Distorting Jesus' Crucifixion

Candida Moss is no heathen. She is a professor of Theology and Scripture at Notre Dame University.  The article of myth of Christian martyrdom will be helpful to anyone interested in knowing how Christianity developed in the early centuries.

Most histories of early Christianity focus on how the religion became institutionalized during the era of Constantine who recognized that the organization of the Church offered a mechanism for ensuring his security and prosperity if he became its protector. Even though he never became a Christian himself, Constantine’s support enabled the Church to become a power in itself.

When we trace back Christianity further, i.e., between the time Jesus was speaking his message and 300, there was less known until the last 50-70 years.

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings of the time of Jesus, scripture scholars started to understand the New Testament was written not as history, but as a belief document. Moreover, the target audiences of the writers, e.g., Jews or Gentiles, colored the document itself. If the target audience was Jewish, then there often would be many references to the scriptures which were familiar to them. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jesus Jews, i.e., all the early Christians were faithful Jews who identified also with Jesus. They would attend synagogues as well as home gatherings to remember Jesus. If they were Gentiles, then the Gospel (as Luke’s) conveyed the message in a way that would be understood by followers of Jesus with no background in Judaism. The scriptures were also colored by actual experiences in the first century.   For example, when the expectation of the Jesus Jews that all Jews would become Jesus’ disciples was thwarted, the Jesus Jews became antagonistic to these Jews, as seen the Gospel of John where Jews are cited as the cause of Jesus’ crucifixion. In fact, Jesus was crucified because he was a social troublemaker.

Between the end of the first century and Constantine, there has been less written. Candida Moss delves into the history of this time to demonstrate the Christians were not persecuted as martyrs, as often thought. Rather, they identified themselves as martyrs to align themselves with Jesus’ crucifixion, which now enabled pain and death to be understood as a “badge of glory”.  To be sure there were some deaths that could be considered attacks based on animosity to the person’s religion. But, she makes clear that most Christians in these early times lived in peace.

As Easter is celebrated, it is always helpful to be sure that we do not distort Christianity.  Just as Easter eggs have no relationship to the religious celebration, it is helpful to distinguish myth (understood as stories designed to convey a religious belief) from history.

So What Pope Francis?

Every news item showing Pope Francis doing the "right thing" for the poor and disenfranchised is most welcome. Everything that he has done is his short time since being elected pope has been breathtaking simple and so "right". Admittedly, some have raised objections. How could he wipe feet of women or Muslims? The complaints are themselves strikenly so far off the mark that they warrant no attention.

So far, he is proving that acting in accordance with the life of Jesus is beautiful. Being good feels good. Being good is attractive. Being simple is so easy on the eye. It has always been true that life can be so less complicated if we just are alive to the moment.

Mysticism, whether Christian, Buddhistic, or Cafucianism, centers on Being, the Holy One, the Ground of all Being.

The problems arise when the spiritual becomes institutionalized. It does not take much time before the institution becomes more important than the spirit that was intended to be embodied by the institution. And, that is the problem for all religions. Instead of focusing on the spiritual aspects of humanity, they focus on alignment with "orthodoxy". And, with that, we get intolerance and hatred.

The institution that Pope Francis inherited is a problem for so many. I surely wish that he will have the courage to undertake the task. If he fails in this dimension of his ministry, the service to the poor and disenfrancished is dimenished.

A Conservative Gives Reasons for Thinking

When reading a NYT article on Dr. Ben Carson, I was struck by the conservative tone to the article. Ben Carson is clearly a hero to many, including me, for coming from an impoverished background to become one of the most distinguished neurosurgeons in the nation. Since the article referenced the stimulus for the column, viz., The White House Prayer Breakfast, I watched the speech on YouTube, and was amazed that someone with his background was so convinced of the need to inculcate the spirit of individual achievement to address virtually all of our problems. In short, as his extraordinarily poor childhood circumstances were overcome by his mother's insistence that reading and education was the key to success, at the expense of virtually no television, he is convinced that this is essentially the way to go for the nation.

Before proceeding, he announced that he is retiring from his successful career since neurosurgery does take so much out of one's being that he did not want to advance his career beyond a reasonable age. He is now considering options, including politics, and it appears that the Republican Party is beginning to salivate with the notion that he could become the first non-politician to become president.

As I read the article and listened to his speech, I admittedly was taken by his very palatable approach to an audience. He shared stories, often personal, to make his points and he was successful. His speech focused on education which he fosters with the Carson Foundation that recognizes high school scholars in all 50 states. Consistent with his history, the foundation spreads money to increase the availability of reading to students.

He focused on the nature of the PC environment whereby discussions are short circuited because the speaker is stating a position that is unacceptable to prior convictions, e.g., there was no way that I could be convinced that going into Iraq was justified. He stressed the need to focus on solutions from whatever source.

And then, he touched in a rather significant issue, health care. Given his occupational history, it was striking that he essentially rejected ACA in favor of personal health accounts and catastrophic health insurance. For those below a certain income level, their accounts would be subsidized by the government. He was consistent with his point that each person is called to be responsible for their lives.

The general approach is rational. I first read a very thoughtful article in the Atlantic Monthly in 2009 (Wow! I can still remember, forcing Alzheimer's into the future) dealing with the cost of health care. The business executive, David Goldhill, examined the issue when reviewing his father's hospitalization with a series of untoward issues, requiring the use of ICU, and ultimately ending in death. From his business perspective, he noticed all sorts of anomalies. For instance, in contrast to business where the cost of new technology decreases over time, e.g., the price of a HD TV set is far less costly since it was first introduced, the cost of medical technology only increases. Granted the technology gets tweaked over time, driven by the benefits to the manufacturers and medical staffing, it was unclear that the end users were ultimately benefited significantly, measured by outcomes. i.e., our nation measures poorly when compared to other nations in measures of health. He felt that if the auto insurance model was applied to health care, the costs would decrease. In short, he envisioned a system comparable to Ben Carson's, whereby people insured themselves for significant problems, e.g., cancer, and the ordinary medical care would be addressed as people do with other problems in life (with the understanding that those below a certain income level would be addressed separately). He envisioned that if people had to pay for their own care,  all sorts of costs would be reduced. For instance, the consumer would check on the costs of a clinic visit or a CT scan by various providers to see what was less costly. He also thought that the costs of products, e.g., scans, would decrease to address market issues, i.e., there would be less of a market for certain types of equipment because people would not pay for it.

And for review of what I would want, I would envision an extension of Medicare to all, paid by taxes, with prices for products determined by commissions based on geography and demographics that would establish on an annual basis the cost for each health care item (visit, procedure, etc.) on a cost plus reasonable profit. As in the present time, people could supplement the national plan with private insurance.

What I envision as desirable is contrary to Ben Carson's plan. Theoretically, I think that both could work well. The issue for me is practicality, leaving aside the big elephant in the room, i.e., national politics.

For Ben Carson's plan to work, we would have to consider whether promoting an ethic of self-direction and motivation to achieve, independent of socio-economic circumstances, is a reasonable and practical scenario. While I can envision that his approach would stimulate many to a more rigorous approach towards independence, I am concerned about those who fall by the wayside, unable to march to the beat of the drummer. While there may be far more people who identify with Ben Carson, I want to learn more about what he would do to address those left in the lurch.

The problem with my plan, as "great" as I think it is, is that it is politically unfeasible.

I admit that Obama's plan was a congressional mishmash, resulting in a highly complex system that has yet to be tested. My plan offers simplicity and ease in implementation. It would control costs, not as efficiently as Ben Carson's plan, but effectively. My plan would be more stable, whereas a plan driven by capitalistic principles would ebb and flow based on efforts to achieve a higher market share.

In the end, if Ben Carson became President of the United States, and he was able to achieve success in implementing his health care plan, I would become an active spectator watching to see how it would unfold. It would be most interesting and give me something more to read.

,

Patrick's Second Birthday

PATRICK’S SECOND BIRTHDAY

So unaware of his beauty,

Wanting only to be close,

Enjoying his home.

Jumping, waiting to run,

Looking to me for assurance,

Leading me all the way.

Always wanting Joan,

He reverts to me,

When he has no choice.

Even if second best,

To be on Patrick’s list,

Is enough for me.

Two years has been a treasure.

Looking forward to a long life,

We will hold Patrick close to our heart.

Pope Francis I

The election of Pope Francis represents a sense of hope, albeit, no hope for substantive change. Were he to extrapolate his personal values to the papacy, it would represent positive change. Can you imagine that the pope would choose to live more simply, that he would adopt St. Francis’ mission of poverty?  It would take no change in beliefs to abandon the use of all the riches and wealth that are now needed to support the Vatican’s bureaucracy? Wealth would be focused on the mission of charity and social justice. It is hard, but one could imagine that he would see the horrendous disconnect between his personal values expressed in Argentina and those accustomed to people elected as a pope.

Given that there is virtually no chance that he will alter his very conservative theological views, there are at least three major opportunities for someone as basically honest and respectful of the role of social justice.

First, I would hope that he would use the theology of the Vatican Council to decentralize the church’s government. The Vatican Council referenced the truth that the bishops were to act collegially, i.e., the truth that government was not exclusively in the control of one person. Historically, the pope’s power was exaggerated with the notion of infallibility that was announced at the Vatican Council I (late 19^th Century) in response to Italy’s conquest of the then Vatican State. Personal infallibility, rather than the institution’s infallibility or trust in church’s continued existence represented a break in tradition. Until that time, there was a general understanding the Primate of Rome enjoyed a primacy among the other primates, e.g., Constantinople, Alexandria, but the idea that his authority was unique was so disturbing to some that they started another church.

Based on the idea that was prevalent so long in the history of the Church whereby each primate would exercise authority over their jurisdiction without necessarily consulting with Rome could now be extended to having each nation be governed by their own bishops.  There could be consultations with the pope and councils to coordinate matters in all jurisdictions, but the authority would be shared.

This is not an earth-shattering notion. The Anglican Church has done this for years, rather successfully, even if not without problems. A presiding bishop who holds a role of primacy governs the U.S. Episcopal Church. Each nation has a similar government. Yet, issues regarding gay clergy, marriage between gays, are often divisive to the point where there is separation, e.g., some local US churches have affiliated with an African diocese in order to maintain its belief system. The Anglican Church somewhat relishes its ability to tolerate differences. Yet, most Anglican Churches in England are empty! The role of governance will not work miracles, but it will be a change that would make a difference and requires no change in beliefs.

My second and third points can be attributed to JamesCarroll’s column this morning, viz., a different attitude towards secularism and the need for more emotion in church worship.

A St. Francis would approach a world of secularism that characterizes Europe and much of the United States with more openness. He would have shared his vision without any condemnation of what he perceived as wrong. St. Francis left a world of personal riches to share his vision of a beautiful world.

Secularism did not appear without reason. Condemning secularism will not make new converts. Appreciating those who advance the values of Christianity without identifying with the belief system should be a hallmark of the new pope. Those working to ensure that our planet survives are doing “God’s work” as much others motivated by faith. Just as St. Francis wandered throughout Italy to share the glories of creation, why not do the same preaching while walking with others will comparable values, but different beliefs or no beliefs?  People do not adopt secular values because they are sinners; they no longer see the need of a belief system to do what they feel is the right thing to do. 

As an aside, my first insight into this approach was my involvement in civil rights in 1960’s while I was in Concord. I was still a young priest, but soon recognized that my involvement in promoting racial justice was not an exclusive prerogative of being Christian. I was with others of all sorts of persuasions and it did not matter. The only thing that was important was sharing a vision of no discrimination based on race! Simple indeed, and yet, today the Catholic Church remains somewhat isolated since it cannot share values with those without the same belief system.

Finally, the need for including an emotional quality into Catholicism is important. James Carroll’s reflections center on the rise of Pentecostalism in South America as a consequence of wanting more emotion in their worship. The Church in the United States has explored adding more modern music forms, but generally, the worship format is standardized, reflecting the traditional need for unity or order. The new pope has to promote more freedom in Church worship, somewhat comparable to “high and low” Episcopal parishes, or other forms that are meaningful to the population, e.g., why should we expect Haitian immigrants in Boston to worship in the same way as those who live and worship in Beacon Hill.

Even though these changes would not require a change in belief forms, they would be significantly important to many who adhere to the Church as well as those who only observe and hope that the Institution with such a wide adherence will adopt changes that can be viewed as more consistent with modern society and consistent with values they endorse. 

Resignation of Pope Benedict

The retirement of Pope Benedict has received must media attention. Most seemingly focus on the positive symbolic move from extraordinary power. The fact that those in power find it difficult, if not impossible, to abdicate their position has made this decision seem remarkable.

For me, I have two reactions.

Pope Benedict was a disaster, dating at least to the end of the Vatican Council. While he may never had been a progressive theologian, he was a compatriot of many experts during the Council who advocated for change. When he returned to his university position, he was overwhelmed by the perceived aggressive stance of many students who wanted change to be implemented soon. He was so struck by what he then perceived as evidence of danger to the institution. He concluded that the thrust of the Vatican Council had to be essentially reversed. For the rest of his career as a theologian, bishop, cardinal, and most recently, pope, he has resisted all evidence that indicated that the last 50 years have been a theological disaster. Refusing to deal constructively with past errors, evidenced by so many renowned theologians, has devastated the Catholic Church, at least in the Western World and, its only a matter of time before these positions will jeopardize the currently more conservative members of the Church in South American, Africa and Asia.

As Cardinal and then, as Pope, he has gravely mishandled the clerical sex abuse scandal.  One may say that he did no worse than Pope John Paul, but this would be a damning observation. His approach to supporting the Institutional Church rather than the sanctioning the behavior of clergy that destroyed young people was unconscionable. How he can look into the mirror without shame is a mystery.

Secondly, I do not think that the cardinal electors, all selected by Pope John Paul and himself, will ever vote for anyone who will be brave enough to admit that the past, dating back to the 12^th Century, has been one long series of theological errors that have been dignified with articles of faith. I will be most surprised if the next pope would face the outcry of the more conservative members of the Church who would consider any deviation from “tradition” to be virtually treasonous. There are so many beliefs based on erroneous theology that it would be earth shattering to see a reversal. However, without breaking the vessel holding the stench of lies, there will never be a chance for genuine progress.

I wish that his future days will be focused on the horrendous harm that can be attributed to his history. I wish him no harm, but I surely grieve that so many have been hurt by these many years of his career in power.

N.B. By first experience of being angry with a pope was in 1968. At the time, we were all waiting to hear from the then pope, Paul, to endorse the recommendation of the Papal Commission on Birth Control which he had established. Since the recommendation was that the traditional position should be reversed and artificial birth control would become permissible, many people were set up for a reason to be very happy. Unfortunately, Pope Paul rejected the recommendation and reiterated the traditional morality. On a Sunday soon thereafter, I publicly rejected the pope's position in my homily and told people that any counseling that I had provided was still valid, from my perspective. As one would expect, this sermon only helped to ease me out of the ministry. And from a historical perspective, it marked the rush of people who no longer respected the authority of the pope or, in general, the power structure of the Catholic Church.

P.S. Based on reports this morning (15 March), it is becoming clear that the new pope does carry a serious piece of baggage. While his conservative theological views are well-known, it is apparent that he was a silent citizen (as the head of Society of Jesus in Argentina) during the infamous Military Dictatorship between 1976-1983. Through South American, in fact, the Catholic hierarchy were supporters of right-wing dictators in the attempt to strengthen the power of the church and resist advocates for more liberal changes. It also appears that the new pope, as the then leader of the Jesuits, did not support two of his own priests who worked in the slums and were ultimately kidnapped, tortured, and killed. We are all sinners, as humans, but sometimes, those in positions of leadership have to rise above their weakness to support a cause greater than themselves. It appears that the new pope flunked the test when a crisis occurred in Argentina.