#Ephesians 2:1 theological analysis | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

significanceofsongs · 5 years ago

Text

Some Kind of Zombie - Or - Is it ok to be a human?

Part 2 of my series “The Pitfalls of Evangelical Christianity - Set to Catchy Tunes!”

In Part 1, I looked at “Breathe” by the Newsboys and did some long-form analysis of how a certain theological perspective encourages Christians to be really hard on themselves. This time, I’ll be talking about “Some Kind of Zombie”, by Audio Adrenaline. Look around: Do you have a lot to do and are just taking a break for some light reading? Maybe shelve this essay for a time when you are otherwise unencumbered. Otherwise, it will be a serious, serious TLDR.

Some Kind of Zombie came out in 1997 - right after I started listening to Christian rock in 1995-1996. I remember listening to it and realizing that it was possible that I had started listening during the heyday of Christian Alternative music and that Some Kind of Zombie marked the beginning of the decline. I don’t know if that’s true, but it felt like it at the time.

Let’s talk about the music first. Some Kind of Zombie combines 1970′s disco (replete with falsetto vocals and strings) with medium-heavy alternative rock and some wacky out-of-the-box production touches. I want to say that there’s nothing that quite sounds like it. I think 90′s Christian Alternative music benefited from lower expectations in many cases. Christian record labels had a sense that the kids would just eat up whatever hard rock albums they could dream up, so they let their artists go nuts and just do it. Unfortunately, it didn’t always work out, and Some Kind of Zombie is an example of a song that didn’t quite get there. It’s just a little bit too sprawling and “production-y”. I, having made music that was too production-y myself, understand that sometimes that this is how it goes so I can’t judge the music too hard. They went all the way with it and I have to pay some respect where it’s due. But that said, if you’re going to dismiss Audio Adrenaline based on this song, you should at least check out Bloom instead. It’s a superior album and it has superior songs done in a superior style.

On to the words;

[Verse 1]

I must have been confused or vain

To let this evil in my brain

Lord did I enjoy the change

That You made inside my heart?

[Bridge]

Oh here they come

I’m not afraid

There’s no temptation I can’t evade

[Hook]

Stand up straight

I look through the haze

I begin to walk

Through the maze

Here they come

They’re all up on me

But I’m dead to sin

Like some kind of zombie

I hear You speak and I obey (Some kind of zombie)

I walk away from the grave (Some kind of zombie)

I will never be afraid (Some kind of zombie)

I gave my life away

[Verse 2]

I’m obliged and obey

I’m enslaved to what you say Disclaimer:

How can I write all of this without it being a strawman? There are as many Christianities as there Christians because everyone is different. It’s foolish to write criticisms of an entire faith. Any given reader is no doubt already formulating a response of “NOT I!”. I don’t want people to see this as a roast of Christianity. I want people to understand me and I want people to understand why the words we speak and our interpretations of things MATTER. It’s about me and my interpretations of things that I heard when I was a kid. If it can help anyone else to avoid the same pitfalls, great! It’s easier and more painless to find truth within your own faith than to be turned off, run away from it, find it elsewhere and then reassess how your faith is - in fact - pointing some people to that same truth. Therefore, you may detect anger and skepticism, but I hope that ultimately you see the forgiveness and understanding that writing this article brought about in me.

Part 1 The 30,000 foot view - what it’s about.

If you read my first post, you’ll remember that Breathe, by Newsboys is probably at least partially a meditation on Romans 7-8. So is Some Kind of Zombie. To review, here’s Romans 7:

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a]For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do��this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it… 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

And then on to 8…

8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.

So we gotta deal with these two chapters again. Great.

Part 2, the Biblical and Theological Background:

Evangelical Christianity has several different branches, and based on these two songs I suspect that Audio Adrenaline and Newsboys both subscribe to the Holiness Movement branch. The Holiness Movement is a wing of American Christianity that focuses heavily on Romans 7-8.

In Christianity - perhaps by design - it’s pretty much impossible to know exactly how good of a person you need to be in order to go to Heaven. The Bible offers no consistent answers.

On one hand James says that we have to have faith to be saved, but if we’re not also doing some unspecified amount of good things, our faith is dead. The writer of Ephesians says that we’re “saved by Grace, through faith, and not of works, so that no man should boast”. In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus says that compassion is the means of salvation. “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did also unto me”. John 3 has him saying that simply “believing in him and being ‘born again’” will do.

It is no wonder that entire Protestant denominations have sprung up around these verses. United Methodists seem to like James and Matthew’s take on Jesus, whereas the Lutherans seem to like Ephesians. Everyone seems to like John’s take, but it’s a bit unclear on what “born again” means, so it appears that the various denominations interpret it in light of whatever other verses they like.

Then there’s the issue of Romans v. Ephesians. The astute Christian reader has probably been gasping and muttering under her breath at this point that Paul wrote Ephesians, so there can’t be a contradiction between Romans and Ephesians. However, the general scholarly consensus is that Paul didn’t write Ephesians. It was likely a forgery in Paul’s name. And it makes sense because Ephesians says one thing and Romans says something totally different. I can imagine that the writer of Ephesians was writing to a group of Christians that were trying to outdo each other in terms of righteousness - calling each other’s salvation into question if the congregation members didn’t “exude enough spirituality” et al. I can imagine people reading Romans and being worried that perhaps their salvation was at risk because they didn’t “have enough of the Spirit of Christ within them” - aka they failed and sinned. The writer of Ephesians wants to put a stop to this absurdity and writes an authoritative book in the name of Paul - perhaps presented as a long lost volume. And in this book, the author tells everyone to chill out. “You’re all saved. Everyone is good enough. Jesus loves you all and everything is going to be ok.” I’m pretty sure that this is what is going on because Ephesians starts out with a close echo of Romans 7-8, but the emphasis is different. He takes away any sense of dread about the precariousness of his faith and any nervousness about the reality of his salvation, and instead focuses on God’s action in the whole business. The author says that we’re saved by the Grace of God, not by our own actions. God’s action is the most important factor in the equation.

In Romans, it’s distinctly different. In Romans, we abide in Christ and therefore the Spirit of Christ dwells in us and controls us so that we’re able to live up to a very high moral standard. Remember what it says: “The Spirit gives life because of righteousness” This is salvation as understood by some in the Holiness movement: We are given the strength, willpower and love of Christ so that we’re able to be extra super ultra good people - “little Christs, or Christians”.

Lutherans, who favor Ephesians, say that we’re saved by grace through believing and we have freedom as Christians to not worry about the law or being perfect. They might say “One ought to be a good person, but this isn’t as important as believing and being a part of the family of Christ. Those things will naturally make you a better person anyway.”

Romans and Ephesians present such different views of salvation that it’s no wonder different denominations have sprung up. It’s also no wonder that people argue endlessly about this topic and there are no clear winners. But I digress back to Romans. Why does Paul say that we should defeat our own sinful bodies by becoming vessels for the Spirit of Christ?

Jesus in Matthew 5:20 told his listeners that their righteousness must exceed the Pharisees and scribes in order to be saved. Elsewhere, he makes it pretty clear that the Pharisees aren’t actually righteous and that they’re just a bunch of wankers who arbitrarily have decided that they are the only ones who follow the law perfectly. While they appear to follow the letter of the law, they’re actually a bunch of snobby dicks, so they’re not really doing anything worthwhile. Their words are just a bunch of hollow platitudes and they are constantly grandstanding about their superiority. “Of course,” Jesus says, “you have to be more righteous than that. Giving a sandwich to a homeless person is better in the eyes of God than all of the meaningless rules you could follow to look more righteous than other people.” It’s really not saying much to say that you should be more righteous than the people who he calls hypocrites and a den of vipers.

But Paul himself was a Pharisee. One could extrapolate that he heard the saying of Jesus - that one must be more righteous than the Pharisees to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - and took it pretty personally. “How can I be more righteous than I already am? I’m trying so hard!” His answer was pretty revolutionary; If we are in Christ, then his spirit is living in us and we’re able to be perfect. He thinks that the only way to please God and be saved is by achieving spiritual unity with Christ - and in essence - becoming Jesus.

The Holiness Movement is all about that kind of thinking. They are not so arrogant as to suppose that they can achieve “Christ-likeness” on their own by following the words of God. That’s very difficult and Jesus says some pretty challenging things about loving your enemies and cutting out your eyeballs.

But Jesus had a twin aim and it was very specific. He wanted to destroy Rome and he wanted his people - the Jewish people - to snap out of it and rise up with him to destroy Rome. But his way of destroying Rome was interesting; he wanted to accomplish this mission through subversive nonviolence and love - being so righteous that you start to inspire change in society. If enough people change personally, they start to smash the fash and Jesus wanted to smash the fash. At least, this is the version of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke. Even today, casually giving a homeless person a sandwich is a slightly subversive activity. Capitalism insists that your personal value is dependent on your net worth. Following Jesus’ teachings flies in the face of that truism. Giving someone a truly free lunch is casually flipping capitalism the bird. And it seems that it’s always been a bit like that - even during the Roman Empire, which didn’t subscribe to capitalism. At any rate, in Matthew, Jesus told everyone in no uncertain terms that giving a needy fellow human a sandwich is the way to get into heaven, but Paul seems… distracted. Paul’s interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus became part of the Canon. And an entire movement of Christianity sprung up around it - the Holiness movement.

Part 3: The lyrics, broken down

Oh, you nodded off there. Sorry, I forgot for a second that we were here to talk about music lyrics from 1990’s Christian Rock songs. Ok so here’s what Some Kind of Zombie is saying:

In verse one, the singer approaches God as if (the singer) is a henchman in a Disney movie who has just failed in his mission to stop the good guy. God is the bad guy who responds with “You fool! Betray me one more time and you’ll see the meaning of Zombie!”

“I must have been confused or vain, to let this evil in my brain.” In other words, he’s not being tempted to do something bad because he’s a human being with human desires. He’s being tempted because he either was just too stupid to not be tempted (wut), or because he entertained the idea of doing (x sin) because he figured he was a strong enough Christian to think about it without doing it.

“Lord did I enjoy the change that you made inside my heart?”

Due to this temptation, he questions whether he even is a real Christian. Maybe it’s all been fake and he’s just been fooling himself all along.

Let’s be honest, this song is probably about sex stuff. He’s a Christian Rock star. He’s good looking. He has groupies I bet. Even if he’s not married, I’m guessing he’s constantly dealing with temptation from Christian girls that want to hook up with the godly rock star. He’s probably trying to be chaste and abstinent until he finds the right girl to marry. That’s fine, but his solution is disturbing.

He is trying his best, but daaaang some of those groupies are something else. There’s no way he’s going to be able to keep it in his pants without divine intervention - or so he thinks. He reads in Romans where it says that - if we’re in Christ - then Christ will dwell within us and make us super duper righteous. In essence, we’ll be possessed by the spirit of Christ and Jesus will take over and start running the ship.

The other night, the singer watched Dawn of the Dead and decided that it was a good metaphor for Romans 7-8. The zombies die and then rise again as mindless drones driven towards a singular purpose. In his case he has died to sin - died to himself - and replaced his old personality with the grafted-on personality and agenda of Jesus. Now he’s driven towards a singular purpose, but it’s not brains. It’s resisting temptation from all of those Christian groupies who want to jump his Christian bones.

“I’m obliged and I obey, I’m a slave to what you say”. Just like a zombie is driven by the virus to relentlessly seek brains, our “hero” lurches about through life without making any of his own decisions. No. He is completely under the control of Jesus and therefore he can easily ignore those Christian babes that want to ruin his reputation as a righteous and holy Christian Rock star. When you are talking to him you’re not talking to the guy from Audio Adrenaline, you are talking to literally Jesus, since Jesus is animating his fleshly form like he’s a golum.

There’s another ridiculous Christian worship song called “Every Move I Make”. It goes;

“Every move I make I make in you, you make me move Jesus. Every breath I take, I breathe in you”.

These songs encourage Christians to switch off their bodies, minds, and general humanity. “Your body is evil because it wants you to sin. It needs food and sex and to feel and express emotions that are inconvenient and contradictory to the gospel message. Therefore you gotta put that self to death and rise again with Jesus - becoming Jesus (metaphorically, or perhaps literally speaking) in the process.”

Paul says “who will rescue me from this body of death”. His body is harshing his spiritual mellow with its inconvenient demands, and if he doesn’t become more righteous than he was as a Pharisee, he’s gonna go to hell.

So too with the singer of Audio Adrenaline.

Part 4 “To Thine Own Self, Be True”

Any group of people that encourage me to just shut off my mind and do exactly what “God” says can take a number and I’ll politely explain to them that I’d rather not.

For one, my head is a noisy place. I’m talking to myself in a stream of thoughts all of the time. Some of these thoughts might be original, but I bet that most of them are just me regurgitating things that other people told me in the past. Even if some of my thoughts are from God, how do I know? How am I to know if my thoughts are;

a) God?

b) my own intuition?

c) a suggestion planted in there by a pastors sermon?

d) something my mom told me when I was six?

e) an idea I got from a friend?

f) Paul’s personal opinion that happened to be canonized?

g) the lyrics to a ridiculous Christian Rock song?

You can’t know.

It is possible to achieve spiritual insight and clarity of vision - to see things with an epic wide angle lens and feel connected with the divine. I have had some epic spiritual visions that fit this bill exactly. I’m not sure how “real” they were, but they were very interesting, compelling, beautiful, and powerful. I think what I saw led me closer to the truth. To get there, I did kind of have to shut off my mind and cease to pay attention to my body. But I never felt as though I was possessed or as though I was not me. I felt as though I was being shown something by a higher power - a benign, wise, and knowledgeable power who had no agenda for me - other than to show me the truth. I saw things differently after this. I will actually talk about this experience in another blog post, but for now, let’s just focus on how and who. How? By meditation and deep focus. Who? I’m not sure, but they didn’t tell me to DO anything. In contrast, plenty of people want you to just shut off your mind in a different way: Swear fealty to them, do what they say, and obey their commands. A good way to make people open to suggestion? Feed people suggestions, or barring that even commandments.Then say that they need to be quiet and listen to the “still small voice” in their head. Then people start listening to the “voice of God” in their own private prayer time, and guess what thought pops up? Hint, it’s not some beautiful heavenly vision usually. It’s something weird, like “you need to marry Bill, (who you absolutely do not want to marry)”, or “you need to stop playing music and become a medical missionary even though you have no training as a medical missionary.” Think I’m making this up? Well, I’m not. Both of those were real examples from anonymous holiness movement friends. Plus there’s me: When I was in Fifth Grade, my teacher at my Christian School said that there are things in life that aren’t sin, but that aren’t part of God’s will for our lives, and that God might ask us to give them up. “No reason”, I guess - “just to prove our obedience to him”. So, later, I started playing guitar and I fell in love with it. It totally changed my life. I had something that I was really good at that I chose for myself. When I played guitar, all of the stresses of life seemed to fade away and I felt good. It changed my brain. Before I started playing guitar, I was a conservative hawk who wanted to nuke any country that opposed us, just for looking at us sideways. Something about playing guitar and perhaps having my brain develop and have better integration between the left and right sides made me become more tolerant, intuitive, imaginative, and kind. But, I started to feel like I loved it too much and maybe God wanted me to give it up. I had this relentless, OCD-like thought in my head that I thought was maybe from God. The voice said: “Give up your guitar” - over and over again throughout the day. I now recognize that this was a symptom of anxiety. But it was anxiety brought on by THIS kind of thinking; Ridiculous, authoritarian, depersonalizing thinking. I can’t tell you how long I suffered with this obsessive anxious thought before I finally said “no” and it stopped. But then my other thinking started: I couldn’t even give up my guitar to please God; how was I supposed to do anything legit as a Christian? How was I supposed to give up all of my worldly possessions like the rich young ruler. If I couldn’t even do that, then could I even call myself a Christian? I guess not. If I didn’t have the Spirit of Christ in me controlling my every action like I was some kind of zombie, how could I really say that I was saved? Ephesians was scant help for me, I guess. Faith without works is dead, so I guess we can be saved by faith, BUT faith apparently means dying to yourself and becoming righteous so that you can be saved on account of how righteous you become. Of course it’s through no effort of your own, because Jesus just comes in there and takes over like he’s a power ranger and your’re Megazord; like you’re some kind of Zombie… and God is a…erm…virus?? That’s a way of looking at it, I guess. It’s a bit convoluted, and maybe it doesn’t make any sense though. For one, it all begs the question. Why would God make us all separate beings that have a variety of likes, dislikes, experiences, and lives - if the only way to be really saved is to just get rid of all of that and be possessed by his spirit so that you aren’t even really “yourself” anymore? Is that “good”? What are we even here for, if God - like an overbearing, workaholic manager - throws our report in the trash and writes it himself. “If you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself!” Do what right?

Are we not supposed to experience anything in life? Are we supposed to mentally float around above the existential plain while Jesus drives us around like a Subaru from errand to errand? Or are we supposed to just murder our own desires and personhood so we can create a space for him in ourselves and then become totally unconscious until we wake up in heaven some day - having done literally God knows what? I guess that thought was disturbing enough to me that I snapped out of my Christian conditioning and started thinking more about how ghastly that seems. I didn’t want to stop playing guitar. I didn’t want to be a pastor or a missionary. I didn’t want to not be in my body. My body was screaming at me to pay attention to it and not worry so much about how many brownie points I racked up on a given Thursday. In the midst of this conflict I spent more time worrying about this whole topic than I did doing anything worthwhile - giving sandwiches to bums for example.

Part 5: Sympathy for Paul

I just don’t think you can take what Paul wrote and happily apply it to any sort of existence in a world that isn’t pretty hellish. In other words, if life is kind of a nightmare, it might feel good to just turn off your brain and body and let a higher power take over so that you can accomplish your mission. Unfortunately for Paul, his life was pretty hard and horrible. This was partially by choice, but also partially because life in the fascist Roman Empire was really hard for everyone. If you think about Paul in those terms, his writing makes sense. Allow me to elaborate:

Jesus and Paul were tough as nails. Jesus died the most severe, awful death I can imagine. He was tortured for hours. He didn’t sell out his peeps. He suffered unimaginably but didn’t cave. And as a result the movement he started continued. Paul also suffered in his work. He lists his travails in Corinthians.

Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about.22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I.23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers.27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

They were fighting against the Empire. They were fighting against both Rome and the Jews. They were going toe to toe with the powers that were. They had to be as tough as nails to do it. When Paul talks about his weakness in Romans, he’s not saying that he’s having a hard time with porn addiction. He’s probably saying that - after lashing number 2 - it’s hard to get out of bed and fight the powers. Paul needs to invoke a higher power just to keep going down the road.

Fortunately, we don’t need to live our lives like that to spread the gospel message. For one, to get around, we can just fly a plane or drive a car. For two, in most countries it’s not only legal to be a Christian, it’s encouraged. If the only people that can go to heaven are those that are willing to Kamikaze at North Korea in a gutsy attempt to emulate Paul’s zealous mission work, then I hate to say it, but almost no one is going to heaven and that makes no sense. Christianity won, and now you don’t need to sacrifice your personhood to be able to practice your faith and live a good life.

Part 6: Misconstrued Messages Take you Weird Places.

Since we don’t have to die to ourselves and take up our crosses to follow Jesus anymore, what are we left with? Giving sandwiches to homeless people. Donating to the Red Cross. Building houses in places that are devastated by natural disasters. Being nice to people. Caring for others. Doing good things. Spiritual visions and existential understandings are great, but they can be wrong or misunderstood. Love transcends all of that.

But, if you take Paul too personally, you might find yourself singing about being some kind of zombie and believing that your natural desires are evil. You might find yourself begging for forgiveness for lusting after sexy Christian groupies. And you might spread this idea around - encouraging others to shut off their minds and bodies and lurch about like MegaZord - presumably with Jesus pulling the levers. But mightn’t this have some potentially negative consequences? No. No way this could ever be used for nefarious purposes. Perhaps you’re living in an abusive situation and you feel that if you just let Jesus take the wheel, he’ll help you suffer through it and you’ll be able to stick it out for your kids. Perhaps the Nazi party takes over your government and your pastor extolls Hitler’s virtues. In your prayer, you find that the still small voice says “vote Hitler”. Lots of people like you also vote Hitler and once elected and he immediately dissolves the legislature and then invades Poland.

On the less extreme end of things, perhaps you’re so busy trying to get to the level of spiritual ascendancy where you can not look at porn that you completely ignore the reason that you’re looking at it in the first place. But meanwhile, you’re so busy fighting that battle that you’re not giving sandwiches to bums, or barring even that, having enough wherewithal to be kind to the women around you. If you’re “joke-demanding” that women make you a sandwich, while fighting an addiction to porn…is there…maybe a connection? Idk. And do you really think that the solution for this is is to shut off your mind and become a thoughtless zombie for Jesus? It would be interesting to do a study on how well that works in the long run. I just can’t say I’ve met anyone that was able to operationalize this weird take on the Bible in any sort of medium or long term. Part 7 - Remembering But in the lyrics to Some Kind of Zombie, they’re not just mangling the message on account of failing to understand the historical context or Paul or Jesus. They just (conveniently?) quit reading after the section I highlighted above.

”I’m obliged and I obey. I’m a slave to what you say” - Audio Adrenaline

“14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.”16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

In other words, Jesus was not the only Son of God. Anyone can take on the mantle become - not just “like Christ in a tepid ‘WWJD’ way”, but literally a co-heir with Christ. Think of it this way, if Jesus is the Son of God, then Joe the Plumber who sincerely believes and is part of “Team God” and has accepted the Holy Spirit into his heart…yes Joe the Plumber…though his crack may be visible and exposed for you. HE is like Jesus’s little brother - a co heir to the glory and blessings of God. And that’s the interesting thing about Paul…and the interesting thing about Audio Adrenaline. By cutting off after where Paul makes it seem like we should become mindless zombie slaves of God and really insisting on it, they are pulling things in an interesting direction. Let’s take them literally (as is fun to do, when being annoying). Who are they praying to then? They are slaves to an invisible spirit that controls their actions and apparently has no respect for their personal freedom, desires, and wishes? Is this a God who assembles a giant family of loving humans to smash evil empires through love? Or is this a puppet master god - who obsessively fights to prevent Christian rock stars from getting laid while failing to prevent the Rock stars’ democratically elected government from blowing up some random country’s infrastructure for fun and profit? Curious that the Christian culture that fought to keep their virginity in the 1990s generally supported George W. Bush, who blew up other people’s countries in the 2000s.

I’m just saying. America is the empire. America is Rome. Just because there are Christians in charge a lot of the time does not mean anything. It is super weird that people are demanding God control their actions to fight their own personal desires; when they turn around vote for politicians that represent the worst, sleaziest, and most vindictive sides of those desires and then cause harm to either America or the world or both. It’s even weirder that God apparently has nothing to say about that and doesn’t control their hand as they try to vote for…literally ANYONE??? I guess…but especially George W. Bush. God must have known that GWB was liable to then start two eons long wars and destroy two countries and ruin countless lives. Why would he not do something about that impending disaster? Even sparing controlling divine intervention to move their hand and make them vote Green Party or whatever, did they not read Jonah? Did they literally read the end of Jonah? What do they think God cares more about? Their own personal “having it together” or the lives of literally MILLIONS of PEOPLE?

Some Christians think both are important. I went to a Nazarene college, where people believed God cared about both your personal ethics and your civic ethics. That’s getting a lot closer to Paul. But again, you don’t have do die for any of that anymore. Personally I think you don’t have to die in a literal sense or a metaphorical sense to be a good person. It’s not that hard. But no one ever, once in all of my time as a Christian, told me that I was the co-son of God with Jesus. No one once loved me like they would love Jesus in any sense of the word love. And I never thought the same about any of my fellow Christians. No one even loved me like I was the “least of these”. Instead, Christianity was a hard thing. It was all about dealing with the alleged evil in my heart and my alleged tendency to be the worst sort. There was no deference or love shown to me as a co-heir with Jesus - just a lot of “what can you do for us?” And of course, I too didn’t see any of my co-heirs as heirs. I viewed them skeptically - as bunch of people that were maybe good or maybe bad - but probably mostly bad. It says so elsewhere in the Bible, I think. Right? But barring what it says in the Bible, the Christians around me didn’t act like co-heirs with Christ. They acted like themselves because that’s generally what you have to do, and a lot of them were a bit sketch - just like I am. Just like you are, dear reader.

I eventually decided that it was best to develop a healthy spirituality that’s based on the idea that God loves all of you and created you for a reason and it’s not because he wants to micromanage your existence like a Power Ranger. Get out there and live!

But maybe I missed something there and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul isn’t talking about being a slave after all. Paul is sort of talking about remembering; remembering who we are and sort of “Rebecoming” it. I don’t think God will make us into zombies and that’s a terrifying idea. But we can be something much better. We can remember our fundamental divinity and let it grow within us so that we are able to live life and live it abundantly. Perhaps that’s what Paul is pointing us to - in his own way. Maybe I threw the baby out with the bathwater, but I rediscovered it in a different way on my own - a way that made more sense to me. And here as I write, I’m sort of “rediscovering it” in Christianity.

So that said, all hope is not lost for Christianity. It can still smash the empire. It can still be a force for good in the world. In it’s own way, in fits and starts, and in times and places, it has never totally stopped. I hope those with a sense of humor and a great deal of patience have the ears to hear me right now and can make the change that needs to happen within your faith.

In the meantime, listen to Bloom instead of Some Kind of Zombie.

0 notes

poetryofchrist · 6 years ago

Text

Biblical Studies Carnival 156 February 2019

Welcome to the 156th Biblical Studies Carnival February 2019 - The Lego Edition

TNK/OT

Posts this month heralded a new English translation of the Old Testament announced by the Jewish Telegraphic Society some months ago and in Carnival 153.

Deane Galbraith of Remnants of Giants notes Two New Misprinted Bibles.

when the authorities became aware of the error, most copies of the Wicked Bible were destroyed. Only a few copies survived, and these have become valuable collectors’ items.

Several reviewers from the Jewish Review of Books held a symposium on the Alter translation.

Alter’s Hebrew Bible is the only single-author translation by someone who has spent a lifetime studying literary artistry in both Hebrew and English. This is not to say that it is, or could be, beyond criticism.

Robert Alter wrote a short introduction in Ancient Near East Today.

The first might be described as strictly literary, which is to say, an attempt to find workable English equivalents for the cadences, the expressive syntax, the sound play, the thematic shaping of narrative through strategic word choice, and much else in the Hebrew. The other impetus is an effort to render faithfully the semantic force of the Hebrew words.

The apogee of classical form, all of them with shield and helmet (Ezekiel 38:5)

Bob MacDonald (your host) reviewed the reviewers in a series of posts: Has translation of the Bible into English reached its apogee?

Discussion of Alter's translations are not new in the blogosphere. Here is an early mention in the archives of the NY Times from 1996.

Also a post estimating how long it takes to translate the First Testament.

Goldingay reports that translating the First Testament consumed an hour of his time daily for five years. (7 days a week?) That would be 7*50*5 = 1750 hours. ... My estimate of what pace I could keep by the end of the project was 10 verses per hour. That would be 2,320 hours. From June 2015, I scheduled 4 hours a day 5 days a week 45 weeks of the year = 900 hours a year or about 3150 hours to November 2018.

James Davila posts about an article and responses on Alter's Bible.

To call it the best solo English Bible is, given the competition, not saying much. But one is also tempted to call it the best modern English Bible, period—a judgment with which Alter appears to agree.

Goldingay's First Testament is reviewed here.

The section titles in the FT are fantastic and funny, creative and clever. For example, “How David acquired his grandfather” for Ruth 4:11-22; “How to be the bad guy” for 2 Kings 21:1-12; “Let me tell you a story” for Proverbs 7:1-20. ...the FT forces me to think creatively about how to communicate biblical terms in ways people can more easily comprehend.

Sarah O'Connor via Marg Mowczko on Numbers 5:11ff.

In a world dominated by men, where a man’s honor was often valued above a woman’s life, the Bible stands out in its protection of women. Remember that the next time you read Numbers. If you ever do, I mean.

Marg Mowczko on the household codes.

The so-called household codes in Ephesians chapters 5-6 and Colossians chapters 3-4 are often used to support the idea of “gender roles.” These gender roles usually boil down to “the submission of all women to male-only authority.” But these codes were not primarily about gender roles or even gender. They were about power.

Rachel Barenblatt ponders the light of the world on parashah tetzaveh.

אמּת suitable for ages 4+ includes tool set and box

The Hasidic master known as the Sfat Emet reads this verse in a beautiful way. First he notes the verse from Proverbs, "The candle of God is the soul of a human being." When we are in dark places, we light a candle to help us see.

James McGrath ponders what is in the Bible (or not) considering translation or paraphrase.

“If you oppress poor people, you insult the God who made them; but kindness shown to the poor is an act of worship.”

Via James Davila, a usage history of Goy.

... a careful tracing of “the genealogy of the goy, from the Hebrew Bible [where “Israel is one goy among many”] to the rabbis and church fathers of the second and third centuries” of the Common Era ...

And again on Ethnic and Cultural Identities in the Rabbinic Goy Discourse.

...the authors offer a most insightful analysis of Paul’s motivations, arguing that the creation of a new model of equal membership of Jews and others within the ekklesia required a new binary language, which would obliterate any particular ethnic identities, and at the same time maintain the separate identity of the gentile qua gentile in the messianic age.

And moving on to Ki Tissa, a question raised about the legitimacy of sacrifice on Mt Carmel.

Clearly, in Elijah’s perception, Yahwistic altars such as the one that he repaired on Mount Carmel were not only legitimate, but their destruction represented an affront to YHWH, indeed a tangible expression of the people’s abandonment of their covenant with YHWH. The contrast between such a perception and the Deuteronomic law reflected in the Book of Kings itself that proscribes sacrificial worship outside of the Jerusalem temple could hardly be greater!

Rachel Adelman writes on atoning for the golden calf with the Kapporet.

Atop the kappōret, the ark’s cover, sat the golden cherubim, which framed the empty space (tokh) where God would speak with Moses. Drawing on the connection between the word kappōret and the root כ.פ.ר (“atone”), and noting how the golden calf episode interrupts the Tabernacle account, the rabbis suggest that the ark cover served as a means of atoning for the Israelites’ collective sin.

Henry Neufeld considers Hezekiah's horrible prayer.

... in 2 Kings 21 we see Manasseh, generally considered the worst king of Judah, took the throne at 12 years of age on the death of his father. His birth would have occurred in those 15 years added to Hezekiah’s life.

and follows up with a counter interpretation from Brevard Childs.

Ackroyd (“An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile,” Studies, 157ff.) has mounted a persuasive case against interpreting it as a smug response that the judgment will not personally affect him. Rather, it is an acceptance of the divine will in which Isaiah’s form of the response (39:8) emphasizes the certainty of divine blessing at least in his lifetime.

Andrew Perriman rethinks the identity of the servant.

Philip proclaims the crucified and resurrected Jesus as Israel’s Lord and Christ, no doubt drawing out the theological significance of the extraordinary turn of events through the analogy with—but not identification with—Isaiah’s portrayal of Israel as a suffering servant.

And he has a follow-up here.

as things stand, we have to reckon, both historically and canonically, with its current location. It’s an integral part of the story of the exile and the return from exile.

Deane Galbraith argues against the class prejudice of scholars about Tobit.

The class characteristics of the Tobit family are frequently missed by commentators, despite many indications of their wealth and status.

New and Old together

NT Julia Blum relates issues about Sabbath observance in Matthew.

The gospels are the only first century source that we have, where healing is permitted and performed on Shabbat. Jesus advocates – perhaps even establishes – the same approach that later, slightly modified, will become normative in Rabbinic Judaism.

Also on the parables.

For instance, we find a parable similar to Jesus’ Parable of the Lost Coin in a Jewish commentary on the Song of Songs—Song of Songs Rabbah. Remarkably, here the parable itself is likened to the Lost Coin. “The matter is like a king who lost a coin or a precious pearl in his house. He will find it by the light of a penny-worth wick. Likewise, do not let the parable appear of little worth to you: through the parable, a man can stand on the words of Torah.

Via Brian Small on FB, Report of a symposium on Hays Echos. Response by Rafael Rodriquez, and reply from Richard Hays (more to come in March).

[T]his is a book that offers an account of the narrative representation of Israel, Jesus, and the church in the canonical Gospels, with particular attention to the ways in which the four Evangelists reread Israel’s Scripture—as well as the ways in which Israel’s Scripture prefigures and illuminates the central character in the Gospel stories.

Second response by Eric Barreto and reply from Hays.

...the significance of the New Testament is not to be found on a single literary or historical layer; instead, the Gospels and Paul alike are palimpsests of interpretive activity.

Who will go up for us?

... the chief point of coherence that lies at the center of my [Hays] argument: namely, the christological coherence of the Gospel narratives, all four of which in their distinctive ways proclaim the identity of Jesus as the definitive embodiment of Israel’s God. This was a deeply scandalous claim within the world of ancient Judaism, and it is a point on which the four Gospels converge and agree.

The third tangential response is also available, the fourth still to come in April. A technical note on pre-existence from Larry Hurtado.

final things are first things ... it was a short (but remarkable) step from belief in Jesus’ eschatological significance to belief in his pre-existence, and likely required very little time to make that step.

He also examines the Christological idea that Jesus was considered angelic noting much detail on the last 120 years of thinking on this subject.

The simple fact is that earliest Jesus-followers had a rich body of angel-speculations available to them and were convinced of the reality of angels, but they never referred to Jesus as an angel (to judge from the NT texts).

Ian Paul asks about sexual boundaries and gospel freedom.

Instead of questioning the meaning of scriptural passages, the bishop appeals to ‘other sources of authority such as reason, scientific evidence and in serious dialogue with other disciplines’. This is not crude rationalistic liberalism, however, as an important step in his argument is that he sets out a biblical justification as to why scripture itself mandates us to go beyond it.

Ian also writes on the miraculous catch of fish (lectionary for February 5th).

We will see the metaphorical boat of the early church filled almost to sinking throughout Acts, as on several occasions thousands come to faith in Jesus at a time, and the structural nets of leadership need expanding and reconsidering, not least when the ‘gentile mission’ takes off under Paul’s ministry.

Bosco Peters has an opinion on these fishy tales too.

In last Sunday’s Gospel reading (Luke 5:1-11), fish were perfectly happy, swimming their happy fishy life, and then they are caught in half-cleaned nets, dragged to the shore and left, dead and dying, on abandoned boats in the late afternoon heat. And Jesus seems to say: “follow me – what we did to those fish, that’s what we are going to do to people”!

Airtonyo points to a chapter of Class Struggle in the New Testament available online.

It is not uncommon to find unchecked entrepreneurial assumptions influencing the interpretation of the New Testament world, not only in the popular press but even within the discourse of biblical studies. ... the retrojection of entrepreneurialism demonstrates just how totalizing neoliberal capitalism has become as an implicit hermeneutical frame—a way of seeing and structuring the entire world—in every field and period of human knowledge.

Phillip Long continues his posts on the New Testament, with daily sequential posts on The Acts of the Apostles, e.g. Gamaliel:

Gamaliel urges careful deliberation before acting. ... Why does Gamaliel give this advice to the Council? Is this, as Dunn says, simply “shrewd politics”? Or is there more to this story?

What were they praying for when Peter appeared?

... if they were praying for his release, then their response to Peter’s escape from prison is unusual.

and Herod Agrippa (I)

Agrippa is therefore demonstrating his piousness by pursuing the leaders of the Christian community.

Via FB, James McGrath points out a Zondervan online course with an introduction to Who wrote the Book of Acts.

Together with the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Hebrews, the book of Acts contains some of the most cultured Greek writing in the New Testament. On the other hand, roughness of Greek style turns up where Luke appears to be following Semitic sources or imitating the Septuagint.

Wayne Coppins ponders Angelika Reichert pondering the I in Romans 7.

Consequently, it appears sensible to modify how the question is posed, i.e. instead of the question of the meaning of the positive statements about the “I”, to place the question of their function in the flow of vv. 14-23 in the foreground.

James Tabor has a two part post on the 6 greatest ideas in the writings of Paul.

Helmet, repaired in the very place of its failure in its classical form

/from part 1/... putting “justification by faith” at the center of Paul’s thought throws everything off balance. ... the New Testament gospels are essentially Pauline documents, with underlying elements of the earlier Jesus tradition. .../from part 2/ he, as a Suffering Servant, along with Christ, would also pour out his blood as an offering, and thus “fill up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering”

Ken Schenck has posted a 10 part series on Leadership beginning with Corinth.

At some point around AD49, a Christian couple arrived at the city of Corinth named Priscilla and Aquila. I put the wife's name first because the New Testament typically puts her name first when it is referring to their ministry together. This fact suggests that she generally took the lead in ministry between the two.

Christopher Scott explores soteriology.

For an entire semester we talked about elements of salvation, biblical views on what it means to be saved, historical interpretations of salvation, as well as people that have tried to make salvation something other than what the Bible describes it as.

Airtonyo quotes Moltmann on fundamentalism

O documento divino da revelação não pode estar sujeito à interpretação humana mas, ao contrário, a interpretação humana deve estar sujeita ao documento divino da revelação.

Claude Mariottini posts his fifth study on the explore God Chicago 2019 series. "Is Jesus really God?"

... the writers of the New Testament, as they tried to identify the one who died on the cross and the one who overcame the grave, concluded that the one whom they called “the Christ,” was fully human and fully God.

Larry Hurtado notes the usage of the phrase son of God in early Christian writings.

So, it’s clear that the NT authors vary in their use of the expression “son of God”, with no clear pattern readily apparent to me. The authors of GJohn and 1 John easily out-distance other NT texts in usage of the phrase, and in the confessional significance attached to it.

James McGrath posts on the doctrine of personal infallibility citing Lars Cade.

Many Christians think something like this: “The Bible is True. I believe the Bible. Therefore, everything I believe is true.” This also applies to the morality of actions they may take or motives they may have (see: defending the separation of families by quoting Romans 13). With such a mentality, it simply does not occur to people that they may be wrong.

Peter Gurry examines the textual problems with Hebrews 11:11.

Thus, in one single verse, we must judge between ‘longer’ and ‘shorter’ texts, and not make a fetish of either. There is no royal road or short cut in these matters.

Other notes Via ETC via Paleojudaica among a clutch of debunkings, Is codex sinaiticus a fake? Short answer, No.

Obviously, the two sets of images were not taken to the level of precision that Daniels’ theory needs. If they were, we would see no difference in colour at all, because those two versions of yellow that you see in this image are the exact same colour in real life.

Also via James Davila, Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period.

By grappling with these questions, the essays in this volume evince a greater degree of precision vis-a-vis dating and historical context.

James McGrath interviews Pete Enns about his book How the Bible actually works. Larry Hurtado points out two new books from Jörg Frey,

One of the most productive NT scholars today is Professor Jörg Frey (University of Zurich), and so it is very good news to have a couple of his major works now available in English.

and on the marginalia review of books, has a review of Paula Fredriksen’s When Christians were Jews.

I have attempted to reimagine the stages by which the earliest Jesus-community would have first come together again, after the crucifixion. To understand how and why, despite the difficulties, these first followers of Jesus would have resettled in Jerusalem. To reconstruct the steps by which they became in some sense the center of a movement that was already fracturing bitterly within two decades of its founder’s death. To see how the seriatim waves of expectation, disappointment, and fresh interpretation would have sustained this astonishing assembly in the long decades framed by Pilate’s troops in 30 and Titus’s in 70.

Phillip Long reviews Douglas Mangum and Josh Westbury, eds. Linguistics & Biblical Exegesis

The second volume of the Lexham Methods series surveys the often difficult field of linguistics. Since the essays in this volume are all aimed at students who are doing exegesis of the whole Bible, examples are given for both the Old and New Testaments.

Amy Erikson reviews the five scrolls. Table of Contents and list of authors is here.

... there are contributions from six scholars working in South Africa, several from the United States, two from scholars based in China, and two based in Australia. ... The volume also contains essays by scholars from Israel, Argentina, and the Netherlands. The result is an eclectic collection of fresh readings that explores not only how a reader’s context might influence one’s reading of the text but also how the Bible might enrich a reader’s understanding of his or her context.

James Pate reviews George MacDonald in the Age of Miracles.

"Imagine Sheldon Cooper in the pulpit, only with the desire to be a poet."

James Davila points to a review by Yitz Landes of The Origins of Midrash.

for much of antiquity, including during the early rabbinic period, the Semitic root d.r.sh referred to teaching—textual or otherwise. Mandel thus overturns the consensus understanding that early uses of the root d.r.sh refer to textual interpretation, and that only later was the root expanded to encompass teaching more generally.

James Hanson reviews According to the Scriptures.

If all you know is the New Testament, you do not know the New Testament” - so the late New Testament scholar Martin Hengel is reputed to have said... Allen has done a great service by compiling a truly comprehensive bibliography on the question of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament, both in general and specifically in relation to Jesus’s death.

April DeConick speaks about silenced voices in religion. Kings of Israel - Todd Bolen links to a board game.

If the players are able to build enough altars before the game ends, they win. If the game ends by either the team running out of sin cubes or idols, or by Assyria destroying Israel, the prophets lose.

A conversation from Michael Langlois: Campus Protestant m’a demandé comment l’archéologie éclaire la Bible. A note on the Hebrew language from Autumn Light.

So next time you hear Murphy’s Law— If anything can go wrong—it will. remember Goldberg’s Corollary: If anything can go wrong—God forbid—it won’t.

Also from Jonathan Orr-Stav, an answer to a question about ס and פ as parashot markers.

The division into parashot is usually to indicate a contextual change, so there isn’t a consistency in the size or number of verses involved. In the case of the Ten Commandments, for example, each commandment is a parashah in its own right—presumably to underline its importance.

Jim Davila and Drew Longacre both note a new book: The Masora on Scripture and its Methods.

The ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible contain thousands of Masora comments of two types: Masora Magna and Masora Prava. How does this complex defense mechanism, which contains counting of words and combinations from the Bible, work?

Again via Jim Davila, a new trilingual inscription found near the tomb of Darius the Great.

the most famous trilingual inscription from Iran is the Behistun inscription, which (rather like the Rosetta Stone for Egyptian) was key to the decipherment of Akkadian.

Via Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni an article on the pomegranate from ASOR.

The pomegranate is attested in ancient Elam during the 4th millennium BCE, and then spread to the rest of the Near East, with the original shrub (Punica protopunica L.) reaching Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine by the end of the 3rd millennium. Sumerians appear to have been involved in domestication of the pomegranate (Punica granatum L.), and the fruit quickly became an important symbol.

Call for papers for Medicine in the Bible, Warsaw 2019.

Contributors should aim at offering a comparative perspective by keeping an eye on the embeddedness of medical discourses in their surrounding cultures( ancient Babylonian, Near Eastern, Graeco-Roman, Persian, Byzantine/Syriac or early Islamicate traditions). Such a perspective will allow for assessing Jewish and Talmudic medical knowledge within a broader history of ancient knowledge cultures and helps to determine their distinct epistemologies or particular Jewishness.

Conference announcement on the New Song

the meaning of the Bible's poetry as Jewish and Christian scripture in the 21st century - the difficulties (ambiguity, genre blending/bending, figurative language), the dynamics (poetry as experience relayed and as experience relived, theological explorations of form and content, prosody and parallelism), and the effects and demands on hearers and reading communities.

Liturgy redefines liturgy. Take your pick of three definitions,

[Liturgy] was in ancient Greece a public service established by the city-state whereby its richest members (whether citizens or resident aliens), more or less voluntarily, financed the State with their personal wealth.

Kurk Gayle announces a posthumous book by Suzanne McCarthy Valiant or Virtuous? Gender Bias in Bible Translation. Ian Paul remembers Michael Green. Vimoth Ramachandra reflects on grief. Jim Gordon speaks of loss. Future carnivals Please contact Phillip Long @plong42 to volunteer for a carnival. Note that June is currently open.

March 2019 (Due April 1) - Spencer Robinson, @spoiledmilks

April 2019 (Due May 1) - Christopher Scott

May 2019 (Due June 1) - Claude Mariottini, @DrMariottini

June 2019 (Due July 1) -

July 2019 (Due August 1) - Lindsay Kennedy, @digitalseminary

August 2019 (Due September 1) - Amateur Exegete, @amateurexegete

The dreaded bin of everlasting stor-age.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2tIvfF9 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years ago

Photo

Our Universal Mother - Part 84 - 2

Mary: God’s Yes to Man - Part 2

***

II. FOUR BASIC CONCEPTS

1. Mary, woman of faith

The central attitude by which Mary is defined in the encyclical is faith. Jesus is the Incarnate Word; he speaks from the depth of his union with the Father. Mary’s nature, however, and her life are essentially determined by her faith. “Blessed is she who believed” (Lk 1:45); this acclamation by Elizabeth addressed to Mary becomes the key concept in Mariology. Mary thus joins the circle of great men of faith, who are praised in the Letter to the Hebrews (chapter 11) whereby all commemoration of faith-heroes is given its theological place. This fundamental biblical ground is sustained throughout the encyclical and should always be remembered for a correct understanding. Thus the encyclical turns into a catechesis about faith as well as about the basic relationship of man to God. The Pope sees Mary’s attitude in relation to Abraham: just as Abraham’s faith stands at the beginning of the Old Covenant, so Mary’s faith at the Annunciation opens the New Covenant. Mary’s faith, like Abraham’s, means trust in God and obedience, even when one walks in darkness. It means letting go of oneself, freeing oneself, surrendering oneself in view of the truth, of God. Hence faith, in the obscurity of God’s inscrutable ways, becomes conformity with him (RM, no. 14).

The Pope sees Mary’s Yes, her act of faith, interpreted as well in that Psalm passage which the Letter to the Hebrews understands as the Son’s Yes to the Incarnation and the Cross: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me . . . I have come to do your will, O God” (Heb 10:5-7; Ps 40:6-8; RM, no. 13). In her Yes to the birth of God’s Son from her own womb, through the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary makes her body, her very self, into the place of God’s presence. In this Yes, therefore, Mary’s will and the Son’s will coincide. Through the one accord of “Yes”, “A body you have prepared for me”, the Incarnation becomes possible; and Mary, as Saint Augustine remarks, conceived in her spirit before conceiving in her body.

Faith includes suffering, as Abraham had to learn thoroughly, and as Mary experienced first in the encounter with Simeon, and then again in the loss and finding of the boy Jesus. The Pope clearly wishes to stress the words of the Gospel: “But they did not grasp what he said to them” (Lk 2:48-50; RM, no. 17). Even in intimate closeness to Jesus, the mystery remains mystery, and Mary cannot approach it but in faith. Yet just in this way she remains truly in touch with the new self-revelation of God, which is Incarnation. Indeed, because she is one of the “lowly ones” who accept the measure of faith, she stands in the promise: “Father . . . . what you have hidden from the learned and the clever you have revealed to the merest children. . . . No one knows the Son but the Father” (Mt 11:25-27; RM, no. 17).

The meditation on Mary’s faith finds its culmination and summation in the interpretation of Mary’s standing under the Cross. As the woman of faith she diligently “treasures in her heart” all the words she has received (Lk 1:29; 2:19, 51). But under the Cross the great promise given to her, “The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. . . and his kingdom will have no end” (Lk 1:32-35), appears definitely false. Here, faith has reached its utmost humiliation (kenosis), stands in total darkness. Yet just then is it fully united with the utmost humiliation (kenosis) of Jesus (Phil 2:5-8). Things here have come full circle: “A body you have prepared for me. . . . Lo, I have come to do your will.” Now this offer of self-surrender has been accepted, and Mary’s faith in darkness is precisely the culmination of that unity of will discussed at the beginning of this reflection. Faith — evident since Abraham — means communion with the Cross, and only on the Cross does faith find its highest fulfillment. In this and no other way will faith merit God’s “Blessed are you.” “You have revealed it to the merest children.”

2. The Sign of the Woman

The catechesis on faith implies the notion of a process and therefore of history. Hence it is not surprising that in a second train of thought, the encyclical, always closely following the biblical text, points to Mary as a guide in history, as a sign of the times. The twelfth chapter of Revelation presents the Sign of the Woman, a sign appearing at a certain moment in history in order to determine from then on the interrelation of heaven and earth. This passage distinctly recalls to the biblical account of the beginning of history, those mysterious lines traditionally called the proto-evangelium (first Gospel): “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel” (Gen 3:15).

The Church Fathers took this judgment on the serpent after the Fall as the first promise of a Redeemer, a reference to the offspring who will smash the serpent’s head. History, then, was never without “gospel”, without the Good News. The instant of the Fall became the beginning of the promise. The Fathers considered it important, too, that right at this first beginning we find the Christological and Mariological themes intimately intertwined. This primeval promise, obscure as it is, and deciphered only in the light of later texts, is a promise given to the woman, to come about through the woman.

The analysis of this text makes it clear that all revelation is a process, yielding its full message only as a whole. The meaning of the ensuing history unfolds in three actors: the woman, the offspring, the serpent. The offspring promises blessing and liberation: he strikes at the serpent’s head. But the curse, the bondage, retain their power: the serpent strikes at his heel. Blessing and curse may remain in balance, the outcome is uncertain. In the Book of Revelation all three actors return. The drama of history has reached its climax. The outcome, however, has already been determined by the event at Nazareth. “Hail, full of grace”, the angel had greeted Mary who now reappears as the woman whose blessing is complete.

Following his principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture, the Pope sheds light on this blessing formula by relating it to the opening of the Letter to the Ephesians. There we find identical expressions and thus a key to unlock that blessing’s fuller meaning: “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has bestowed on us in Christ every spiritual blessing in the heavens! God chose us in him before the world began . . . he likewise predestined us through Jesus Christ to be his adopted sons. . . that all might praise the glorious grace he has bestowed on us” (Eph 1:3-6; RM, nos. 7-11). The expression “full of grace” points to that fullness of blessing mentioned in Paul’s Letter. The Letter further implies that “the Son”, once and for all, has directed the drama of history toward the blessing. Mary, therefore, who gave birth to him, is truly “full of grace”—she becomes a sign in history. The angel greeted Mary, and from then on it is clear that the blessing is stronger than the curse. The sign of the woman has become the sign of hope, leading the way to hope. The sign of the woman reveals God’s favor toward humanity, a favor “more powerful than all manifestation of evil and sin, all that ‘enmity’ that constantly has shaped the course of human history” (RM, no. 11).

Seen from this viewpoint, the Marian Year expresses the Pope’s desire, in this our era, to hold up the “Sign of the Woman” as the essential “sign of the times”. On the path traced by this sign we journey in hope toward Christ, who through this guiding light directs the paths of history.

3. Mary’s role of mediation

Another theme I wish to single out is the teaching on Mary’s role of mediation, dealt with extensively in the Pope’s encyclical. This topic, without doubt, will attract most of the theological and ecumenical discussion. It is true, the Second Vatican Council has already mentioned the title “Mediatrix” and spoken about Mary’s mediation; yet this theme, so far, has not been thoroughly developed in the Magisterium’s documents. Regarding the subject itself, the encyclical does not extend the Council’s teaching whose terminology it follows. But the encyclical deepens the Council’s premises and thus gives them more substance for study and devotion.

First, let me briefly clarify the terms with which the Pope defines theologically the notion of mediation and guards it against misunderstandings; only then can the positive intention be adequately understood. The Holy Father strongly emphasizes Jesus Christ as the sole mediator. But this mediation is not exclusive, rather inclusive, allowing forms of participation. In other words, Christ as the only mediator does not take away our task to stand before God as persons linked to each other and responsible for each other. We all, in different ways and in union with Jesus Christ, can be mediators for each other in our approach to God. This is a simple matter of fact, evident in daily experiences; for nobody stands in the Faith all alone, everybody depends for a living faith on human mediation. No such human mediation, though, would suffice to build the bridge to God; human beings, by themselves, can never offer absolute assurance of God’s existence and his presence. Yet in union with the One who himself is this presence, we can and do act as mediators for each other.

With this, the general possibility and outline of mediation in relation to Christ is defined. The Pope develops his terminology from there. Mary’s mediation is based on participation in Christ’s mediation; compared to his role, hers is one of subordination. These terms are taken from the Council’s texts, as is the further statement: this role “flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it” (RM, no. 22; Lumen Gentium, no. 60). Mary’s mediation, therefore, is accomplished in intercession (RM, no. 21).

Everything said so far applies to Mary as well as to any human participation in Christ’s mediating role. In all of this, Mary’s mediation is not different from any other comparable human mediation. But the Pope does not leave it at that. Even though Mary’s mediation happens on the same level as our common human participation in the Savior’s mission, hers is nevertheless above the “ordinary”. It uniquely surpasses the mediating role that all of us, as members in the communion of saints, are empowered to exercise. The encyclical, again, develops these thoughts with constant reference to the biblical text.

An initial aspect of Mary’s unique mediating role is identified by the Pope in a profound reflection on the miracle at Cana. There, Mary’s intercession prompts Jesus to anticipate in a sign his coming “hour” — as it happens again and again in the “signs” of the Church, the sacraments. The conceptual definition proper of Mary’s special role of mediation occurs in part three of the encyclical, again by subtly connecting diverse Scripture passages that seemingly are unrelated, and yet, when considered together — remember the unity of the Bible! — yield surprising insights. The Pope’s basic thesis is this: Mary’s mediation is unique because it is maternal mediation, related to Christ who is always born anew into this world. Her mediation thus represents the female dimension in salvation history; this female dimension is forever centered in Mary’s role. Of course, if the Church is conceived only as an institution, only as the result of majority decisions and managed activities, then there is no room for such reflections. The Pope, in contrast to a readily accepted sociological notion of the Church, reminds us of a Pauline statement that has not received its due consideration: “You are my children, and you put me back in labor pains until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19). Life is not “made” but born, and not without labor pains. The “motherly awareness of the early Church”, identified here by the Pope, has great significance for our own time (RM, no. 43).

Now, we could indeed ask the question, Why do we have to think that this female and motherly dimension of the Church is residing forever in Mary? The encyclical’s answer begins with a Scripture passage, which at first sight seems to discourage any Marian devotion. When the unknown woman, excited after hearing Jesus, breaks out in praise of the “womb that bore” such a man, the Lord retorts, “Rather, blest are they who hear the word of God and keep it” (Lk 11:28). The Holy Father connects this text with the Lord’s similar saying: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act upon it” (Lk 8:20f.).

It seems as if these were anti-Marian statements. In truth, however, these passages reveal two important insights. First, beyond the unique physical birth of Christ, there exists another dimension of motherhood, which is and must be more comprehensive. And secondly, this motherhood, which constantly gives birth to Jesus, is founded on the hearing, keeping, and doing of his word.

It is again Luke, whose Gospel provided these two passages, who depicts Mary as the exemplary hearer of the Word; for she carries the Word within her, preserves it, and nurtures it to completion. This means that Luke, by handing on the Lord’s two quoted sayings, does not really contradict any Marian devotion but rather wants to anchor it in its true foundation. He shows that Mary’s motherhood is not just based on the biological event, which happened once, but on the fact that in her total being, Mary was, and is, and therefore will remain, a mother. Pentecost, the birth of the Church by the Holy Spirit, shows this in factual terms: Mary is in the midst of the praying assembly that, by the Spirit’s Advent, becomes Church. The analogy between Christ’s Incarnation by the power of the Spirit at Nazareth, and the birth of the Church on Pentecost, cannot be disregarded. “The person who links these two moments is Mary” (RM, no. 24). The Pope wishes to propose the scene of Pentecost as the unique sacred symbol of our time, the symbol of the Marian Year, the sign of hope for this our era (RM, no. 33).

What Luke brings out in a texture of interrelated hints, the Pope finds fully developed in Saint John’s Gospel, in the words of the Crucified to his Mother and to John, the beloved disciple. The words, “There is your mother”, and “Woman, there is your son”, have at all times inspired the exegetes to reflect on the special role of Mary in and for the Church; any Marian reflection rightly centers on these words. The Holy Father takes them to be the crucified Christ’s last will and testament. Here, at the very center of the paschal mystery, Mary is given as mother to all humanity. Mary’s motherhood receives a new dimension, the consequence of her untainted love come to perfection at the foot of the Cross (RM, no. 23).

The “Marian dimension in the life of Christ’s disciples . . . not only of John, but of every disciple, every Christian” is thus manifested. “Mary’s motherhood, our legacy, is a gift that Christ himself bestows on each one of us” (RM, no. 45).

The Holy Father offers here a subtle analysis of the passage that concludes this scene in the Gospel, customarily translated as, “From that hour onward, the disciple took her into his care” (Jn 19:27). The full depth, however, of what is happening here, so the Pope emphasizes, is revealed only in a strictly literal translation. Then, in fact, we read: he took her into his own. This, for the Holy Father, means a special personal relationship between the disciple — any disciple — and Mary, the admission of Mary into the innermost regions of one’s mental and spiritual life, the entry into her reality as woman and mother. All this becomes a way to bring forth Christ always anew, and leads a disciple to conform to the image of Christ. Thus the Marian challenge defines the role of womanhood, the feminine dimension of the Church, and the specific vocation of women in the Church (RM, no. 46).

All the Scripture passages converge, once their correlation within one fabric of thought has been shown in the encyclical. For the Gospel writer John, in the Cana passage as well as the crucifixion account, does not use Mary’s proper name, nor the title “Mother”, but “Woman”. The correlation to chapter three of Genesis and chapter twelve of Revelation, to the “Sign of the Woman”, is thus suggested by these texts. Without doubt, John’s specific expressions are designed to show Mary simply as “the woman”, a figure of general and symbolic significance. The crucifixion account, then, turns into an interpretation of history, pointing to the “Sign of the Woman”, to her who with maternal care takes part in the struggle against the powers of negation and so becomes our sign of hope (RM, nos. 24 and 47). Everything that follows from these texts is summed up in the encyclical in a statement from Pope Paul’s Profession of Faith: “We believe that the most holy Mother of God, the new Eve, the Mother of the Church, carries on in heaven her maternal role with regard to the members of Christ, cooperating in the birth and development of divine life in the souls of the redeemed” (RM, no. 47).

4. Meaning of the Marian Year

Using all these elements, the Pope finally constructs the meaning of the new Marian Year. While the Marian Year of Pius XII was connected with the two dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, this Marian Year centers on the special presence of the Blessed Mother within the mystery of Christ and his Church (RM, no. 48). The purpose of this new Marian Year is not only to remind, but to prepare (RM, no. 49); its dynamic aspect points toward the future. The Pope recalls the Millennium of the baptism of Saint Vladimir, an event which may also be considered the Millennium of Russia’s conversion to Christianity, and relates this to the bi-Millennium of Christ’s birth. Such dates demand not only remembrance, but much more a renewed awareness of our true historical and human identity transpiring in these dates. Such renewed orientation of our history toward its foundations is the profoundest meaning of this Jubilee Year. At this historical moment, with its explosion of new knowledge combined with a crisis of all spiritual values, who would deny our dire need for the repositioning of our existence?

The time frame chosen by the Pope for the Marian Year strikingly underlines its inner meaning. It begins with Pentecost. The scene of Pentecost, as mentioned above, should become the sacred symbol of our identity and so of our true hope. The Church has to learn anew from Mary how to be “authentic Church”. Only through a re-orientation toward the Sign of the Woman, toward the correctly defined female dimension of the Church, will come about the new openness for the Spirit’s creative power and our transformation into the image and likeness of Christ, whose presence alone can give direction and hope to history. The Marian Year closes with the Feast of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven, and thus directs our gaze toward the great sign of hope, toward humanity’s final salvation anticipated in Mary, in whom is revealed the realm where salvation, indeed all salvation, is accomplished.

The Pope uses the conclusion of the encyclical to identify in striking, practical terms the coordinates of our time and thus the purpose of the Marian Year. We already mentioned that he sees our era as a new time of Advent. In this context, he now interprets the ancient Advent hymn “Alma Redemptoris Mater” and emphasizes its line, “Assist your people who have fallen yet strive to rise again.” The Marian Year, as it were, is situated at the critical line between falling and rising, in the twilight between the striking at the serpent’s head, and the striking at man’s vulnerable heel. We find ourselves in this situation still, and always anew.

The Marian Year intends to challenge everyone’s conscience to choose the path of non-falling, to learn from Mary about this path. In a sense, it is intended to be one loud cry for help, “Assist, oh, assist your people who are falling!” (RM, no. 52). In the conception of the encyclical, the Marian Year stands far from mere sentimental devotion. It implores our generation to recognize the call of this historical hour, and to direct our steps onto the path that protects from falling, even in the midst of countless dangers.

#our universal mother

0 notes