#written for the biblical retellings request

[deepwaterwritingprompts]

Text: An assassin for hire, I often make deals with the devil, who is so impressed by my lack of morals he’s been bragging about me to god. This is not good.

[dwellordream]

“England, an island kingdom with a majority population of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Danish origin and a ruling minority of Norman French descent, must have seemed in many ways a strange land to Eleanor. Happily for the queen, England since the 1066 Norman Conquest had had close links with the French and Latin culture prevailing on the European mainland. While the majority of the native population spoke English, the language spoken among the aristocracy at the royal court and by London’s commercial classes was Anglo-Norman French. The clergy and many royal officials knew Latin as well and easily moved from one language to the other. 

A number of Anglo-Norman speakers were trilingual, since they found some knowledge of English, the language spoken by the mass of the population, a practical necessity, but French would remain the language of the royal court long after Eleanor’s time. One of Henry II’s courtiers wrote glowingly of the king’s linguistic skill, noting that he “had some knowledge of every language from the Channel to the river Jordan, but himself employed only Latin and French.” Probably Henry could grasp the gist of what was said to him in English, but was far from fluent and unable to make himself understood by English speakers.

Such linguistic plurality was familiar to Eleanor, who had moved back and forth in her childhood between the two French tongues, langue d’oïl and langue d’oc. Yet she never learned English, although she must have had many English-speaking servants. Surviving accounts from Henry II’s early years as king mention his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine and little more, but there can be no doubt that shocking rumors about her conduct on the Second Crusade followed her to her new kingdom. 

Large numbers of ambitious English youths who sought out the learning of the schools of Paris doubtless laughed over drinks in their taverns at exaggerated stories told of their new queen’s scandalous conduct as Louis VII’s consort. On their return to England in search of employment, many gathered at the royal court, a place filled with clever courtiers, ambitious and greedy men of low birth, who traded on amusing stories to stand out from their fellows in the rivalry for patronage. They readily turned their skill with words toward gossip, flattery, lies, and hypocrisy in order to prevail over competitors. 

Doubtless, one means of impressing potential patrons with their access to power was to retell tales of the queen’s immorality that they had heard while in France. Nothing could be kept secret at court, for the royal family lived their lives in public with courtiers and lesser servants constantly present, and they could not avoid being the subjects of much gossip. It is impossible to gauge how far down among the common people gossip about the new queen penetrated. The majority of Eleanor’s new subjects probably knew little more than that she came from a place far away in the south of France and that she had left her first husband, the French king, to marry Henry Plantagenet. 

Yet court gossip circulated among Londoners and no doubt spread to their acquaintances in the countryside. Eleanor’s largely unflattering portrait painted by English chroniclers writing toward the end of the twelfth century probably reflects popular opinion. It shows that she did not meet a standard for queenship being defined in the course of the century, part of a reformulation of gender roles that would impose harsher judgments of her than those passed on earlier English queens. Despite a growing animus against powerful women, Eleanor’s four Anglo Norman predecessors as English queen-consorts had enjoyed the approval of contemporary writers. 

The chronicler Orderic Vitalis, an English-born monk writing in Normandy, supplies few signs of women’s worsening conditions early in the twelfth century. His stereotypical references to feminine weaknesses are no more than superficial comments made in passing. He portrays queens as companions and helpmates to their husbands, “helping in government in any time of crisis, ruling during minorities, or helping the foundation of churches.” 

Other chroniclers similarly described Anglo-Norman queens in conventional terms as models of piety and purity, making benefactions to religious institutions and supporting literary and artistic patronage at the royal court. These ladies attracted no scandalous gossip, were conscientious mothers and worthy companions of their royal consorts, even if occasionally involved in politics, serving as regents during their husbands’ absences from the kingdom. 

William I’s wife Matilda of Flanders escaped Orderic’s condemnation for mixing in worldly matters, since circumstances required her to act as governor of Normandy for long periods while her husband was busy consolidating his rule over his new kingdom of England. Orderic recorded without disapproval “the hard facts of her participation in the work of government” later in England, where she acted as regent and even as royal judge. Henry I’s consort Edith-Matilda had exerted similar influence in the political sphere, acting as regent during her husband’s absences from the realm. When exercising power on Henry I’s behalf, she applied her own seal to royal documents, and she expected royal officials to obey her as they would the king.

Yet her activity as her husband’s helpmate did not sully her reputation, for her piety staved off writers’ objections. Indeed, Edith-Matilda spoke openly of her influence over her husband; in a letter to Anselm of Canterbury, who had incurred royal wrath, she told him, “With God’s help and my suggestions, as far as I am able, [Henry] may become more welcoming and compromising towards you.” Eleanor’s efforts as Henry II’s regent during the first decade of their marriage did not win her similar praise, however. 

Unlike Henry’s grandmother, whose intercession with her husband on behalf of worthy petitioners had led churchmen to compare her to the biblical Queen Esther, Eleanor did not earn contemporaries’ gratitude for taking advantage of her intimate access to Henry to intervene for the sake of others. Edith-Matilda with her saintliness represented a model of what was expected and esteemed in an English royal consort. Yet her death in 1118 marked a change for English queenship, for by then the eleventh-century reform movement’s fight for clerical celibacy was bringing about a sharpening of gender definitions to deny women any public role.

While Eleanor was queen, English churchmen were condemning great women for assuming such “manly” roles as the exercise of power, and they decried husbands who allowed their wives a role in public life as guilty of “unmanly” behavior. Henry II’s own mother, Empress Matilda, had suffered from accusations of an “unwomanly” desire for power. Eleanor sought a place for herself in politics that went beyond what northern Europeans considered suitable for a queen. Even as a young wife and a stranger at the court of Louis VII, she had demonstrated a desire to share power with her royal husband; and she had resented both her mother-in-law’s influence over her young husband and Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis’s role as his senior counselor. 

As a French biographer writes, “It is that constant political activity and her role at court . . . that makes Eleanor an exceptional woman to the point of astonishing the historians of our time and of shocking the misogynistic chroniclers of her own.” Religious devotion was an important quality for queens, who were expected to be models of piety, using their prominence to promote religion in the kingdom. While Eleanor’s predecessors were known to have given pious gifts to monastic institutions, including new foundations, she is not noted for having founded new religious houses in England. 

… monasteries or convents favored by her ancestors seem never to have benefitted from gifts of English lands from her as additions to their endowments. Unlike Henry II, who provided Fontevraud with revenues from English properties and encouraged the foundation of Fontevraudist priories in England, no evidence survives of Eleanor’s gifts to that house from her English revenues. Eleanor formed a special relationship with Reading Abbey where her first son, William, dead at the age of three, was entombed in 1156, apparently while Henry II was abroad. 

No doubt her husband sent instructions concerning their son’s burial; and his body was placed at the feet of his great-grandfather, to King Henry I of England, Henry’s model for ruling England. The choice of Reading as the child’s resting place was a means of linking the Angevin king and his family to Henry I, founder of the abbey, who had intended it to be a royal mausoleum. Like parents in any age, Eleanor and Henry mourned the loss of their first child. In making a grant for the little boy’s soul to Hurley Priory, a dependent house of Westminster Abbey, the king declared that the gift was made at the queen’s request and with her assent.

…Another rare letter to Eleanor as queen of England survives to cast light on her spiritual life. It was written to her by the prophet and mystic, Hildegard of Bingen (d.1179), another remarkable twelfth-century woman, and a letter addressed by her to Henry II also survives. As Hildegard’s fame spread, she conducted a wide correspondence replying to requests for her advice from powerful persons throughout Europe, including England.

Since the letter cannot be dated more precisely than sometime before 1170, the event that impelled Hildegard to write to the English queen remains a mystery. She addresses Eleanor not so much as a sovereign as a woman who is prey to troubles; and she offers counsel to calm her, advising her to search for stability. She wrote “Your mind is similar to a wall plunged into a whirlwind of clouds. You look all around, but find no rest. Flee that and remain firm and stable, with God as with men, and God will then help you in all your tribulations. May he give you his blessing and his aid in all your undertakings.”

- Ralph V. Turner, “Once More a Queen and Mother: England, 1154–1168.” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England

[fictionadventurer]

Hello! I honestly love your blog and all the things you say, so I was wondering if you have any book recs for fiction, YA or adult, with catholic morals and feel-good ending, that you could share with us? I've been browsing books at libraries for so long but I very seldom find anything that makes me want to spend time in their world. Thank you!!

Thank you! I’m honored that you thought of me as a resource for this kind of thing! I don’t tend to think of fiction in terms of Catholic morals (I generally look for “clean” and think of anything else as a nice bonus), so I can’t vouch for theological purity or anything, but I think some of these books might fit the bill.

The Fairy Tale Novels by Regina Doman: Six books that retell fairy tales in the modern-day real world with Catholic characters. The first three books (The Shadow of the Bear, Black as Night, and Waking Rose) form a trilogy about two sisters.  The next two books (The Midnight Dancers and Alex O’Donnell and the 40 Cyberthieves) involve side characters from that trilogy. The sixth (Rapunzel Let Down) is an adult novel involving mostly new characters. Like fairy tales, these books involve a lot of darkness, but also a ton of beauty and hope and truth. They may not be the best-written books ever (I suspect if I reread them I’d find a lot more flaws in the style) but they honestly revolutionized my faith and reading life. A lot of the characters are readers, so if you explore some of the books they mention, you’ll have a pretty good reading list.

The Father Brown stories by G.K. Chesterton: Golden Age mystery short stories involving a Catholic priest as the amateur detective. They’re classics for a reason, and are probably the most accessible of Chesterton’s fiction.

The Man Born to Be King by Dorothy L. Sayers: The Gospels retold as a series of 12 radio plays broadcast on the BBC in the 1940s. Unlike any other Biblical adaptation I’ve seen, this doesn’t just present Bible scenes, it invents more, filling in tons about the ordinary life that was happening around the extraordinary event of God becoming Man. The character work is amazing, with the apostles having lovable personalities, and Jesus becoming a fully-rounded, approachable person in a way that I’ve yet to see another adaptation match. The book provides the scripts of all twelve plays, plus the extensive notes that Sayers used to explain each play to the producers. Though Sayers is Anglican, her theology is soundly Catholic. Even when I don’t agree with her interpretations of certain scenes, the result is a riveting drama.

Tales of Goldstone Wood by Anne Elisabeth Stengl: If you like Narnia, this should be the next stop on your reading list. It’s elaborate, fairy-tale-influenced and allegorical high fantasy for young adult readers. The first book is rough, but the series get stronger and richer as it goes on. My favorite is the sixth novel, Shadow Hand, but you need to read the rest of the series to understand it. Lots of dragons and scariness in some of the stories, but also a lot of brightness and humor and hope.

The Electrical Menagerie by Mollie E. Reeder: A slightly steampunkish fantasy in a world where islands float in space and are connected by flying trains. A 50-some-year-old illusionist and his fast-talking 20-some-year-old business manager stake their livelihoods on winning a contest to perform for the queen, and wind up entangled in murder and intrigue. No real religious content, but clean, entirely compatible with Christian morality, and an utter delight. It’s an indie book that managed to get a starred review from Publisher’s Weekly, so it’s something pretty special.

Shadows Over England series by Roseanna M. White: A trilogy involving a family of thieves employed as spies in the early days of WWI. They’re Christian historical fiction romance, but they’re some of the stronger books I’ve seen in the genre (for one thing, the romance doesn’t overwhelm the historical and political intrigue portions of the plot). They definitely have some weaknesses in plotting and characterization, and some of the theology is very Protestant, but they involve several of my favorite fictional topics (WWI, spies, thieves, families, libraries, music) so I love them anyway. A follow-up book to this series, The Number of Love (just released so I haven’t read it yet), involves a Catholic heroine (whose Catholicism is respected as valid Christianity–a nice feature in a Protestant book) who was my favorite character in this trilogy, and it’s probably my most anticipated new release of the year.

I hope this helps! I feel like this list is kind of generic, especially if you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time at all, so let me know if you have any more specific requests for recommendations.

[wakingeve]

“The reason Jesus raised the dead is because not everyone dies in God’s timing. Jesus could tell, and He would interrupt that funeral, He would interrupt that process that some would just call the sovereignty of God. And He’d raise the little girl, he’d raise the adult person from the dead.”

That’s the reason Bill Johnson, senior pastor at Bethel Church Redding, asserts for his church’s request for prayer to raise a dead two-year-old girl according to his interpretation of this portion of the gospel but it begs the question: is that the real reason Jesus raised the dead?

Johnson released a video message Wednesday in response to the outcry and criticism explaining that he and his church family believe God has called them to follow the precedent that Jesus set forth by commanding His followers to raise the dead.

“Saturday, just a few days ago, we had a great tragedy, one of the key individuals in our world, their 2-year-old little girl died, quite unexpectedly, just out of nowhere. So we’ve been praying for the miracle of God. Mom and dad, Andrew and Kelly, have asked us to pray for resurrection. We’ve joined with them,” Johnson said in a video clip posted on Instagram.

Johnson addressed their church’s beliefs in the video.

“We have a biblical precedent, Jesus raised the dead! Not only that, He introduced Himself as the resurrection and the life. In fact, in John 11 verse 40, He says, ‘If you believe you will see the glory of God,’” Johnson said.

“So seeing what Jesus has accomplished, what He did in His lifetime, and then when you add to that He commanded His followers, His disciples, in Matthew Chapter 10, verse 8, ‘to heal the sick, to raise the dead, to cast out devils, to cleanse the lepers.’ None of those are things that we can actually do. Yet He commanded us because somehow, in our Yes, He gives us the ability to carry out His mission. Being commissioned means we’ve said yes to His mission,” the Redding, California-based church leader continued.

  The leader said when there is breakthrough or a miracle, Jesus gets the credit, adding, “but when it doesn’t work, we don’t blame God. We give him the glory. We give him the praise. We celebrate his goodness, his kindness, because nothing about our experience – difficult or not – changes who he is.”

Johnson said he and his church members are committed to living with a conviction and a devotion to what Jesus taught them to do. While in this period of believing for a miracle and hosting worship services to pray for Olive to “wake up,” some have criticized the church and its leadership for giving the family “false hope” or interfering with God’s will, but the minister says he believed this death was not God’s timing. 

“Some have asked, ‘isn’t this interrupting the sovereignty of God?’ And my response is, ‘First of all, we don’t ever want to violate the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign. He chooses what He wants and we cooperate with Him. There’s no question.’ But then my question is, why did Jesus raise the dead? Did He violate the sovereignty of God? Did the Father will one thing, and Jesus will another? Of course not!” Johnson emphasized.

He added: “The reason Jesus raised the dead is because not everyone dies in God’s timing. Jesus could tell, and He would interrupt that funeral, He would interrupt that process that some would just call the sovereignty of God. And He’d raise the little girl, he’d raise the adult person from the dead.”

Johnson maintained that Jesus set a precedent for the church to follow and that is what they are doing at a time when they are unsure of how to proceed other than believing for a miracle.

Playing God

The dangers of interpreting scripture are very real. Christ’s encounter with the devil in the desert proves even Satan has knowledge of the Scripture. The key is discerning who is speaking them in Truth. Christ demonstrates that same knowledge and greater discernment in His response to the devil (See Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13).

The danger in taking Scripture at piecemeal (or even face value) rather than in its intended context is that we are behaving just like the devil. We are putting God’s words together in a way that justifies our own behavior rather than exalts the actual glory of God. In essence, we too, like the devil, are guilty of playing God.

Johnson uses a quote from John 11:40 where the author is retelling the account of Jesus Raising Lazarus’ from the Tomb. Jesus is speaking to Lazarus’ sister, Martha.

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise.”

Martha said to him, “I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day.”

Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live,

Fast forward a few lines and a very perturbed Jesus is speaking:

Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”

Martha, the dead man’s sister, said to him, “Lord, by now there will be a stench; he has been dead for four days.”

Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?”

Why is Jesus perturbed?

Because the people are not understanding what he is preaching. They are looking only at the reality of the situation and the physical actions occurring rather than the spiritual implications of what Christ is actually demonstrating.

Why does Scripture say Jesus raised the dead?

It has nothing to do with him noticing that Lazarus’ death was ill-timed. The answer is right there in Scripture:

So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, “Father,* I thank you for hearing me. I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here (that unbelieving, see only the physical account and not the spiritual crowd who had perturbed Jesus) I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me.”

In fact, none of the accounts of those Jesus raises from the dead give any indication in Scripture that their death is out of timing with God. What is clearly demonstrated is Jesus’ power over death in those circumstances. A demonstration which Jesus only performs at certain times according to the Father’s will.

Is Jesus the resurrection and the life? Absolutely! But does that mean that all of us are to experience our Resurrection Day all at once just because someone in church stands up and says, he believes our day is here? No!

This is one of my problems with the Church today. There is so much focus on using the gifts of the Holy Spirit to imitate Jesus to the world and not enough focus on imitating Jesus’ prayer life, his discernment, and his unity with the Father. Knowledge and Love of the Giver is more important than using His gifts. Christ came to show the world the Father not glorify himself in reckless use of power. He prayed more than he performed miracles. The Bible records Jesus praying continually while it records only 7 major miracles. If the Acts Church appear to be demonstrating the gifts more than they are praying then either the Scriptures are simply leaving out prayer recordings because it’s a matter of public record they too would have prayed continually like Jesus or they were already imitating Him falsely. There is more to the Word of God than what is written, there is more to the lifestyle of Jesus than what is read.

Knowledge and Discernment of the Scriptures is vital in this Age, lest we be lead astray following the doctrine of demons who are not God but only playing at trying to be Him (Read 1 Tim. 4:1).

Playing Church

Johnson concludes his argument with a final vague explanation of how his church will operate moving forward.

“There’s no manual that tells us to fast this many days, pray this many hours. We don’t have any of that. What we do have is a biblical precedent, Jesus’ lifestyle and Jesus’ commands,” he said, adding, “Someone asked, ‘How long do you pray, when do you quit praying?’ I don’t have a good answer. We’re kind of in the middle of that journey right now.”

Is that true? Is there really no manual? Have we no other guidance than simply ‘Jesus’ lifestyle and commands’?

Pope Francis and others don’t seem to agree and offer another explanation of Jesus’ raising the dead.

“Jesus can raise everyone from the tomb of a dead, tired soul,” Pope Francis says.

His remarks came during a late afternoon visit to the Church of St. Gregory the Great on the outskirts of Rome. Before he celebrated Mass, he met with young people, the sick and elderly and heard the confessions of a number of parishioners.

“Come out from the dark cave of pride, sin and death and into the light of a new life with Christ,” Pope Francis said. “Take away the stone of shame” that is keeping you trapped inside a life that is dead or painful and be raised up again by Christ.”

In his homily and during his Angelus address at noon with pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square, the pope spoke about the day’s Gospel reading from the Gospel of John (11:1-45), which recounts Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

When Jesus went to Lazarus’ tomb, he asked that the stone sealing the entrance be taken away. He then “cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lazarus come out!’ And the dead man came out,” the Gospel says.

Jesus is saying the same thing to people today, the pope said at the Mass, “because we’re all marked by death” and sin. “All of us have some areas, some parts of our hearts that are not alive, that are a little dead and other people have a lot of their heart that’s dead — a real spiritual necrosis!”

The parts of a person’s heart that have died have become “tombs of sin,” he said, and some people become trapped inside, either because they are afraid or embarrassed to come out or they have become “attached” to their sin and corrupted.

The pope asked people to think about what part of their hearts have died, that have become a dark tomb, and then listen to Jesus calling, like he called Lazarus: “Come out!”

“Christ doesn’t give up in front of the tombs we have built by our choosing evil and death, by our mistakes, our sins,” the pope said. Jesus “calls us incessantly to get out of the darkness of the prison we’ve locked ourselves into by making do with a false, egotistical, mediocre life.”

“‘Come out!’ is a beautiful invitation to true freedom,” he said.

“Our resurrection begins here, when we decide to obey Jesus’ command, to come out into the light, to life,” he said.

Just as Jesus asked that the burial cloths that were wrapped around Lazarus’ hands, feet and face be untied, so Christians today need to uncover their true selves.

“Many times we are masked by sin; the masks must fall and we will rediscover the courage of our original face,” created in the image of God.

There is no limit to how much love and mercy God offers to everyone, he said.

I have the utmost respect for Pastors who are trying to lead their flock in Truth. The community at Bethel has no doubt brought a wealth of deposits to the Faith in areas of worship and healing evangelism. However, it is obvious from Pastor Johnson’s message that a little more surety could be added to their faith. This is where Faith and Reason must begin to align together within the Church Body. We cannot rely solely on the gift of faith where the work of reason is also necessary. Jesus demonstrated both Faith and Works of Reason were necessary to advance the Kingdom.

If we’re to follow Johnson’s formula of Biblical precedence then it should be obvious that Jesus was never unsure about anything he did. Everything Jesus did was done in accordance with the will of Our Heavenly Father and with perfect accuracy. There was no room for error or wounding on part of an over zealous Christ who “got it wrong” or “heard another Jesus” speaking. If the Church is to advance in this Apostolic Age, it needs to stop playing dress up and start demanding of itself a greater maturity in both discernment and accuracy. This can only be done in places where hearts are committed to the Battle of Prayer and becoming completely united, undivided, with the heart of the Father through Jesus and the works of Wisdom by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Johnson was truly right about one thing, Jesus did command us to raise the dead and since we do not have the ability to do so in our own strength “He commanded us because somehow, in our Yes, He gives us the ability to carry out His mission. Being commissioned means we’ve said yes to His mission.” My only question is are we going about the same mission or are we playing church? Pretending we don’t know what Jesus was really preaching that day, refusing to listen to others in the Church who can offer spiritual guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

If your faith rests solely in the interpretation of one person’s account of the Scriptures, you are sorely missing out on the fuller expression of the Gospel.

To believe that any one man (or even a few) is capable of receiving the full deposit of faith in his lifetime is prideful. If we are to live by the lifestyle and commands of Jesus then we have to recognize that his entire life is the embodiment of every soul to have ever lived. Within Jesus is the wisdom given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Enoch, Elijah, and all the prophets through John the Baptist. Jesus is the living embodiment of the collective Wisdom deposited into mankind (1 Corinthians 1:30). No one man can pull that out of Him. Jesus is the singular man who pulls Wisdom out from all of us.

In the tradition of the Jews and the Apostles, there is a collective Truth handed down through the Ages that is represented in the saints of all churches, the popes, bishops, priests and even martyrs. Among Catholics it is known as the Magisterium or “Deposit of Faith” which has been collected and protected and defended (even if at times imperfectly) throughout the Ages since Jesus handed the key of David – ‘O Key of Wisdom’ – to Peter.

So, yes, there is a manual for us all to follow.

And, I pray we do start following it, together. So that we can stop playing church and start being the Church.

There is no need for us to wander without answers when we have been given the gift of Jesus’ Wisdom in the Holy Spirit. My prayers go out to the fellowship at Bethel that they might discover the fullness of Truth, with an undivided heart, a greater level of discernment, and demonstrate Him with accuracy, so that more might be healed and come to know the real Christ than are wounded and led astray by the other Christ (2 Corinthians 11:14).

May the Body of Christ truly unite ourselves to Christ’s mission, “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” John 17:21. Come Holy Spirit! Before we desire your gifts may we desire more the heart of the Giver. Grow us in prayer and discernment that we may be made worthy of your gifts.

The Danger Against Playing Church, Playing God: Bethel Responds to #WakeUpOlive “The reason Jesus raised the dead is because not everyone dies in God's timing. Jesus could tell, and He would interrupt that funeral, He would interrupt that process that some would just call the sovereignty of God.