[Of the successful.] Their success lay in their parallelism to the course of thought, which found in them an unobstructed channel; and the wonders of which they were the visible conductors seemed to the eye their deed. Did the wires generate the galvanism? It is even true that there was less in them on which they could reflect, than in another; as the virtue of a pipe is to be smooth and hollow. That which externally seemed will and immovableness was willingness and self-annihilation. Could Shakespeare give a theory of Shakespeare? Could ever a man of prodigious mathematical genius convey to others any insight into his methods? If he could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value, blending with the daylight and the vital energy the power to stand and to go.
Emerson: “Spiritual Laws”
The reference here is to genius and the uniqueness of genius. The question is…what is genius? I tend to believe that genius has to do with the ability of a person to unity in things before others perceive that unity. That is, the genius sees how things can go together before others see how the same things go together. And, the genius is able to capture that unity and explain it to others so that the others can see and appreciate the unity.
Human beings are problem solvers, that is what separates them so distinctly from other species. To be a good problem solver one must be able to make relatively adequate predictions about what might happen if one acts or does something in a certain way. By relatively adequate is meant that an individual has some kind of a model (which could be a story or narrative, a rule of thumb, a proverb, a schema or whatever) that has a sufficient degree of consistency (it does not contradict itself) and it predicts at least as well as any other model related to the outcome. Since problem solvers only have incomplete information their models only are capable of producing probabilistic predictions…a range of possible outcomes from a given action.
In order to be able to predict in an adequate way, the model an individual uses must bear some relationship to the underlying structure of reality so that the predictions are helpful. A model that does not predict well is not very useful in predicting possible outcomes! Thus, the more the model constructed by an individual conforms to how creation really works, the more adequate the model. The models that are best show the greatest unity with how things work. This is a logical result because one has to reason that the more closely the abstract model captures the workings of the world the better its predictions will be.
Of course, if our models are only derived from incomplete information they can be improved or supplemented as new information is forthcoming. But, it is crucial for an individual to intuit from a given base of information the model that he/she creates. And, it is this intuition that is so crucial in discovery. It is a unique characteristic of a human being to see what looks like an unconnected collection of data and make some sense out of the collection, determining some order to what looks like unrelated pieces of information. This intuition allows someone to see unity where others see chaos!
It is this ability to see unity where others see chaos that can be called genius. The genius that is usually recognized and honored is that which deals with important questions that have been very, very difficult to answer. That is, the unity that relates to these very important questions is very, very difficult to discern. The genius is the one that is able to discover the unity in the situation and is able to construct a model that is capable of providing relatively adequate predictions.
The genius sees something that others don’t see. It is that possibility that separates the genius from the others.
The question this raises concerns whether or not there is a continuum related to different degrees of genius. Often we think of the idea of genius as being unique. That is, you either are a genius or you are not. I like to think that there is a continuous spectrum of genius and this spectrum generally defined according to the difficulty of the problem that is solved. At the one end of the spectrum are the very, very difficult problems that need to be solved and these problems require much effort, much time, and large amounts of intuition; at the other end are problems that can be easily resolved in a relatively short period of time by relatively ordinary means. The basic idea here relates to the ability to discern the unity within the situation resulting from a particular question. The person that possesses more genius is the one who can see the unity in situations that are extremely complex whereas the one with lesser genius is one that can only see unity in simple situations.
Considering the designation of genius as a continuous definition in this way helps us to understand, I believe, the current question about where are all the geniuses today. Where have all the geniuses gone? It seems to me that there are almost a constant stream of discoveries these days, and in many, many different fields of study. Yet, there does not seem to be a truly “incredible” discovery that stands out beyond all the other discoveries that have been reported. Hence, the concern over the disappearance of genius.
Maybe the times have changed. Whereas in the past we had fewer people working in all of these areas and, hence, we had fewer discovers and these discoveries seemed to be discrete jumps in knowledge. Maybe today, discoveries tend to be more incremental and more continuous because more are studying in an area and the environment surrounding discovery has changed.
One study I am familiar with examines the time it takes for a second invention in a field to come to market that is similar to the initial marketing of a ground breaking innovation in a specific industry. In the 1880s the time between these two events was approximately 35 years. In the 1990s this time lag was close to three years. By 2010 it is expected to be around one and one-half and two years. Obviously, many people are working in the same fields and with very similar ideas.
Another definition of genius relates specifically to the question of time. I have heard a genius defined as one who makes a discovery 10 years before anyone else is able to come up with the discovery. Using this definition and putting in within the context of the previous paragraph one can define the current time period one in which the genius only makes the discovery a couple of years before others. Same difference…in that the discoveries appear to be more incremental now and not discrete in nature.
Let’s go back to the question about whether or not the times have changed. Can environment and education change the incidence of genius? By environment I mean the attitudes that exist within a society and its culture toward being open to the possibility that all models are fallible and that people should be questioning and testing existing models to find other models that are relatively more adequate. By education I mean that individuals are being trained to treat all models as fallible and to develop skills pertaining to the questioning and testing of existing models. If environment and education can change create a society in which more and more talented people question and test models, there will be more of a continuum of discovery rather than just random periodic occurrences of major advances to thinking.
The last three sentences of the passage presented above indicates that Emerson does not believe that genius is transferable. Yet, in those statements he states the empirical condition that would support the hypothesis that genius is transferable. “If he (the genius) could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value…” That is, if the genius could teach his/her ability then discoveries would appear to be incremental rather than discrete. Q. E. D. !
Monday, November 3, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Models that Work
In building up their worldviews, people and communities of people assemble an interacting set of “models” which they use to make predictions so that they can make better decisions that will lead to the best actions they can take. Before going further, I need to define the concept of “models” that I am using here. To me, a “model” is any means that an individual or group uses to make predictions about the possible outcomes related to decisions or to the actions that result from decisions made. These “models” may be such things as sayings, stories, narratives, rules of thumb, parables, proverbs, fables, laws, norms, schema, or anything more formal, including either logical or mathematical structures. For example, “love your neighbor as yourself” can be considered to be a “model”; the fable about the tortoise and the hare leading to the conclusion that slow and steady wins the race can be considered to be a “model”; and the parables of Jesus can be considered to be a “model”.
“Models” are fallible; they never predict with 100% accuracy. For example, there is the problem of applying the appropriate “model” to a specific situation. The advice “slow and steady wins the race” is not appropriate for someone running a 100-yard dash. Here, “the race goes to the swiftest” is a better “model”. Furthermore, “models” can be thought of as probabilistic. That is, “models” supply a range of possible outcomes for any proposed action…not just one outcome. “Models” that provide only one outcome are called deterministic models and tend to be circular in reasoning.
Everyone needs “models”! People and communities of people cannot function without them. Many argue that humans are hardwired to develop “models” because human beings are problem solvers and this is the unique characteristic of the species that has led to its higher development. People just naturally construct models to help them solve more difficult problems and make better decisions. The test of whether or not a “model” is relatively adequate is whether or not it can do better than other models in solving more difficult problems or help individuals and groups make better decisions.
People and communities are pragmatist in terms of the “models” they use. The ‘kicker’ in this approach is that the “models” used must be reflective of the worldviews of these individuals or groups. People construct these “models” using assumptions that are consistent with how they view the way the world works. But, not all assumptions are equal. Some assumptions are more important than others. Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher, argued that people have a hierarchy of assumptions running from assumptions that are relatively superficial and not that crucial to a model to assumptions that are very, very deep crucial to the model and are deeply held by the supporter of the worldview.
When people get new information that raises questions about the relative adequacy of a model, they tend to modify or adjust the assumptions that are not that important so as to make their model more adequate. If the model continues to underperform normal practice is to go deeper into the hierarchy of assumptions making further changes to improve model performance. This process continues until the model being used has been altered sufficiently so as to now be a relatively adequate model once again, or, the individual will have to go back to the drawing board and build a new model that is relatively adequate, or, the individual will switch models and begin working with another model that is relatively adequate.
Of course, individuals and groups differ on their willingness or ability to move through their assumptions so as to build a relatively adequate model. Some will move fairly quickly to deeper and deeper assumptions; others will only move slowly through their hierarchy of assumptions. I am not saying one approach is better than another because this is just human behavior and all individuals are different.
Now part of the worldview of individuals or communities is that related to religious or theological issues or questions. It is my position that all human beings approach religious or theological questions in exactly the same way that they attack any other type of question. That is, they construct “models” that conform to their worldview and pragmatically use these “models” to make predictions about possible outcomes so that they can make better and better decisions or solve more difficult problems. The only difference between areas of practice is the complexity of the subject being addressed. The ultimate test of these “models” is whether or not they help individuals or communities gain greater unity within themselves and lead better lives: do these “models” help people achieve “the peace that passes all understanding?”
Achieving the goal of living better lives or achieving “the peace that passes all understanding” is dependent upon how well the “models” of the particular worldview do in predicting the possible outcomes of different actions. If the “models” are consistent with the way the creation works then the individual or the community of individuals will make decisions that help to bring unity within the individual or within the community. However, if “models” are not consistent with the way world works then sooner or later the “models” will prove to be inadequate relative to other “models”.
Crucial then is the way that individuals or communities respond to this inadequacy. Some will respond and adjust in a timely manner. Others, however, will take another path. One such response is for people to develop explanations and excuses about why their “models” don’t work as well as others or as well as they would like. If an individual or a community of individuals wants to ‘defend’ their worldview, they will find explanations and excuses outside of their selves or their community to justify maintaining their existing “models”. These explanations and excuses may run all the way from “the weather” to the fact that “others oppose and put down our worldview” to the devil is attacking us. In this way, the individual or the community is able to deflect concerns, at least temporarily, about the deficiency of the “models” they are using and create an “us versus them” attitude among the supporters of their specific worldview.
If the models continue to be inadequate, the individual or community may attempt to cover up the lack of performance of the “models” being used in order to protect the worldview. Thus, censorship, falsifying information, and other means of restricting news that the “models” are not performing well relative to the “models” of other worldviews are common means of hiding the existing inadequacy. Openness and transparency are the victims of such a failure. These efforts may be combined with attacks on the “them” the individual or community has identified as the evil force behind the putting down of “us”!
When an individual or a community begins to turn in on itself in order to protect its worldview and its “models” the next step is to physically and/or mentally enforce the worldview and its “models” on those affected. In this way, the individual or the community “locks down” their worldview and takes on all outsiders that they consider to be a threat. Strict controls and discipline are enforced upon the individual or community being threatened from external forces and, in such a state, the individual or community can actually conduct offensive actions against those that they consider to be their enemies. They believe that the “truth” of their worldview must be defended at all costs.
In my view these individuals and communities cannot succeed. Ultimately, they will succumb to the spread of information that their worldview, at least in its present manifestation, is not relatively adequate and some will adopt the view that their “models” need to be modified so as to incorporate the new information and produce more adequate predictions or those involved will move into other communities that have a worldview that produces more adequate predictions. The problem is that in the interim time period, much unhappiness and dislocation may be inflicted on a lot of people.
Humans are problem solvers and our ability to solve problems is crucial to our survival. Failing to use our abilities of problem solving is not a strategy of survival…either for an individual or for a community.
“Models” are fallible; they never predict with 100% accuracy. For example, there is the problem of applying the appropriate “model” to a specific situation. The advice “slow and steady wins the race” is not appropriate for someone running a 100-yard dash. Here, “the race goes to the swiftest” is a better “model”. Furthermore, “models” can be thought of as probabilistic. That is, “models” supply a range of possible outcomes for any proposed action…not just one outcome. “Models” that provide only one outcome are called deterministic models and tend to be circular in reasoning.
Everyone needs “models”! People and communities of people cannot function without them. Many argue that humans are hardwired to develop “models” because human beings are problem solvers and this is the unique characteristic of the species that has led to its higher development. People just naturally construct models to help them solve more difficult problems and make better decisions. The test of whether or not a “model” is relatively adequate is whether or not it can do better than other models in solving more difficult problems or help individuals and groups make better decisions.
People and communities are pragmatist in terms of the “models” they use. The ‘kicker’ in this approach is that the “models” used must be reflective of the worldviews of these individuals or groups. People construct these “models” using assumptions that are consistent with how they view the way the world works. But, not all assumptions are equal. Some assumptions are more important than others. Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher, argued that people have a hierarchy of assumptions running from assumptions that are relatively superficial and not that crucial to a model to assumptions that are very, very deep crucial to the model and are deeply held by the supporter of the worldview.
When people get new information that raises questions about the relative adequacy of a model, they tend to modify or adjust the assumptions that are not that important so as to make their model more adequate. If the model continues to underperform normal practice is to go deeper into the hierarchy of assumptions making further changes to improve model performance. This process continues until the model being used has been altered sufficiently so as to now be a relatively adequate model once again, or, the individual will have to go back to the drawing board and build a new model that is relatively adequate, or, the individual will switch models and begin working with another model that is relatively adequate.
Of course, individuals and groups differ on their willingness or ability to move through their assumptions so as to build a relatively adequate model. Some will move fairly quickly to deeper and deeper assumptions; others will only move slowly through their hierarchy of assumptions. I am not saying one approach is better than another because this is just human behavior and all individuals are different.
Now part of the worldview of individuals or communities is that related to religious or theological issues or questions. It is my position that all human beings approach religious or theological questions in exactly the same way that they attack any other type of question. That is, they construct “models” that conform to their worldview and pragmatically use these “models” to make predictions about possible outcomes so that they can make better and better decisions or solve more difficult problems. The only difference between areas of practice is the complexity of the subject being addressed. The ultimate test of these “models” is whether or not they help individuals or communities gain greater unity within themselves and lead better lives: do these “models” help people achieve “the peace that passes all understanding?”
Achieving the goal of living better lives or achieving “the peace that passes all understanding” is dependent upon how well the “models” of the particular worldview do in predicting the possible outcomes of different actions. If the “models” are consistent with the way the creation works then the individual or the community of individuals will make decisions that help to bring unity within the individual or within the community. However, if “models” are not consistent with the way world works then sooner or later the “models” will prove to be inadequate relative to other “models”.
Crucial then is the way that individuals or communities respond to this inadequacy. Some will respond and adjust in a timely manner. Others, however, will take another path. One such response is for people to develop explanations and excuses about why their “models” don’t work as well as others or as well as they would like. If an individual or a community of individuals wants to ‘defend’ their worldview, they will find explanations and excuses outside of their selves or their community to justify maintaining their existing “models”. These explanations and excuses may run all the way from “the weather” to the fact that “others oppose and put down our worldview” to the devil is attacking us. In this way, the individual or the community is able to deflect concerns, at least temporarily, about the deficiency of the “models” they are using and create an “us versus them” attitude among the supporters of their specific worldview.
If the models continue to be inadequate, the individual or community may attempt to cover up the lack of performance of the “models” being used in order to protect the worldview. Thus, censorship, falsifying information, and other means of restricting news that the “models” are not performing well relative to the “models” of other worldviews are common means of hiding the existing inadequacy. Openness and transparency are the victims of such a failure. These efforts may be combined with attacks on the “them” the individual or community has identified as the evil force behind the putting down of “us”!
When an individual or a community begins to turn in on itself in order to protect its worldview and its “models” the next step is to physically and/or mentally enforce the worldview and its “models” on those affected. In this way, the individual or the community “locks down” their worldview and takes on all outsiders that they consider to be a threat. Strict controls and discipline are enforced upon the individual or community being threatened from external forces and, in such a state, the individual or community can actually conduct offensive actions against those that they consider to be their enemies. They believe that the “truth” of their worldview must be defended at all costs.
In my view these individuals and communities cannot succeed. Ultimately, they will succumb to the spread of information that their worldview, at least in its present manifestation, is not relatively adequate and some will adopt the view that their “models” need to be modified so as to incorporate the new information and produce more adequate predictions or those involved will move into other communities that have a worldview that produces more adequate predictions. The problem is that in the interim time period, much unhappiness and dislocation may be inflicted on a lot of people.
Humans are problem solvers and our ability to solve problems is crucial to our survival. Failing to use our abilities of problem solving is not a strategy of survival…either for an individual or for a community.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Being Missional
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Paul discusses in Chapter 3, verses 21 through 31 the ‘law of faith’. He writes, “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe…. Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.”
I would like to examine these passages within the context of the discussions we have been having over the past several weeks. Simply put, I have been discussing the conflict between an emphasis upon ‘outcomes’ or an emphasis upon ‘processes’. By focusing on outcomes, I have argued, people emphasize the results of ‘works’. By directing their attention in this way, the ‘works’ can become idolized and become the ultimate concern of the individual. This was the problem that Paul ran into in his younger years. And, it drove him to the brink of despair.
If we focus on ‘process’, however, we take the emphasis off of specific outcomes and direct our attention to our approach to God, to ourselves, to other people, or to creation. We concern ourselves with relationships, rather than with objects. The relationships can become our ultimate concern, rather than the objects, themselves. And, for the person who stands within the Jewish/Christian tradition…what is the focus of this relationship?
Our focus is on God! Paul tells us that “the righteousness of God has been disclosed…” And, what is this righteousness that has been disclosed? That God loves us!
God loves us! Imagine…
And what does God’s love of us, mean for us? On March 28 I discussed the work of Franz Rosenzweig and quoted him on this point. He writes that we “are always in the presence of God” and, therefore, there is “essentially just one commandment, the commandment to love God.” Revelation is always ‘an event between the two.’ Thus, a ‘religious experience’ is known ‘again and again’—“For we know it only when—we do.” For God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship.
Our revelation that God loves us is an offer of relationship. In loving us, God calls us to love him…to respond to him…to enter relationship. Thus, Jesus tells us that the “greatest and first commandment” is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” “And,” Jesus goes on, “the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22: 37-40)
The great teacher Hillel, in agreement with Jesus, and in agreement with Paul, tells us that beyond these two commandments, all the rest, the “law and the prophets”, is just commentary or explanation of what these two commandments mean. The crucial question here pertains to the need for the law and the prophets if we have the two “Great” commandments? Aren’t the two commandments enough?
Here we see the difference between ‘outcomes’ and ‘process’. When we have a preset idea of what love means, that which is loved becomes an ‘object’ and we then record the ‘outcome’ of applying our preconceived concept of love to that ‘object’. The problem here is that ‘love’ cannot be a ‘thing’ because if it becomes a ‘thing’ then it becomes the focus of our action…it becomes a ‘law’!
What the commandments tell us is that love is a relationship…it cannot be either a ‘thing’ or an ‘outcome’. The first commandment is “to love” and the second is like it, “you shall love” which implies that we must respond to that which is loved as unique and not as an ‘object’. Our model of this relationship is Jesus, who revealed to us “the image of God” in what he did and said. Jesus revealed to us what it means to love. And, this is why we need all ‘the law and the prophets’. This is why we need a further two thousand years of theological and philosophical reflection. We need commentary and explanation as to what it means to be in relationship with God…within ourselves…with others…and with creation. It is not easy to love because love is not an ‘outcome’ it is a ‘process’!
And, this, to me, is what Paul is talking about when he talks about “faith in Jesus Christ” and the “law of faith”. It is this that Paul talks about when he says that “a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” Paul is talking about faith in the two commandments…the commandments to love. This faith is not in Jesus Christ as an individual, because if we do this we make Jesus Christ into an idol. We have faith in the model that Jesus Christ showed us: the model to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is a model of relationship and, as Paul says, Jesus showed us that a person is justified in this faith in loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves by “stepping outside ourselves” and “entering into relationship”.
At this point Rosenzweig writes that we are therefore called to reveal the image of God. “Once one becomes God’s lover, however, one can no longer be completely enclosed in oneself, but one cannot escape that fate simply by returning God’s love…To return God’s love properly involves imitation dei—‘Be thou holy, for I the lord thy God am holy’…love of God cannot have a, so to speak, ‘vertical dimension’ without a ‘horizontal dimension’; ‘love of God’ without a direction out to other fellow human beings is not really love of God at all.” Furthermore, “I have to be able to love each and every human being as a human being.” Therefore, “To sum up: the whole purpose of human life is revelation, and the whole content of revelation is love.”
Jesus says, “As God sent me, so I send you.” As Jesus reveals the image of God in his actions, so are we to reveal God to others through our actions. Our relationship with Jesus becomes the imago dei, the call to act in the image of God. To love God is to love the “Other” as God loves us. But, this is the call to be missional…and it begins with those that are closest to us and then moves on out. Jesus began with his disciples and then sent them into the world. But, they were missional within their community before they became missional to the rest of the world.
In my post of February 29, I invoked the ideas of Blaise Pascal of why people enter into a community of faith. They enter a community because they want to live in a way that will bring them to belief in God. The members of that community represent the way of life, the model of being loved and loving that individuals want to experience so as to grow in faith. In terms of the Christian Church, people join the community because they want to experience the example of love exhibited by Jesus and by those that are followers of Jesus.
Thus, mission begins within the community, itself. We live in community because the models used by the community are successful and lead to a life that we would like to achieve. We live to attain that life…and we are interested in the process, not individual, current outcomes. Mission starts ‘right at home.’ It starts there because we don’t know where everyone is within the community, itself. There are the new people that have joined because they like what they see…but need to be led and re-enforced. They need people to show them the way. There are others within the church body…even long time members…that need to be supported or re-enforced or re-converted. And, all of these people need to understand that they need to be Missional as well. “Do I really believe this stuff?” “Can I say this stuff to others in the face of rejection?” We learn this within the community…within the local church.
Then we spread out into the world at large.
I would like to examine these passages within the context of the discussions we have been having over the past several weeks. Simply put, I have been discussing the conflict between an emphasis upon ‘outcomes’ or an emphasis upon ‘processes’. By focusing on outcomes, I have argued, people emphasize the results of ‘works’. By directing their attention in this way, the ‘works’ can become idolized and become the ultimate concern of the individual. This was the problem that Paul ran into in his younger years. And, it drove him to the brink of despair.
If we focus on ‘process’, however, we take the emphasis off of specific outcomes and direct our attention to our approach to God, to ourselves, to other people, or to creation. We concern ourselves with relationships, rather than with objects. The relationships can become our ultimate concern, rather than the objects, themselves. And, for the person who stands within the Jewish/Christian tradition…what is the focus of this relationship?
Our focus is on God! Paul tells us that “the righteousness of God has been disclosed…” And, what is this righteousness that has been disclosed? That God loves us!
God loves us! Imagine…
And what does God’s love of us, mean for us? On March 28 I discussed the work of Franz Rosenzweig and quoted him on this point. He writes that we “are always in the presence of God” and, therefore, there is “essentially just one commandment, the commandment to love God.” Revelation is always ‘an event between the two.’ Thus, a ‘religious experience’ is known ‘again and again’—“For we know it only when—we do.” For God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship.
Our revelation that God loves us is an offer of relationship. In loving us, God calls us to love him…to respond to him…to enter relationship. Thus, Jesus tells us that the “greatest and first commandment” is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” “And,” Jesus goes on, “the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22: 37-40)
The great teacher Hillel, in agreement with Jesus, and in agreement with Paul, tells us that beyond these two commandments, all the rest, the “law and the prophets”, is just commentary or explanation of what these two commandments mean. The crucial question here pertains to the need for the law and the prophets if we have the two “Great” commandments? Aren’t the two commandments enough?
Here we see the difference between ‘outcomes’ and ‘process’. When we have a preset idea of what love means, that which is loved becomes an ‘object’ and we then record the ‘outcome’ of applying our preconceived concept of love to that ‘object’. The problem here is that ‘love’ cannot be a ‘thing’ because if it becomes a ‘thing’ then it becomes the focus of our action…it becomes a ‘law’!
What the commandments tell us is that love is a relationship…it cannot be either a ‘thing’ or an ‘outcome’. The first commandment is “to love” and the second is like it, “you shall love” which implies that we must respond to that which is loved as unique and not as an ‘object’. Our model of this relationship is Jesus, who revealed to us “the image of God” in what he did and said. Jesus revealed to us what it means to love. And, this is why we need all ‘the law and the prophets’. This is why we need a further two thousand years of theological and philosophical reflection. We need commentary and explanation as to what it means to be in relationship with God…within ourselves…with others…and with creation. It is not easy to love because love is not an ‘outcome’ it is a ‘process’!
And, this, to me, is what Paul is talking about when he talks about “faith in Jesus Christ” and the “law of faith”. It is this that Paul talks about when he says that “a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” Paul is talking about faith in the two commandments…the commandments to love. This faith is not in Jesus Christ as an individual, because if we do this we make Jesus Christ into an idol. We have faith in the model that Jesus Christ showed us: the model to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is a model of relationship and, as Paul says, Jesus showed us that a person is justified in this faith in loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves by “stepping outside ourselves” and “entering into relationship”.
At this point Rosenzweig writes that we are therefore called to reveal the image of God. “Once one becomes God’s lover, however, one can no longer be completely enclosed in oneself, but one cannot escape that fate simply by returning God’s love…To return God’s love properly involves imitation dei—‘Be thou holy, for I the lord thy God am holy’…love of God cannot have a, so to speak, ‘vertical dimension’ without a ‘horizontal dimension’; ‘love of God’ without a direction out to other fellow human beings is not really love of God at all.” Furthermore, “I have to be able to love each and every human being as a human being.” Therefore, “To sum up: the whole purpose of human life is revelation, and the whole content of revelation is love.”
Jesus says, “As God sent me, so I send you.” As Jesus reveals the image of God in his actions, so are we to reveal God to others through our actions. Our relationship with Jesus becomes the imago dei, the call to act in the image of God. To love God is to love the “Other” as God loves us. But, this is the call to be missional…and it begins with those that are closest to us and then moves on out. Jesus began with his disciples and then sent them into the world. But, they were missional within their community before they became missional to the rest of the world.
In my post of February 29, I invoked the ideas of Blaise Pascal of why people enter into a community of faith. They enter a community because they want to live in a way that will bring them to belief in God. The members of that community represent the way of life, the model of being loved and loving that individuals want to experience so as to grow in faith. In terms of the Christian Church, people join the community because they want to experience the example of love exhibited by Jesus and by those that are followers of Jesus.
Thus, mission begins within the community, itself. We live in community because the models used by the community are successful and lead to a life that we would like to achieve. We live to attain that life…and we are interested in the process, not individual, current outcomes. Mission starts ‘right at home.’ It starts there because we don’t know where everyone is within the community, itself. There are the new people that have joined because they like what they see…but need to be led and re-enforced. They need people to show them the way. There are others within the church body…even long time members…that need to be supported or re-enforced or re-converted. And, all of these people need to understand that they need to be Missional as well. “Do I really believe this stuff?” “Can I say this stuff to others in the face of rejection?” We learn this within the community…within the local church.
Then we spread out into the world at large.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Paul's Lesson (Part Two)
In the last post, we traced Paul, the Jew and the future disciple of Jesus, through his childhood and into his early to mid-twenties. Paul was sufficiently brilliant as a child student to be sent from his childhood home to Jerusalem to study with the renowned teacher Gamaliel, a Pharisee. Although we presume he did well, he was still an ‘outsider’ to the inner circle in Jerusalem because he was a Greek and not a Hebrew. He, in all likelihood, went to the synagogue of the Freedman, with Stephen and others of foreign birth. In order to prove his ‘worth’ to those in the inner circle he was zealous in enforcing the teaching of ‘the Law’ and became a force in persecuting the followers of a teacher named Jesus.
Paul, it appears, was “completely enclosed in himself.” As Franz Rosenzweig has argued, this is the “tragedy that threatens everyone.” People,” Rosenzweig goes on, “do not always hear this voice (the voice of God) saying ‘love me’” and they fail to heed “the request…to step outside of (them)selves, to enter into a relationship”…the relationship with God. It seems that Paul had this problem.
His emphasis seems always to have been on himself: “I strictly obeyed the Law of Moses.” (Philippians 3:5); “I was so eager that I even made trouble for the church.” (3:6); “I did everything the Law demands in order to please God.” (3:6); “I was cruel to God’s church and even tried to destroy it.” (Galatians 1: 13); “I was a much better Jew than anyone else my own age…” (1: 14); and “I obeyed every law that our ancestors had given us.” (1: 14). Everything seems to be focused on the “I”! But, this was about to change.
Paul was at Stephen’s death. He most assuredly was present when Stephen spoke to the high priest. It is highly likely that Paul had had heated and emotional debates with Stephen at the synagogue of the Freedman. He knew the story the followers of Jesus were telling and he knew all the arguments that supported this story. Could it be that within the highly tense situation that he found himself in that he could not get the story out of his mind?
Paul had time to mull the story over. In his position, he was probably a loner and isolated. He was a persecutor and a violent young man…probably not one to associate with. The crowd he could be with…the Greeks…he didn’t want to be a part of and the crowd that he wanted to be a part of…the Hebrews…wouldn’t have him. He traveled over substantial distances…as the trip to Damascus shows…and he probably didn’t eat well…observance of the law…and he probably fasted a lot.
He was a lonely, driven, and unhappy man! He was about 25 years old. And, then it happened!!!
“He (God) was kind and had decided to show me his Son, so that I would announce his message to the Gentiles.” (Galatians 1: 15-16) This, of course, is his reflection on the events that took place on the road to Damascus and later. After the revelation, Paul stayed with the disciple Ananias in Damascus and then began to talk with other disciples in that town. And then “he immediately began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues…” (Acts 9: 20) He “became increasingly more powerful and confronted the Jews who lived in Damascus…” (Acts 9: 22) He has to be right again…even if it was on the other side. He forced it on others.
How could this happen? Remember, Paul had probably been debating about Jesus for maybe up to 5 years by this time. Paul was extremely bright. Paul had been debating with some pretty astute people…and, we are told that he lost all the debates…while he was on the Jewish side of the argument. He probably knew the story backwards and forwards. Paul even says that “I didn’t talk this over with anyone.” That is, it all came together for him…it was revealed to him. “I didn’t say a word, not even to the men in Jerusalem…” (Galatians 1: 16-17) This, of course, is the basis of Paul’s claim to be an apostle…he got all his information from…Jesus, himself.
What happens next is cloudy: in Acts 9: 26-29 we get one story but in Galatians, Paul writes that “I went at once to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1: 17) and this seems more consistent with the time line set out above. Paul, himself, says that “Three years later I went to visit Peter in Jerusalem.” (Galatians 1:18) At this time he also sees James, the brother of Jesus, who is now a leader of the Hebrew followers of Jesus. (Galatians 1:19)
Things apparently did not go well in Jerusalem. In general it appears as if Paul’s presence stirred up enough trouble that he was hastened out of Jerusalem. For example, the Hebrew followers of Jesus continued to worship at the temple. It seems that the early Christians wanted to remain within the Jewish faith and maintain their role within the temple. Paul seemed to be an embarrassment to the apostles and, in addition, Paul was a Greek!
Paul wanted to be within the ‘in’ crowd again…only this time, being with the ‘in’ crowd meant being with Peter and James and the other apostles and disciples. However, he was not allowed to ‘play ball’ with the varsity squad. There was no future for Paul in Jerusalem.
Before his departure, Paul had a dream…”After I returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance.” (Acts 22: 17) In his trance Jesus told him to leave Jerusalem and then Jesus said “Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” (Acts 22: 21) This, along with the passage in Galatians, is the second reference to the fact that Paul is to be the apostle to the Gentiles. However, his personality had to change because he could not fulfill the role God had in store for him if he continued to be so focused upon being “a much better Jew” than anyone else.
And so, Paul was, in essence, sent off into the wilderness to grow and mature into someone who would be useful to God in the way that God wanted him to work. Believers, then, “took Saul to Caesarea. From there they sent him to Tarsus.” (Acts 9:30) In Paul’s own words, “Later, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” (Galatians 1: 21) And, that is where Paul learned and developed. He could not play for the ‘first team’ as he was and he had to find out what he needed to do in order to be brought back into the major leagues. We know nothing of what Paul did for the time he was back in Tarsus. It was not earth-shaking for we have no record of it and apparently it was not significant enough for Paul to make mention of it…at least in the records we are limited to. We do know one thing, however…he was a different person when he came back on the scene…he was tolerant…he was focused…and his focus was on Jesus…and on God! His tragedy, as Rosenzweig might describe it, had played out!
In Paul’s own words: “Fourteen years later I went to Jerusalem with Barnabas.” (Galatians 2: 1) Since Paul was writing about his conversion, I am taking the fourteen years to mean fourteen years from his conversion, not that he spent fourteen years in Tarsus. This seems to be the only way the time line fits together and puts Paul back in action around 48 C. E. At that time he was around 38 years old, much different from the hot-headed zealot he was at 25 when he had the experience on the road to Damascus.
The reason for the call: After the death of Stephen, we are told that the persecuted followers of Jesus were scattered and some went to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. (Acts 11:19) We are primarily talking about Greek Jews because Phoenicia and Cyprus were in Greek speaking areas and in Antioch we are specifically referring to the Hellenists there. (Acts 11: 20) When Jerusalem heard of the interest in Antioch, they sent Barnabas to that city. Barnabas had been the disciple that took Paul under his wing when Paul originally came to Jerusalem at the age of about 27 and ‘calmed the waters’ so that he could meet with Peter and James. Now, Barnabas remembers Paul…the Greek…and perceives that he could be useful with the group of interested people in Antioch. Consequently “Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul.” (Acts 11:25) and brings Paul back to Antioch to work with these people. The rest is history.
Paul was an entirely different person. He had been discriminated against much of his life…being of Greek heritage he was not fully acceptable to the Hebrew Jews or Hebrew Christians that he associated with in Jerusalem. After being rejected and kept on the ‘outside’ for most of his life, he realized that this was putting the focus on the wrong thing. Paul had matured sufficiently so that if he were to work with people he would focus on Jesus…and on God. He would not let the insignificant things of life get in his way of telling the good news. He was going to be all things to all people so that he could bring people to a greater happiness.
I close with this passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 3, verses 21-31: “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction (between peoples), since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….
Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
The early Paul could not have written this. Yet, the later Paul has not forsaken his “Native Judaism.” His focus has changed. He has gone from a person that set out to prove his worth and has been transformed into a person who looks to God for all things. He has gone from a person who looks for outcomes to one who abides by the process of love. Before, Paul belonged only to Paul; now he belongs to God!
Paul, it appears, was “completely enclosed in himself.” As Franz Rosenzweig has argued, this is the “tragedy that threatens everyone.” People,” Rosenzweig goes on, “do not always hear this voice (the voice of God) saying ‘love me’” and they fail to heed “the request…to step outside of (them)selves, to enter into a relationship”…the relationship with God. It seems that Paul had this problem.
His emphasis seems always to have been on himself: “I strictly obeyed the Law of Moses.” (Philippians 3:5); “I was so eager that I even made trouble for the church.” (3:6); “I did everything the Law demands in order to please God.” (3:6); “I was cruel to God’s church and even tried to destroy it.” (Galatians 1: 13); “I was a much better Jew than anyone else my own age…” (1: 14); and “I obeyed every law that our ancestors had given us.” (1: 14). Everything seems to be focused on the “I”! But, this was about to change.
Paul was at Stephen’s death. He most assuredly was present when Stephen spoke to the high priest. It is highly likely that Paul had had heated and emotional debates with Stephen at the synagogue of the Freedman. He knew the story the followers of Jesus were telling and he knew all the arguments that supported this story. Could it be that within the highly tense situation that he found himself in that he could not get the story out of his mind?
Paul had time to mull the story over. In his position, he was probably a loner and isolated. He was a persecutor and a violent young man…probably not one to associate with. The crowd he could be with…the Greeks…he didn’t want to be a part of and the crowd that he wanted to be a part of…the Hebrews…wouldn’t have him. He traveled over substantial distances…as the trip to Damascus shows…and he probably didn’t eat well…observance of the law…and he probably fasted a lot.
He was a lonely, driven, and unhappy man! He was about 25 years old. And, then it happened!!!
“He (God) was kind and had decided to show me his Son, so that I would announce his message to the Gentiles.” (Galatians 1: 15-16) This, of course, is his reflection on the events that took place on the road to Damascus and later. After the revelation, Paul stayed with the disciple Ananias in Damascus and then began to talk with other disciples in that town. And then “he immediately began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues…” (Acts 9: 20) He “became increasingly more powerful and confronted the Jews who lived in Damascus…” (Acts 9: 22) He has to be right again…even if it was on the other side. He forced it on others.
How could this happen? Remember, Paul had probably been debating about Jesus for maybe up to 5 years by this time. Paul was extremely bright. Paul had been debating with some pretty astute people…and, we are told that he lost all the debates…while he was on the Jewish side of the argument. He probably knew the story backwards and forwards. Paul even says that “I didn’t talk this over with anyone.” That is, it all came together for him…it was revealed to him. “I didn’t say a word, not even to the men in Jerusalem…” (Galatians 1: 16-17) This, of course, is the basis of Paul’s claim to be an apostle…he got all his information from…Jesus, himself.
What happens next is cloudy: in Acts 9: 26-29 we get one story but in Galatians, Paul writes that “I went at once to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1: 17) and this seems more consistent with the time line set out above. Paul, himself, says that “Three years later I went to visit Peter in Jerusalem.” (Galatians 1:18) At this time he also sees James, the brother of Jesus, who is now a leader of the Hebrew followers of Jesus. (Galatians 1:19)
Things apparently did not go well in Jerusalem. In general it appears as if Paul’s presence stirred up enough trouble that he was hastened out of Jerusalem. For example, the Hebrew followers of Jesus continued to worship at the temple. It seems that the early Christians wanted to remain within the Jewish faith and maintain their role within the temple. Paul seemed to be an embarrassment to the apostles and, in addition, Paul was a Greek!
Paul wanted to be within the ‘in’ crowd again…only this time, being with the ‘in’ crowd meant being with Peter and James and the other apostles and disciples. However, he was not allowed to ‘play ball’ with the varsity squad. There was no future for Paul in Jerusalem.
Before his departure, Paul had a dream…”After I returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance.” (Acts 22: 17) In his trance Jesus told him to leave Jerusalem and then Jesus said “Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” (Acts 22: 21) This, along with the passage in Galatians, is the second reference to the fact that Paul is to be the apostle to the Gentiles. However, his personality had to change because he could not fulfill the role God had in store for him if he continued to be so focused upon being “a much better Jew” than anyone else.
And so, Paul was, in essence, sent off into the wilderness to grow and mature into someone who would be useful to God in the way that God wanted him to work. Believers, then, “took Saul to Caesarea. From there they sent him to Tarsus.” (Acts 9:30) In Paul’s own words, “Later, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” (Galatians 1: 21) And, that is where Paul learned and developed. He could not play for the ‘first team’ as he was and he had to find out what he needed to do in order to be brought back into the major leagues. We know nothing of what Paul did for the time he was back in Tarsus. It was not earth-shaking for we have no record of it and apparently it was not significant enough for Paul to make mention of it…at least in the records we are limited to. We do know one thing, however…he was a different person when he came back on the scene…he was tolerant…he was focused…and his focus was on Jesus…and on God! His tragedy, as Rosenzweig might describe it, had played out!
In Paul’s own words: “Fourteen years later I went to Jerusalem with Barnabas.” (Galatians 2: 1) Since Paul was writing about his conversion, I am taking the fourteen years to mean fourteen years from his conversion, not that he spent fourteen years in Tarsus. This seems to be the only way the time line fits together and puts Paul back in action around 48 C. E. At that time he was around 38 years old, much different from the hot-headed zealot he was at 25 when he had the experience on the road to Damascus.
The reason for the call: After the death of Stephen, we are told that the persecuted followers of Jesus were scattered and some went to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. (Acts 11:19) We are primarily talking about Greek Jews because Phoenicia and Cyprus were in Greek speaking areas and in Antioch we are specifically referring to the Hellenists there. (Acts 11: 20) When Jerusalem heard of the interest in Antioch, they sent Barnabas to that city. Barnabas had been the disciple that took Paul under his wing when Paul originally came to Jerusalem at the age of about 27 and ‘calmed the waters’ so that he could meet with Peter and James. Now, Barnabas remembers Paul…the Greek…and perceives that he could be useful with the group of interested people in Antioch. Consequently “Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul.” (Acts 11:25) and brings Paul back to Antioch to work with these people. The rest is history.
Paul was an entirely different person. He had been discriminated against much of his life…being of Greek heritage he was not fully acceptable to the Hebrew Jews or Hebrew Christians that he associated with in Jerusalem. After being rejected and kept on the ‘outside’ for most of his life, he realized that this was putting the focus on the wrong thing. Paul had matured sufficiently so that if he were to work with people he would focus on Jesus…and on God. He would not let the insignificant things of life get in his way of telling the good news. He was going to be all things to all people so that he could bring people to a greater happiness.
I close with this passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 3, verses 21-31: “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction (between peoples), since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….
Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
The early Paul could not have written this. Yet, the later Paul has not forsaken his “Native Judaism.” His focus has changed. He has gone from a person that set out to prove his worth and has been transformed into a person who looks to God for all things. He has gone from a person who looks for outcomes to one who abides by the process of love. Before, Paul belonged only to Paul; now he belongs to God!
Friday, April 4, 2008
Paul's Lesson (Part One)
In the last post we reviewed Hilary Putnam’s book “Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life.” In discussing Franz Rosenzweig, it was stated that ‘God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship. However, this is the hardest thing to do. Rosenzweig argues that “the tragedy that threatens everyone, the tragedy of being completely enclosed in oneself” is “the greatest danger facing the soul.”’ Paul, the Jew, the disciple of Jesus, knew this for a fact…but he learned.
However, “Paul’s theology is often portrayed as the antithesis not only of the teachings of Jesus but also, paradoxically enough, of first-century Judaism.” (Calvin Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, p. 174) I believe that this interpretation is incorrect and that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, not only before his conversion, but also, after his conversion. However, he went through a change following his conversion that was very important for the work that God had in store for him. In order to fully understand Paul and his ministry we must understand this change that took place in him and how it applied to his spreading of the gospel into the Diaspora and to the Gentiles.
It is estimated that Paul was born around 10 C. E. and was raised in Tarsus in Cilicia. (Acts 22:3) I believe that we can assume three things about his youth: he lived in Tarsus long enough to be at home in the urban culture of the Greco-Roman world; he was born a Roman citizen which implied something about the position of his parents within this society; and he must have been quite bright, exceeding that of other children and drew the attention of people within the Jewish community.
He was connected enough and bright enough that he was sent to Jerusalem at a relatively early age…maybe 14 or 15. Why can we say this? He lived long enough in Tarsus to absorb the culture there. His family was well enough placed within the religious community that he was recognized for his abilities. The religious community had to be involved for he was sent to one of the well know teachers in Jerusalem, Gamaliel. There were sufficient connections so that Paul was taken care of in Jerusalem. “I was a student of Gamaliel,” or, “…was brought up (educated) at the feet of Gamaliel.” (Acts 22:3) [Gamaliel, the Elder, or identified as Gamaliel I in rabbinic literature. “A Pharisee in the Sanhedrin, honored by all the people, who counseled letting the apostles out of prison (Acts 5: 34-39) and a teacher of the Law who instructed Paul.” He flourished in the mid-first century. He is listed after Hillel in the list of princes or patriarchs of Judaism in the Mishnah. Bible Dictionary, revised. Paul J Achtemeier, General Editor, Harper-Collins, 1996.]
If this is true, Paul would have come to Jerusalem around 24 or 25 C. E. It is estimated that Jesus was born sometime around 6 B. C. E. and his public ministry was around the period 25 to 27 C. E. At the earlier date for the ministry of Jesus, Paul would have been around 15 years old. At the later date he would have been around 17 years old. And, here are some other dates to remember: Stephen was martyred around 32-33 C. E.; Paul’s conversion came about 35 C. E. or when he was about 25 years old; he spent 3 years being ‘instructed’ by the Lord and then went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James; from Jerusalem Paul goes back to Syria and Cilicia (to Tarsus); fourteen years later, Barnabas gets Paul from Tarsus and brings him to Antioch somewhere around 48-49 C. E.; the first letter attributed to Paul, the First Letter to the Thessalonians, is dated around 52 C. E.
Let’s return to Jerusalem: Paul was special and he was blessed to be able to go to Jerusalem and study at the feet of Gamaliel. But, there was one problem…he was Greek! Even though he was a Jew and he was a bright student…he was not Hebrew! He was Greek and Greeks were not the equal of Hebrews! Hebrews made up the inner circle, the people to be with, the ‘in’ crowd. Greeks were second-class citizens.
For evidence of this kind of discrimination, look at the story in Acts 6: 1-4: “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.”
The solution: the disciples said…”It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.” But, it was alright for the Greeks to ‘neglect the word of God’ and to ‘wait on tables.’
So, the Greeks were to choose among themselves those that would be appointed the task of waiting on tables and, for the Hebrews, “we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.”
Paul, in my estimation, was not a part of the ‘in’ crowd, no matter how good a student he was. And, this accounts for his attempts to excel in not only his studies but in his observance of the Law. He was a “much better Jew than anyone else (his) own age.” (Galatians 1:14)
When the whole thing about Jesus and his followers boiled over Paul continued to show his value to the Hebrews by his zealous persecution against this sect. And, even further, he probably was most zealous against the Greek followers of this man Jesus…it just showed, Paul thought, that he was really one of the Hebrews, if not by birth…by commitment.
The example of the killing of Stephen is an example of this effort. We don’t know how much of an instigator he was in this death. But Stephen argued with Jews at the synagogue of the Freedman which was composed of “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia.” (Acts 6: 9) Was Paul one of those who argued with Stephen? He did like argument! But Stephen won all the arguments. (Acts 6: 10) Paul must have been furious…he, a brilliant scholar with Gamaliel, and to lose out to this upstart! Then some of the congregation plotted against Stephen and “stirred up the people as well as the elders and scribes.” (Acts 6: 12) Was Paul one of these?
Paul is never identified as one of these plotters but, he was at the stoning and we are told, “Saul approved the killing of Stephen.” (Acts 8: 1) We also learn that “all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria.” (Acts 8: 2) The scattering took place because of the “severe persecution” which “began against the church in Jerusalem” at this time. And, “Saul was ravaging the church” (Acts 8:3)
It seems to me that two points can be made here. First, the non-Hebrew Jewish followers of Jesus were the ones that were scattered from Jerusalem. Paul, and others, drove them out of their homes, put some of them in jail and chased the others away into the hinterlands. Paul, the zealous Greek, was intolerant of the Greek followers (and others) in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the Hebrews that were in power. After the surge took place in Jerusalem, the followers of Jesus were pursued into the surrounding areas…and this accounts for Paul’s trip to Damascus…probably one of many such trips he took. He was ‘wrath’ itself! He was then about 23 or 24 years old! Second, it should be noted that the Hebrew followers of Jesus were not chased out of Jerusalem and as we learn later they continued to worship at the temple and carried on their lives within the city. This strand will be picked up a little later for it is an important part of the story.
This is the first part of the story of Paul. In the next post, on April 7, we shall continue the story.
However, “Paul’s theology is often portrayed as the antithesis not only of the teachings of Jesus but also, paradoxically enough, of first-century Judaism.” (Calvin Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, p. 174) I believe that this interpretation is incorrect and that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, not only before his conversion, but also, after his conversion. However, he went through a change following his conversion that was very important for the work that God had in store for him. In order to fully understand Paul and his ministry we must understand this change that took place in him and how it applied to his spreading of the gospel into the Diaspora and to the Gentiles.
It is estimated that Paul was born around 10 C. E. and was raised in Tarsus in Cilicia. (Acts 22:3) I believe that we can assume three things about his youth: he lived in Tarsus long enough to be at home in the urban culture of the Greco-Roman world; he was born a Roman citizen which implied something about the position of his parents within this society; and he must have been quite bright, exceeding that of other children and drew the attention of people within the Jewish community.
He was connected enough and bright enough that he was sent to Jerusalem at a relatively early age…maybe 14 or 15. Why can we say this? He lived long enough in Tarsus to absorb the culture there. His family was well enough placed within the religious community that he was recognized for his abilities. The religious community had to be involved for he was sent to one of the well know teachers in Jerusalem, Gamaliel. There were sufficient connections so that Paul was taken care of in Jerusalem. “I was a student of Gamaliel,” or, “…was brought up (educated) at the feet of Gamaliel.” (Acts 22:3) [Gamaliel, the Elder, or identified as Gamaliel I in rabbinic literature. “A Pharisee in the Sanhedrin, honored by all the people, who counseled letting the apostles out of prison (Acts 5: 34-39) and a teacher of the Law who instructed Paul.” He flourished in the mid-first century. He is listed after Hillel in the list of princes or patriarchs of Judaism in the Mishnah. Bible Dictionary, revised. Paul J Achtemeier, General Editor, Harper-Collins, 1996.]
If this is true, Paul would have come to Jerusalem around 24 or 25 C. E. It is estimated that Jesus was born sometime around 6 B. C. E. and his public ministry was around the period 25 to 27 C. E. At the earlier date for the ministry of Jesus, Paul would have been around 15 years old. At the later date he would have been around 17 years old. And, here are some other dates to remember: Stephen was martyred around 32-33 C. E.; Paul’s conversion came about 35 C. E. or when he was about 25 years old; he spent 3 years being ‘instructed’ by the Lord and then went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James; from Jerusalem Paul goes back to Syria and Cilicia (to Tarsus); fourteen years later, Barnabas gets Paul from Tarsus and brings him to Antioch somewhere around 48-49 C. E.; the first letter attributed to Paul, the First Letter to the Thessalonians, is dated around 52 C. E.
Let’s return to Jerusalem: Paul was special and he was blessed to be able to go to Jerusalem and study at the feet of Gamaliel. But, there was one problem…he was Greek! Even though he was a Jew and he was a bright student…he was not Hebrew! He was Greek and Greeks were not the equal of Hebrews! Hebrews made up the inner circle, the people to be with, the ‘in’ crowd. Greeks were second-class citizens.
For evidence of this kind of discrimination, look at the story in Acts 6: 1-4: “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.”
The solution: the disciples said…”It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.” But, it was alright for the Greeks to ‘neglect the word of God’ and to ‘wait on tables.’
So, the Greeks were to choose among themselves those that would be appointed the task of waiting on tables and, for the Hebrews, “we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.”
Paul, in my estimation, was not a part of the ‘in’ crowd, no matter how good a student he was. And, this accounts for his attempts to excel in not only his studies but in his observance of the Law. He was a “much better Jew than anyone else (his) own age.” (Galatians 1:14)
When the whole thing about Jesus and his followers boiled over Paul continued to show his value to the Hebrews by his zealous persecution against this sect. And, even further, he probably was most zealous against the Greek followers of this man Jesus…it just showed, Paul thought, that he was really one of the Hebrews, if not by birth…by commitment.
The example of the killing of Stephen is an example of this effort. We don’t know how much of an instigator he was in this death. But Stephen argued with Jews at the synagogue of the Freedman which was composed of “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia.” (Acts 6: 9) Was Paul one of those who argued with Stephen? He did like argument! But Stephen won all the arguments. (Acts 6: 10) Paul must have been furious…he, a brilliant scholar with Gamaliel, and to lose out to this upstart! Then some of the congregation plotted against Stephen and “stirred up the people as well as the elders and scribes.” (Acts 6: 12) Was Paul one of these?
Paul is never identified as one of these plotters but, he was at the stoning and we are told, “Saul approved the killing of Stephen.” (Acts 8: 1) We also learn that “all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria.” (Acts 8: 2) The scattering took place because of the “severe persecution” which “began against the church in Jerusalem” at this time. And, “Saul was ravaging the church” (Acts 8:3)
It seems to me that two points can be made here. First, the non-Hebrew Jewish followers of Jesus were the ones that were scattered from Jerusalem. Paul, and others, drove them out of their homes, put some of them in jail and chased the others away into the hinterlands. Paul, the zealous Greek, was intolerant of the Greek followers (and others) in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the Hebrews that were in power. After the surge took place in Jerusalem, the followers of Jesus were pursued into the surrounding areas…and this accounts for Paul’s trip to Damascus…probably one of many such trips he took. He was ‘wrath’ itself! He was then about 23 or 24 years old! Second, it should be noted that the Hebrew followers of Jesus were not chased out of Jerusalem and as we learn later they continued to worship at the temple and carried on their lives within the city. This strand will be picked up a little later for it is an important part of the story.
This is the first part of the story of Paul. In the next post, on April 7, we shall continue the story.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Putnam's "Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life"
The “classic” revelations of the Jewish/Christian tradition were repeated by Jesus in response to the question, “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest?” Jesus replied: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and the first commandment. And, the second is like it, ‘You shall lover your neighbor as yourself.” Then, Jesus adds, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 37-40) Last week I discussed how difficult these commandments are in that they have required the work of all the law and the prophets, as well as the work of more than two thousand years of theological reflection to try and ‘interpret’ or ‘explain’ what it means to ‘love God’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself.’
This week I review a wonderful little book by Hilary Putnam, “Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life” (Published by Indiana University Press in 2008) in which we discover that the need to ‘interpret’ and ‘explain’ how to ‘love of God’ and to ‘love of neighbor and self’ is alive and well in the twenty-first century (C. E.). Putnam, a well-know philosopher in his own right, examines the work of three Jewish religious philosophers, Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas, as well as the religious thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The thrust of all four philosophers, as argued by Putnam, is to express these two major commandments within the context of twentieth century philosophy.
These philosophers agree that we need to get away from metaphysics, for metaphysics is a search for the “essence” of things. In metaphysics, the philosopher “seeks an imaginary position, one outside the flow of time. He seeks to view everything, even himself, as if he were an ‘outsider’ and seeks to view the world as if he were not in it.” (p. 28) But this is not the philosophy we are involved in Rosenzweig argues, we need “another sort of philosophy.” (p. 19) Man needs “a proper relation to God” as well as “a proper relation to other human beings or to the world.” (p. 26) Putnam suggests that “our task is to acknowledge God” but, as Rosenzweig believes, “one can acknowledge any one of the three—God, Man, and World—as they demand to be acknowledged unless one acknowledges the other two.” (p. 26) This leads to the conclusion, also reached by Wittgenstein, that “religious belief…it’s really a way of living, or a way of assessing life. It’s passionately seizing hold of this interpretation.” (p. 27)
In terms of the existence of God, Putnam writes that “we construct our images of God in response to demands that we do not create” but that “for a religious person theorizing about God is beside the point.” (p. 6) He quotes Buber: “Man receives, and what he receives is not a ‘content’ but a presence, a presence of strength.” (p. 6): and he continues, with Wittgenstein, that “religion is a deep-going way of life.” (p. 11) One must maintain, Putnam argues, the ancient idea of transforming one’s way of life and one’s understanding of one’s place in the larger scheme of things and in the human community…” (p. 13) As with Pascal, one must see one’s religious continuity as a way of life, to be learned, studied, and lived.
In order to move into this community, Rosenzweig contends that we need to continually think as if we were with another person. We must ‘speak’ to some one and think for some one. This makes a person live philosophical or theological problems. We need ‘readiness’ rather than ‘plans.’ By being ‘ready’ we can respond to another person. If we have plans, we are not listening to another because we already have determined a pathway. (pgs. 31-33) Our existence within the community allows for this listening and learning.
We “are always in the presence of God” and, therefore, there is “essentially just one commandment, the commandment to love God.” (pgs. 35-36) Revelation is always ‘an event between the two.’ Thus, a ‘religious experience’ is known ‘again and again’—“For we know it only when—we do.” (pgs. 42-43) For God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. (pgs. 46-7) The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship.
However, this is the hardest thing to do. Rosenzweig continues that “the tragedy that threatens everyone, the tragedy of being completely enclosed in oneself” is “the greatest danger facing the soul.” (p. 47) “Once one becomes God’s lover, however, one can no longer be completely enclosed in oneself, but one cannot escape that fate simply by returning God’s love…To return God’s love properly involves imitation dei—‘Be thou holy, for I the lord thy God am holy’…love of God cannot have a, so to speak, ‘vertical dimension’ without a ‘horizontal dimension’; ‘love of God’ without a direction out to other fellow human beings is not really love of God at all.” (p. 48) “I have to be able to love each and every human being as a human being.” (p. 49) “To sum up: the whole purpose of human life is revelation, and the whole content of revelation is love.” (p. 54)
Buber sees these relationships as a dynamic interaction, between God and a person as well as between a person and the world. This is captured by the I—thou relation. But, the relationship between God and a person is one that can only be of short duration. The important thing is that once one has experienced this connection the “It—World” relationship is transformed. It transforms not only the individual’s interior life but it also transforms the person’s social life. The experience of the divine is not an end in itself…but the end is the transformation of life in the world. (p. 64) One cannot describe God or theorize about him. One can only enter into an “I—You” relation with God and become transformed. (p. 65) Buber argues that you can never answer the question, “How do you know that God exists?” The “I—You” relation is never a matter of knowledge. The “I—You” relation is a shared relation, a mode of being, that can transform one’s life even when one is back in the “It” world. (p. 67) So we believe in God and therefore act in the image of God which brings us into closer relationship with God. It is a cumulative thing!
But, Levinas argues that one cannot act according to a formula such as “Behave in such and such a way…” This is a disaster because it says “treat the other as an end and not as a means…” (p. 70) and this, basically, assumes that all people are “fundamentally the same.” (p. 71) Levinas attempts to describe the “fundamental obligation of one person to the other” (p. 73): he states that the fundamental obligation we have is the obligation to make ourselves available to the neediness of the other person. (p. 74) Levinas goes on to say that to be a human being in the normative sense involves recognizing that I am commanded to say ‘Here I am’ to the other. “If you have to ask, ‘Why should I put myself out for him/her?’ you are not yet human.” (p. 75) “A genuine ethical relation to another presupposes that you realize that the other person is an independent reality and not in any way your construction.” (p. 78) And, this fundamental obligation is not derivable from any metaphysical or epistemological picture.” (p. 80) The bottom line is: “every human being is responsible for every other.” (p. 81) This is an ideal, Levinas admits, but without an ideal everything becomes mediocre.
As mentioned above, by being in the community we can come to perceive a ‘trace’ of God’s presence in the tradition of the Commandment and the interpretative community that continues to work out what the Commandment means. But, the individual in the community must feel a profound experience of being Commanded by a God with whom she or he has not had a numinous experience. (p. 86) The ‘human truths’ of the Old Testament as interpreted by Levinas are (1) every human being should experience him/herself as commanded to be available to the neediness, the suffering, the vulnerability of the other person; (2) know that, philosophically, they cannot gain an account of how this is possible; and (3) know that the divine command lacks a metaphysical basis and is not based on a personal epiphany. (pgs. 86-7) This obligation of the individual exists without the feeling that the other has the same obligation. (p. 96)
Putnam does contend that in this argument Levinas leaves out one major point about love: Levinas does not consider the love that an individual should have for themselves. Putnam argues that one cannot love others if one does not love oneself. (p. 99) Putnam claims Aristotle as his teacher on this point.
Reading this book, one certainly feels that the effort to explain the ‘love of God’ and the ‘love of neighbor’ is alive and in good hands.
This week I review a wonderful little book by Hilary Putnam, “Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life” (Published by Indiana University Press in 2008) in which we discover that the need to ‘interpret’ and ‘explain’ how to ‘love of God’ and to ‘love of neighbor and self’ is alive and well in the twenty-first century (C. E.). Putnam, a well-know philosopher in his own right, examines the work of three Jewish religious philosophers, Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas, as well as the religious thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The thrust of all four philosophers, as argued by Putnam, is to express these two major commandments within the context of twentieth century philosophy.
These philosophers agree that we need to get away from metaphysics, for metaphysics is a search for the “essence” of things. In metaphysics, the philosopher “seeks an imaginary position, one outside the flow of time. He seeks to view everything, even himself, as if he were an ‘outsider’ and seeks to view the world as if he were not in it.” (p. 28) But this is not the philosophy we are involved in Rosenzweig argues, we need “another sort of philosophy.” (p. 19) Man needs “a proper relation to God” as well as “a proper relation to other human beings or to the world.” (p. 26) Putnam suggests that “our task is to acknowledge God” but, as Rosenzweig believes, “one can acknowledge any one of the three—God, Man, and World—as they demand to be acknowledged unless one acknowledges the other two.” (p. 26) This leads to the conclusion, also reached by Wittgenstein, that “religious belief…it’s really a way of living, or a way of assessing life. It’s passionately seizing hold of this interpretation.” (p. 27)
In terms of the existence of God, Putnam writes that “we construct our images of God in response to demands that we do not create” but that “for a religious person theorizing about God is beside the point.” (p. 6) He quotes Buber: “Man receives, and what he receives is not a ‘content’ but a presence, a presence of strength.” (p. 6): and he continues, with Wittgenstein, that “religion is a deep-going way of life.” (p. 11) One must maintain, Putnam argues, the ancient idea of transforming one’s way of life and one’s understanding of one’s place in the larger scheme of things and in the human community…” (p. 13) As with Pascal, one must see one’s religious continuity as a way of life, to be learned, studied, and lived.
In order to move into this community, Rosenzweig contends that we need to continually think as if we were with another person. We must ‘speak’ to some one and think for some one. This makes a person live philosophical or theological problems. We need ‘readiness’ rather than ‘plans.’ By being ‘ready’ we can respond to another person. If we have plans, we are not listening to another because we already have determined a pathway. (pgs. 31-33) Our existence within the community allows for this listening and learning.
We “are always in the presence of God” and, therefore, there is “essentially just one commandment, the commandment to love God.” (pgs. 35-36) Revelation is always ‘an event between the two.’ Thus, a ‘religious experience’ is known ‘again and again’—“For we know it only when—we do.” (pgs. 42-43) For God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. (pgs. 46-7) The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship.
However, this is the hardest thing to do. Rosenzweig continues that “the tragedy that threatens everyone, the tragedy of being completely enclosed in oneself” is “the greatest danger facing the soul.” (p. 47) “Once one becomes God’s lover, however, one can no longer be completely enclosed in oneself, but one cannot escape that fate simply by returning God’s love…To return God’s love properly involves imitation dei—‘Be thou holy, for I the lord thy God am holy’…love of God cannot have a, so to speak, ‘vertical dimension’ without a ‘horizontal dimension’; ‘love of God’ without a direction out to other fellow human beings is not really love of God at all.” (p. 48) “I have to be able to love each and every human being as a human being.” (p. 49) “To sum up: the whole purpose of human life is revelation, and the whole content of revelation is love.” (p. 54)
Buber sees these relationships as a dynamic interaction, between God and a person as well as between a person and the world. This is captured by the I—thou relation. But, the relationship between God and a person is one that can only be of short duration. The important thing is that once one has experienced this connection the “It—World” relationship is transformed. It transforms not only the individual’s interior life but it also transforms the person’s social life. The experience of the divine is not an end in itself…but the end is the transformation of life in the world. (p. 64) One cannot describe God or theorize about him. One can only enter into an “I—You” relation with God and become transformed. (p. 65) Buber argues that you can never answer the question, “How do you know that God exists?” The “I—You” relation is never a matter of knowledge. The “I—You” relation is a shared relation, a mode of being, that can transform one’s life even when one is back in the “It” world. (p. 67) So we believe in God and therefore act in the image of God which brings us into closer relationship with God. It is a cumulative thing!
But, Levinas argues that one cannot act according to a formula such as “Behave in such and such a way…” This is a disaster because it says “treat the other as an end and not as a means…” (p. 70) and this, basically, assumes that all people are “fundamentally the same.” (p. 71) Levinas attempts to describe the “fundamental obligation of one person to the other” (p. 73): he states that the fundamental obligation we have is the obligation to make ourselves available to the neediness of the other person. (p. 74) Levinas goes on to say that to be a human being in the normative sense involves recognizing that I am commanded to say ‘Here I am’ to the other. “If you have to ask, ‘Why should I put myself out for him/her?’ you are not yet human.” (p. 75) “A genuine ethical relation to another presupposes that you realize that the other person is an independent reality and not in any way your construction.” (p. 78) And, this fundamental obligation is not derivable from any metaphysical or epistemological picture.” (p. 80) The bottom line is: “every human being is responsible for every other.” (p. 81) This is an ideal, Levinas admits, but without an ideal everything becomes mediocre.
As mentioned above, by being in the community we can come to perceive a ‘trace’ of God’s presence in the tradition of the Commandment and the interpretative community that continues to work out what the Commandment means. But, the individual in the community must feel a profound experience of being Commanded by a God with whom she or he has not had a numinous experience. (p. 86) The ‘human truths’ of the Old Testament as interpreted by Levinas are (1) every human being should experience him/herself as commanded to be available to the neediness, the suffering, the vulnerability of the other person; (2) know that, philosophically, they cannot gain an account of how this is possible; and (3) know that the divine command lacks a metaphysical basis and is not based on a personal epiphany. (pgs. 86-7) This obligation of the individual exists without the feeling that the other has the same obligation. (p. 96)
Putnam does contend that in this argument Levinas leaves out one major point about love: Levinas does not consider the love that an individual should have for themselves. Putnam argues that one cannot love others if one does not love oneself. (p. 99) Putnam claims Aristotle as his teacher on this point.
Reading this book, one certainly feels that the effort to explain the ‘love of God’ and the ‘love of neighbor’ is alive and in good hands.
Friday, March 21, 2008
The "Classic" Christian Revelations
In the posting last week I discussed faith as warranted belief and related this to the revelations of the communities that we belong to. These revelations are divided into those that are ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’, that is the revelations that are associated with the founder or founders of the community in question and the revelations of later members of the community that are ‘repeated or re-enacted’ by individuals as a part of their present experience as members of the community.
It seems important, at this time, to present what I believe to be the ‘classic’ revelations of the community I belong to, the Christian community. Therefore, what follows is what I believe are the foundations.
The first revelation is that there is a god…that is, God exists. This revelation cannot be attributed to anyone one person or group of persons. But, it is the ‘primordial’ revelation. Also, there are no proofs or anything else to accompany the insight. The revelation is presented in the Torah, the Old Testament to the Christians, the foundational document of the Hebrew/Christian tradition and is there, right in the very first sentence of the book: “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1) In my opinion, we do not need anything more than this to serve as the foundational revelation of our belief. We need no proofs, no justifications. The existence of God is the most basic, deeply held assumption that we possess.
The next two revelations are tied very closely together. Since I am a Christian I will start out with Jesus, for he is my teacher. His public ministry is dated somewhere around 25 to 27 C. E. In the scriptures we can read the following story in three of the four Gospels: Matthew 22: 34-40; Mark 12: 28-34; and Luke 10:25-28. I will quote from the Gospel of Matthew. In chapter 22, verses 34-36, Jesus is asked by a lawyer: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
Jesus answers: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And, the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 37-40) That is, everything else is interpretation.
The quotation marks inside the quotation marks are because Jesus is quoting directly from the Torah. The first quotation, relating to God, comes from Deuteronomy 6: 5; the second, relating to the neighbor, is from Leviticus 19:18. That is, Jesus is just repeating the ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’ revelation that is referenced in the older scriptures.
But, this story is not the only one that exists about the repeating of this revelation. The Jewish religious leader, Hillel, who taught in the period 30 B. C. E. to 10 C. E., emphasized the love of one’s fellow human beings as the essence of the entire Jewish tradition. It is reported that he was asked to summarize the whole of Jewish teaching (while standing on one foot) and he replied:” What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation…” This, to Hillel was the summation of Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Of course, to Hillel, as it was to all the religious Jews, it was understood that “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Deuteronomy, 6: 4-5)
The Christian teaching of the revelation is exactly the same as the Jewish teaching; Hillel, as did Jesus, just repeated the ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’ revelation that existed in the older tradition. But, this is not what I find to be remarkable in their statements. What I find remarkable is their claim that “the rest is just explanation” or “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” What this tells me is that to ‘love God’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself’ is very, very difficult! It sounds so easy…’love God’…’love your neighbor’…but we have the Old Testament…we have the New Testament…we have all the law and the prophets…and we have two thousand years of additional writings…just to interpret and explain what it means to ‘love God’ and to ‘love your neighbor.’
Why is it so difficult to interpret or explain what love means? It is so difficult because the essence of the Jewish/Christian faith is relationship, not theory. That is, the law and the prophets help us to define and understand what it means to be in relationship with God and with ‘our neighbor’. The law and the prophets are not the basis of a dogmatic structure or a systematic theology. They are a way of living.
But, why do we need all the law and the prophets? Isn’t love…well…just love? The answer to this is that love is not just love. Love means a lot of things. Love is dependent upon the situation. Just look at the way Hillel expresses the second greatest commandment which is like the first: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man…” What does this mean? The only appropriate answer to this is that it means that…it depends! It depends upon what the situation is. And, this is the essence of love. How do I love you when you are doing something despicable? How do I love you when you are kind and gentle? How do I love you when you are sick and not feeling well? How do I love you in the routine of life?
This is why we need the law and the prophets to interpret or explain what it means to love God…to explain what it means to love our neighbor. This is why we need the teachings of Jesus and Hillel. Think back to the story that Jesus tells about the Good Samaritan. What is this story in response to? It is in response to a question a lawyer poses to Jesus. The lawyer asks: “And, just who is my neighbor?” Not only is it difficult to define love…we even have trouble in understanding who our neighbor is!
Do we need interpretation? Do we need explanation? The answer is obvious. The essence of love, it seems to me, is that we need to know enough about the one that is loved to be able to provide the loved one with what they need, and not with what we want to give them. We have to be sufficiently self-less to learn enough so that we can respond to where the loved one is. This is very, very difficult. For example, we need to know as much as we can about God in order to truly love God and respond to him as he would want us to. Likewise, we need to know as much as we can about our neighbor so that we can respond to her/him in a way that is most meaningful to them. This is what strikes me so in the stories about how Jesus healed individuals. We note that first he physically heals them. Then, in almost every case, he gives them a verbal instruction: “Don’t tell anyone about your healing”; or “Go to the synagogue and praise God.” These instructions of Jesus are very personal and must be related to the spiritual healing of the individual. Jesus knows enough about these people so that he can not only physically heal them, but provide a way for them to be healed spiritually in order to become whole human beings. Love is knowing the loved one sufficiently so that you can be where they are and not just where you are! Jesus is a model to us of this kind of love and he wants us to be a model to others of this kind of love.
The final revelation of love given to us by Jesus is captured in the story of his death and of the events leading up to his death. According to the stories we have, Jesus was a threat to a segment of the organized religion of his time. (But, not, seemingly, to the part that Hillel represented.) The leaders of this segment emphasized ‘the Law and the prophets’ in their teachings. In fact, the information provided us in the Gospel teachings indicate that these leaders made ‘the Law and the prophets’ their ultimate concern. They, in this sense, turned the teachings of Jesus and Hillel up-side-down. Jesus told these leaders over and over again, “Think in the right way! Don’t make ‘the Law and the prophets’ your ultimate concern. Make God your ultimate concern!” But this was threatening. It challenged their teaching. And, Jesus, apparently, was sufficiently successful in drawing people to him and to his teaching that they had to do something about him. As the story goes, these threatened leaders conspired to have him killed. The final lesson that Jesus gives us is the example of how he died…he stayed true to his teaching about love to his last breath, even asking for those connected in any way to his death to be forgiven. The life of Jesus shows us how one could live…and how one could die…loving God and loving neighbor.
It seems important, at this time, to present what I believe to be the ‘classic’ revelations of the community I belong to, the Christian community. Therefore, what follows is what I believe are the foundations.
The first revelation is that there is a god…that is, God exists. This revelation cannot be attributed to anyone one person or group of persons. But, it is the ‘primordial’ revelation. Also, there are no proofs or anything else to accompany the insight. The revelation is presented in the Torah, the Old Testament to the Christians, the foundational document of the Hebrew/Christian tradition and is there, right in the very first sentence of the book: “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1) In my opinion, we do not need anything more than this to serve as the foundational revelation of our belief. We need no proofs, no justifications. The existence of God is the most basic, deeply held assumption that we possess.
The next two revelations are tied very closely together. Since I am a Christian I will start out with Jesus, for he is my teacher. His public ministry is dated somewhere around 25 to 27 C. E. In the scriptures we can read the following story in three of the four Gospels: Matthew 22: 34-40; Mark 12: 28-34; and Luke 10:25-28. I will quote from the Gospel of Matthew. In chapter 22, verses 34-36, Jesus is asked by a lawyer: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
Jesus answers: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And, the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 37-40) That is, everything else is interpretation.
The quotation marks inside the quotation marks are because Jesus is quoting directly from the Torah. The first quotation, relating to God, comes from Deuteronomy 6: 5; the second, relating to the neighbor, is from Leviticus 19:18. That is, Jesus is just repeating the ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’ revelation that is referenced in the older scriptures.
But, this story is not the only one that exists about the repeating of this revelation. The Jewish religious leader, Hillel, who taught in the period 30 B. C. E. to 10 C. E., emphasized the love of one’s fellow human beings as the essence of the entire Jewish tradition. It is reported that he was asked to summarize the whole of Jewish teaching (while standing on one foot) and he replied:” What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation…” This, to Hillel was the summation of Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Of course, to Hillel, as it was to all the religious Jews, it was understood that “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Deuteronomy, 6: 4-5)
The Christian teaching of the revelation is exactly the same as the Jewish teaching; Hillel, as did Jesus, just repeated the ‘classic’ or ‘primordial’ revelation that existed in the older tradition. But, this is not what I find to be remarkable in their statements. What I find remarkable is their claim that “the rest is just explanation” or “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” What this tells me is that to ‘love God’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself’ is very, very difficult! It sounds so easy…’love God’…’love your neighbor’…but we have the Old Testament…we have the New Testament…we have all the law and the prophets…and we have two thousand years of additional writings…just to interpret and explain what it means to ‘love God’ and to ‘love your neighbor.’
Why is it so difficult to interpret or explain what love means? It is so difficult because the essence of the Jewish/Christian faith is relationship, not theory. That is, the law and the prophets help us to define and understand what it means to be in relationship with God and with ‘our neighbor’. The law and the prophets are not the basis of a dogmatic structure or a systematic theology. They are a way of living.
But, why do we need all the law and the prophets? Isn’t love…well…just love? The answer to this is that love is not just love. Love means a lot of things. Love is dependent upon the situation. Just look at the way Hillel expresses the second greatest commandment which is like the first: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man…” What does this mean? The only appropriate answer to this is that it means that…it depends! It depends upon what the situation is. And, this is the essence of love. How do I love you when you are doing something despicable? How do I love you when you are kind and gentle? How do I love you when you are sick and not feeling well? How do I love you in the routine of life?
This is why we need the law and the prophets to interpret or explain what it means to love God…to explain what it means to love our neighbor. This is why we need the teachings of Jesus and Hillel. Think back to the story that Jesus tells about the Good Samaritan. What is this story in response to? It is in response to a question a lawyer poses to Jesus. The lawyer asks: “And, just who is my neighbor?” Not only is it difficult to define love…we even have trouble in understanding who our neighbor is!
Do we need interpretation? Do we need explanation? The answer is obvious. The essence of love, it seems to me, is that we need to know enough about the one that is loved to be able to provide the loved one with what they need, and not with what we want to give them. We have to be sufficiently self-less to learn enough so that we can respond to where the loved one is. This is very, very difficult. For example, we need to know as much as we can about God in order to truly love God and respond to him as he would want us to. Likewise, we need to know as much as we can about our neighbor so that we can respond to her/him in a way that is most meaningful to them. This is what strikes me so in the stories about how Jesus healed individuals. We note that first he physically heals them. Then, in almost every case, he gives them a verbal instruction: “Don’t tell anyone about your healing”; or “Go to the synagogue and praise God.” These instructions of Jesus are very personal and must be related to the spiritual healing of the individual. Jesus knows enough about these people so that he can not only physically heal them, but provide a way for them to be healed spiritually in order to become whole human beings. Love is knowing the loved one sufficiently so that you can be where they are and not just where you are! Jesus is a model to us of this kind of love and he wants us to be a model to others of this kind of love.
The final revelation of love given to us by Jesus is captured in the story of his death and of the events leading up to his death. According to the stories we have, Jesus was a threat to a segment of the organized religion of his time. (But, not, seemingly, to the part that Hillel represented.) The leaders of this segment emphasized ‘the Law and the prophets’ in their teachings. In fact, the information provided us in the Gospel teachings indicate that these leaders made ‘the Law and the prophets’ their ultimate concern. They, in this sense, turned the teachings of Jesus and Hillel up-side-down. Jesus told these leaders over and over again, “Think in the right way! Don’t make ‘the Law and the prophets’ your ultimate concern. Make God your ultimate concern!” But this was threatening. It challenged their teaching. And, Jesus, apparently, was sufficiently successful in drawing people to him and to his teaching that they had to do something about him. As the story goes, these threatened leaders conspired to have him killed. The final lesson that Jesus gives us is the example of how he died…he stayed true to his teaching about love to his last breath, even asking for those connected in any way to his death to be forgiven. The life of Jesus shows us how one could live…and how one could die…loving God and loving neighbor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)