Isaiah 62:1-5 (first published 18 January 2004)
When the nation of Israel was established in 1948, many people around
the world saw the events as the fulfillment of prophecy. Others believed
that the Jewish people had been recompensed in some measure for the
horrors they suffered under Adolf Hitler, and indeed under many other
oppressors through the centuries. For the Palestinians whose land was
confiscated and whose villages were destroyed, however, the state of
Israel was an unmitigated disaster. Thus, the establishment of Israel as
a nation was at best a mixed bag, with some positives (arguably) but even
more negatives (indisputably). How, then, can one interpret a passage
such as today's reading from Isaiah, which begins, "For Zion's sake I will
not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"? The prophet
(often called Trito-Isaiah, or Third Isaiah) speaks to Jewish returnees
who are living in their traditional homeland, which continues to suffer
neglect and poverty. He voices God's promise to restore the fortunes of
God's people so that the other nations will see Israel's renewal as a sign
of divine blessing. I would argue that this prophecy was in fact
fulfilled in large measure in the years that followed the Jews' return
from Babylonian exile. They rebuilt the temple and eventually the city of
Jerusalem itself. Yes, they continued to be under Persian hegemony until
the time of the Maccabees, but their lot was generally good during this
period. More important than determining whether or not this prophecy was
literally fulfilled--I think such a question is a hermeneutical
distraction from examining the meaning of the prophecy in its historical
context and in its present application--we must examine the issue of how
(or whether) it can be applied in our current situation. To attempt to
apply this prophecy, or any other, to the present state of Israel is a
mistake. Today's nation of Israel is not the Israel of the Bible, any
more than the modern nation of Italy is the Roman Empire of the New
Testament. Instead, we should ask the question, of whom is God speaking?
God is speaking of God's chosen people, and God has promised not to rest
"until her vindication shines out like the dawn, and her salvation like a
burning torch." The people whom God loves, who are called by God's name
(cf. Isaiah 43:7), are the entire community of humankind. Thinking of
"God's people" in narrow religious terms, or (even worse) in modern
nationalistic terms, has led to wars, injustice, and acts of atrocity over
the millennia that we who live in the nuclear age must cast aside before
it is too late. In a recent episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, the
Enterprise is captured by a group of people intent on taking the ship back
to their home planet and annihilating their enemies, to whom they refer as
heretics. The point of theological dissent? Whether "the makers" created
the universe in nine or ten days! Over this point of difference, the
factions had been fighting for centuries, and when the Enterprise finally
reaches the planet, it has been destroyed in the interim by the two
factions (die-hard Trekkies will recognize this as a remake of "Let That
Be Your Last Battlefield" from the original series, which focused on
racism rather than religion). Before maniacs with access to nuclear
arsenals begin to use nuclear weapons again on their enemies in the name
of "preemption," let us strive to make the world a place that can honestly
be called "My Delight Is in Her" and replace those who would lead us down
the path of Desolation with those who have a keener insight into God's
nature and will.
Psalm 36:5-10 (first published 18
January 2004)
What is God like? What are God's attributes? The great nineteenth century systematic theologian Augustus Strong knew: God has life, personality, and self-existence; God embodies immutability, unity, truth, love, holiness, eternity, and immensity; God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, faithful, merciful, and just. I wouldn't disagree with any of these descriptions of God, with one proviso: I don't think any of these descriptions of God should be taken literally. These words should be understood as symbols that point to God rather than specific attributes of God. Take immutability, for example. The Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, yet it also says that in the days of Noah God was sorry for having created humanity. Or consider love. God is love, 1 John teaches us, yet this omnipotent God allows children to suffer from cancer, AIDS, and other terrible diseases that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies. If love is a literal description of God, we need to look again at the definition of the word. The problem we face in trying to describe God is that words are inadequate repositories of meaning to describe the ultimate ground of being, a more modern description of God ("Words are nets through which all truth passes"--Paula Fox, "News from the World"). The psalmist knew that mere description was incapable of capturing the magnificence of God's steadfast love for God's people, so he resorted to metaphor to describe God. "All people may take refuge in the shadow of your wings"; God is compared to a mother bird protecting her chicks from potential predators. God is sometimes a shield from danger. "They feast on the abundance of your house"; God is compared to a wealthy host feting his many guests. God is the source of our abundance. "You give them drink from the river of your delights"; God is compared to a stream of sweet, pure water. God provides for the necessities of life. "For with you is the fountain of life"; God is compared to a life-giving fountain of water. God provides refreshment in times of spiritual aridity. "In your light we see light"; God is the ultimate source of light, beside which all other light is inconsequential. God gives us the ability to view God and the world through God's own eyes. Definitions of God are stale and generally uninspiring if taken literally, but if viewed as symbol, they offer endless potential for contemplation and reinterpretation. We worship a God who transcends any weak, pitiful descriptions humans can devise, but we also worship a God who has given us the creativity, sensitivity, and imagination necessary for seeing in symbolic language, music, and art pointers to the divine glory.
Marcus Borg is a man on a mission. Having written several books on
Christianity, the historical Jesus, and other topics, including his recent
book Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a
Religious Revolutionary, Borg is intent on convincing Christians that
Jesus didn't come to establish a community comprised of people who all
hold to a certain set of doctrines ("belief that" certain things are
true). Instead, Borg says, Jesus came to establish a community based on
relationships of trust (shared "belief in" God). Christian denominations
today tend to be divided along doctrinal lines, which is fine unless the
differences in belief preclude Christian fellowship or, worse, cause one
group to label the other un-Christian. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I
want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says
'Let Jesus be cursed!' and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the
Holy Spirit." Of course technically this statement isn't true, since the
same person could make both statements, but Paul is talking about the
conviction of one's heart, not a flippant comment. If what Paul says is
true, then Borg is right. All those who say "Jesus is Lord"--that is, all
those who claim the name of Christ, regardless of their position on
particular doctrines--are part of the Christian family, and only those who
don't understand the meaning of family would attempt to exclude them. I
heard a joke this week that goes like this. A man was stranded on a
desert island for a year, and when he was finally discovered, the people
on the rescue ship noticed three huts that the man had built on the
island. "Why are there three huts?" someone asked. "Well, that hut there
is my house, and that hut over there is my church," the man replied.
"What's the third hut?" asked a member of the crew. "Oh, that's the
church I used to go to," the man replied. Too many Christians think that
God has called them to separate themselves from those who disagree with
them doctrinally, or even politically. On the contrary, God calls all of
us to seek common ground with our fellow believers, to value our common
commitment to God through Christ, even if we disagree with one another on
many points of theology. Christianity is based on a relationship with
God, not a commitment to dogma.
John 2:1-11 (first published 18
January 2004)
I grew up in tee-totaling Baptist circles, so I've heard all sorts of explanations about how when Jesus turned the water into wine, it wasn't really wine at all. One preacher claimed that the water in the jars wasn't transformed into wine, only the water in the ladle that was taken to the steward (if drinking wine is a sin, I'm not sure that having Jesus create a smaller amount of it shields him from the charge of sinning). Another said that the term "best wine" refers to grape juice, not the fermented beverage (apparently he didn't share the opinion of Joy Davidman, wife of C. S. Lewis, who called grape juice "that abominable fluid"). A simple reading of the Old Testament reveals that, while abuse of wine was discouraged in the book of Proverbs and elsewhere, wine was considered a drink for festive occasions and a blessing of God (cf. Gen 14:18; 27:28; Deut 14:23; 16:13; Ps 104:15; Prov 3:10; Isa 25:6; Amos 9:13). Seeing wine as a blessing of God is central to understanding Jesus' actions in the story of the Wedding in Cana. Unlike the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, who have Jesus perform a variety of miracles in different situations, John has Jesus perform exactly seven miracles, which he calls "signs." These "signs" are calculated to reveal who Jesus really is, the Incarnate Son of God. By means of these signs, the divine glory that was within Jesus was briefly revealed to those who paid attention. God broke forth in the lives of people through Jesus' life and activities among them. Jesus' transformation of the water into wine is not a call for Christians to become moonshiners. Instead, it is a symbol that, like God, Jesus was blessing people with wine at an appropriate occasion: a wedding. Too often Christianity has been a religion of "Thou shalt nots." Thou shalt not drink. Thou shalt not dance. Thou shalt not smoke. Thou shalt not eat meat on Friday. Thou shalt not swear. Thou shalt not enjoy sex. Thou shalt not be too enthusiastic in your religious expression. Thou shalt not associate too closely with those outside your faith. We draw lines around ourselves, and we draw lines around God. God cannot be found at a wedding party that includes champagne and dancing, some say. God is not present at birthday parties, or office Christmas parties, or Cinco de Mayo celebrations, some think. However, Jesus' actions at the wedding in Cana suggest that God wants us to enjoy life, to celebrate with family and friends, to embrace community. Yes, there are excesses of all sorts to be avoided, but while we're avoiding excess, we shouldn't at the same time avoid life. Life is good, love is good, celebrating our joy together is good. And where life, love, and celebration are present, it is likely that God is present as well.