Last Sunday Joe kicked the Lenten season off with a sermon about Jesus being tempted. As the Scripture was read I had a sudden "aha" experience. It was not about temptation. It was about listening to Scripture with understanding.
If you have a somewhat traditional background in the Christian church you have learned that Jesus either went or was driven into the wilderness for 40 days and nights and was tempted by the devil. Right?
But as I listened I understood that the last temptation was Jesus being on the high point of the Temple in Jerusalem. What if. . .
What if it took the best part of forty days to wander through the wilderness and up the hill to Jerusalem and into the Temple and up to the highest point. There were not buses, cabs, cars, trains or helicopters. Traditional interpretation is comfortable with Jesus being physically present and hungry in the wilderness, and being tempted to "do a miracle" and turn one or more the rocks nearby into a loaf of bread. Traditional interpretation is mixed about being taken to a high point to see "all the kingdoms of the world", but some interpreters accept the idea that Jesus somehow found himself on a very high ridge or mountain (perhaps Mt. Sinai?).
From where he was baptized in the Jordan river, out to the wild places, wandering up a mountain, and then back across the Jordan and up to Jerusalem could have taken forty days or thereabouts. Right?
Side note: scholars generally accept that the number "forty" means a long time, not necessarily exactly forty years or forty days.
I question my own understanding even more, now, having seen the possibility that Jesus may have actually gone to more than just the wilderness. Maybe he went to a high point on the Temple in Jerusalem as well.
I'm not sure what this means, but it makes the story seem more real to me. A guy was in spiritual and mental turmoil and trekked here and there trying to make sense out of hearing that Voice.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Continuing the Farce Off Stage
One of the reasons many people do not embrace a life of faith, or a life lived in an organized faith community, is the problem of hypocrisy. I think the biggest issue is when a "leader" or authority figure teaches or proclaims one kind of behavior as proper, righteous, law-abiding and either fails herself to live that way or condones that sort of behavior in certain others. The "certain others" may be seen as "pets".
The word hypocrisy has in its root meaning the idea of play-acting. The hypocrite is acting a role that is not his or her authentic self. Think of the actor playing Romeo, a callow youth. But the actor may be older, happily married, and inclined to suicide at all. The actor is simply, in the best sense of the word, a hypocrite.
But think of the preacher or priest who vigorously denounces homosexuality but who indulges himself in homosexual relationships, or condones certain friends who practice homosexual behavior, often as predators. This preacher or priest is a hypocrite in the worst sense of the word.
Such people may be among the high priesthood of civil religion, acting as senators, representatives, generals, admirals and such. They presume to write laws constraining you and me in the name of righteousness and are arrested for drunk driving, caught in restrooms soliciting sexual encounters they publicly condemn and so forth.
Hypocrites such as these really turn people off. Well, they turn me off.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
The word hypocrisy has in its root meaning the idea of play-acting. The hypocrite is acting a role that is not his or her authentic self. Think of the actor playing Romeo, a callow youth. But the actor may be older, happily married, and inclined to suicide at all. The actor is simply, in the best sense of the word, a hypocrite.
But think of the preacher or priest who vigorously denounces homosexuality but who indulges himself in homosexual relationships, or condones certain friends who practice homosexual behavior, often as predators. This preacher or priest is a hypocrite in the worst sense of the word.
Such people may be among the high priesthood of civil religion, acting as senators, representatives, generals, admirals and such. They presume to write laws constraining you and me in the name of righteousness and are arrested for drunk driving, caught in restrooms soliciting sexual encounters they publicly condemn and so forth.
Hypocrites such as these really turn people off. Well, they turn me off.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Faith?
I received this in an email recently:
MT. VERNON, TEXAS, WHOREHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE
Diamond D's brothel began construction on an expansion of their building to increase their ever-growing business. In response, the local Baptist Church started a campaign to block the business from expanding -- with morning, afternoon, and evening prayer sessions at their church. Work on Diamond D's progressed right up until the week before the grand reopening when lightning struck the whorehouse and burned it to the ground!
After the cat-house was burned to the ground by the lightning strike, the church folks were rather smug in their outlook, bragging about "the power of prayer."
But late last week 'Big Jugs' Jill Diamond, the owner/madam, sued the church, the preacher and the entire congregation on the grounds that the church ... "was ultimately responsible for the demise of her building and her business -- either through direct or indirect divine actions or means."
In its reply to the court, the church vehemently and voraciously denied any and all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise.
The crusty old judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply, and at the opening hearing he commented, "I don't know how the hell I'm going to decide this case, but it appears from the paperwork, that we now have a whorehouse owner who staunchly believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that thinks it's all a bunch of horse manure!"
The story raises some of the real issues in the American church. We don't really want our prayers answered if "answered prayer" costs very much.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
MT. VERNON, TEXAS, WHOREHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE
Diamond D's brothel began construction on an expansion of their building to increase their ever-growing business. In response, the local Baptist Church started a campaign to block the business from expanding -- with morning, afternoon, and evening prayer sessions at their church. Work on Diamond D's progressed right up until the week before the grand reopening when lightning struck the whorehouse and burned it to the ground!
After the cat-house was burned to the ground by the lightning strike, the church folks were rather smug in their outlook, bragging about "the power of prayer."
But late last week 'Big Jugs' Jill Diamond, the owner/madam, sued the church, the preacher and the entire congregation on the grounds that the church ... "was ultimately responsible for the demise of her building and her business -- either through direct or indirect divine actions or means."
In its reply to the court, the church vehemently and voraciously denied any and all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise.
The crusty old judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply, and at the opening hearing he commented, "I don't know how the hell I'm going to decide this case, but it appears from the paperwork, that we now have a whorehouse owner who staunchly believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that thinks it's all a bunch of horse manure!"
The story raises some of the real issues in the American church. We don't really want our prayers answered if "answered prayer" costs very much.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)