaders. For my money, there’s more than piety involved in prayer breakfasts, “defending” Christmas, goal-line prayers, televangelism, sticking manager scenes in public parks and posting the Ten Commandments in City Hall. Not to mention crucifixes, fish decals, tattooed rosaries and WWJD bracelets.

The ideal of Jesus reflected here--that an intimate, interior relationship with God should be the norm--is harder to attain that it seems, even when you know the teaching and try to put it into effect! I played guitar for an Ash Wednesday service last night. Afterwards, I was DYING for someone to tell me how well I played. I was DYING to ask my wife how I did. And I would not have minded parading around town with my ashes on my forehead. Sometimes, the best I can do is to refrain from acting on the desire to bring attention to myself. When I realize that the lack of a selfish agenda is the point of prayer, it seems like I have a long way to go before I can reach the level of the teaching.

Which brings me to Jesus. What kind of human being can even imagine the idea of putting self away when coming into God’s presence? Or that God’s presence is only truly perceptible when putting personal agendas aside? His religious genius is on brilliant display here. In traditional terms, his selflessness is sometimes called, erroneously, I think,  “obedience.” But obedience means to accede to another’s will. It doesn’t require having a will of one’s own. A Roomba can “obey” me when I turn it on to sweep a floor. A pet can "obey" a master. But to apply such models of obedience to human beings is a rejection of their own personhood – a denial that all are made in  the image of God, with their own will, desires and intelligence.  I have never been comfortable with this approach to knowing God, though many religious people talk often about obedience and the need to surrender to God. But to approach God without personal agendas seems less like a surrender of one’s legitimate personhood, than about coming willingly into communion with God. Communion does not mean dissolving oneself in something, but coming into communication and cooperation with it. As the Trinity is not the blending of Father , Son and Spirit into a undistinguishable porridge, so is communion with God, uncluttered by personal agendas, a way to bring the true “me” into sharper focus -- more able to act on the love and felloship that God shows constantly.

Dust to dust

Too pooped to pope

Yesterday's stunning announcement of Pope Benedict's resignation from the papacy was full of ironies. The man who succeeded the indefatigable John Paul II, one of the longest-serving popes, was cutting short his own reign. The man who was once called "God's Rottweiler," for his sometimes rough handling of problems among the faithful, has become a tired old dog.

Of course, the jokes are flying. "Holy Father, what are you giving up for Lent this year?" Or, "Pope Benedict resigns, just in time to be eligible for social security under the Ryan plan." And the two-week notice he gave the world is somewhat less than a CEO would be expected to give when leaving his post.

But behind the jokes and the headlines is an exhausted old man who just can't do it anymore. This must be especially galling to Benedict, who so obviously hoped to follow in the over-sized footsteps of his predecessor. But Benedict never had the stage presence and charm of JP2. He smiled, and looked like a storybook villain. He tried to dress up, but his medieval red velvet headgear made him look like a crazed, homeless Santa. Even his red Prada shoes came in for more mockery than admiration.

And the 21st century church! The unrelenting eruption of scandals from around the world would be enough to make a saint weep. But that was only part of what weighed on Benedicts's stooped shoulders The church is ever more out of step with a democratizing and technologizing world. That old philosophical pillar of Catholic thought, natural law--in a world of carbon-dating, DNA sequencing and the practical certainty of evolution--is so antiquated and wrong-headed as to be embarrassing, when it is not outright laughable. The twisted biblical and theological theories that undergird the celibate male priesthood cannot be accepted with a straight face by anyone with a working cerebellum. Then again, the church's bizarro-world understanding of human sexuality -- which lumps canoodling, condoms and cunnilingus in with pederasty and bestiality -- is overdue for a major overhaul. If not outright scrapping.

All of this Benedict faced, with a slowly deteriorating mind, a failing body and a sclerotic spirit. He is no longer the man for the job. It's a blessing that he realized it himself, and is courageously transferring the tiller to abler hands.

Not that I am optimistic about the future. Free spirits and independent thinkers, alas, do not get promoted to the episcopacy. They do not vote for popes. A doctrinaire insistence on the church's verities never hurts when gunning for a promotion. But I do believe that the Holy Spirit moves in us, goading us toward communion, love and amity. There is still a kingdom to reach, however far away it seems and how daunting the road. And the Church, as it was at the start of Vatican II, is on the brink of collapse and irrelevancy. The only difference is that this time, many Catholics know it. If the Church does find a way to cast off its immobilizing marble overcoat, Benedict's words will seem like bitter prophecy. The church will become smaller and more "faithful," if by that we mean void of the prophetic voices that call it to holiness.

Prayer for a new pontiff

Holy Spirit, you hear the voice of your people. Hear us now as we prepare for the election of a new pope. Move the Church’s leaders to select a head who unites rather than divides; who brings the church beyond mere obedience to law and into deeper faithfulness to the gospel; who rejects self-righteous calls to cut more of the faithful from full communion; who chooses dialog over fiat; who calls the church to grow in spirit, love and community; who moves beyond arguments and viewpoints that were brilliant in their day, but have been eclipsed by new and deeper understandings; who recovers, not assumes, the Church’s moral authority in the wake of appalling scandals, through true repentance and a change of hearts and habits; who seeks to hear the voices and prayers of all of the faithful, not those of an insulated few; who exhorts both laity and clergy to exhibit a standard of love and holiness that, as in the earliest days of the church, attracts others to a life of faith.

We know that, in the hearts of people of good will, you are working to lead the church in ways of goodness and holiness. We also know that it is possible to refuse your call. Keep us from falling into error. Preserve the church during this period, and strengthen it, that it may be for all a sign of the coming kingdom – a place where all may rest in safety, peace and love. We ask you this through Jesus Christ, our Lord, our model, and icon of the holy face of God.See More

Does charity end at the church door?

You've probably heard the story. A large party comes into an Applebees's in St. Louis. Like all parties with more than 8 patrons, an 18% tip is automatically added to the bill. When the party leaves, the woman paying, a pastor no less, stiffs the waitress, and on the receipt (above) crosses out the 18% tip ($6.29) and gives $0. Adding insult to injury, the pastor leaves a note: "I give God 10% why do you get 18%?" The waitress (unwisely) posts the receipt on Reddit. After complaints from the pastor herself, Applebee's fires the waitress.

This is wrong on so many levels. Why should the pastor retaliate against a waitress, one who makes $3.50 and hour and relies on tips, when her bitch is with Applebee's? And isn't giving to the poor a Christian virtue? Why not leave a smaller tip, like 10% or 15%, rather than none at all? And why go to Applebee's in the first place, when such chain restaurants commonly have the same gratuity policy? If you must, suck it up, pay the bill, and never eat there again.

The incident has got restaurant workers coming out of the woodwork with similar tales. According to a recent piece in Salon, waiters and waitresses dread working on Sundays, since churchgoers are so notoriously cheap. Except, it seems, when they are supporting their own projects. There was the church that responded to the Haiti earthquake by raising money -- to send solar-powered (!) bibles to that faith-drenched island. There is the church that tells its communicants that the best way to help after a deadly tsunami in Malaysia is to donate to the church's own building fund. And charity seems to come easily when it is for fellow church members or folks you are trying to get to join your church.

What is going on here? Closer to home, it's not unusual for parishes to spend all their funds to fix the roof, or replace the boiler. But I wonder how many churches have programs to help people not listed on the church roster, just for the sake of doing it, not to evangelize them or convert them? Sad as well is the lack of consciousness of the struggles of ordinary people.And the feeling that once we have given our ten percent, or whatever, our duty to God and our neighbor is at an end, and we get to stick it to others.

I am amazed that a Christian minister had the temerity to lord it over a person working for half of the minimum wage. And covering up that sin by getting the girl fired goes beyond the pale. Pastor Alois Bell, for that is her name, has a great deal of social damage to make up for. Her first act of penance, after an abject apology, would be to help the girl find a new job. And then, to publicly commit herself to paying a reasonable tip anytime she goes out to eat.

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink." Matthew 25:35

If you don't get the connection, realize that in French, a tip is a "pourboire" -- literally, "for a drink."

The Jewish Gospels

I love reading books that give me just a little novel insight into the mind of Jesus. "The Jewish Gospels," by Daniel Boyarin, is the latest. Boyarin, a Jewish scholar, argues that 1st century Judaism had a few strange and prominent threads that led directly to the world of Jesus and his disciples, and affected later Christianity in surprising ways. A reading of the book of Esdras, along with the book of Daniel, suggests a couple of things. More familiarly, Daniel gives us the figure of the Son of Man, a semi-divine figure expected at the end of days. But a close reading of Esdras amplifies the notion of the Son of Man, seeing him as a second divine figure, not a human being. This figure is younger than the Ancient of Days, an older, divine figure identified with YHWH. The younger Son of Man is given power and dominion over the Earth, and takes a throne alongside the older deity.

If this resonates with the Father-Son component of the Christian Trinity, that is precisely Boyarin's point.

Further, he goes on to argue that the Jewish Messiah was seen, at least by some, as a divine-human figure. And that this figure would take on the sins of the people. If this thesis is correct, it goes a long way to making the strangeness of Jesus's claims of messiahship and divine sonship less jarring. They fit right in with what some people thought the Messiah would be.

Boyarin's final chapters were the most interesting, from the point of view of one wanting to understand the world and mind of Jesus. Jesus, in Boyarin's view, was a religious conservative. He was defending a version of Judaism that had been temporized by groups like the Pharisees, who were adjusting the ancient texts. This conservatism is most commonly seen in Jesus's teaching on divorce. To his mind, the words of Genesis 2 ("for that reason, a man shall leave his home and cleave to his wife") were the original and unshakable understanding of God's stance toward marriage. It was the Pharisees who sought to make the teaching more lenient, allowing divorce.

Boyarin also gives a new reading to Jesus's supposed lack of interest in dietary laws. As Mark's gospel states, the Pharisees practiced the washing of hands before eating, something that the religiously conservative Jesus, and his disciples, choose not to to adopt. But behind this difference in customs lay a significant difference in the understanding of uncleanness. To Jesus, and to Torah conservatives, one was made unclean by what came out of the body -- blood, semen, discharge -- not what went into it. By washing their hands, the Pharisees were suggesting that it was also what went into one's body -- dirt, etc. -- that could make one unclean. Jesus took a conservative approach to the matter by rejecting the Pharisee's practice -- not because it was fussy, but because it was, in effect, unbiblical. Yet Jesus extended the Torah's approach (being made unclean by the products of one's body) by suggesting that one could be made unclean by the products of one's heart -- immorality, theft, murder, and the rest. Jesus rejected theological innovation, yet deepened the reach of the law in line with a conservative understanding of the Law.

I have to let the ideas of "The Jewish Gospel" sit with me for a while. But I was so impressed by its arguments that I took out my camera phone to snap images of certain pages. To those who are not afraid to imagine Jesus as a mainstream Jew of his time, albeit one whose ideas don't mesh well with ours, the book is a wonder. Boyarin has produced a thoughtful and well-argued claim for a Jesus who was fully part of his time and place. And yet, a Jesus who continues to challenge our own assumptions and practices.