RENDER UNTO GOD

What Romans 13 Does NOT Mean

In 2011 I was early into my very happy tenure as the Rector of Saint Benedict’s Anglican Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. That church sits between two major universities, Duke University in Durham, and the University of North Carolina (UNC) in the old town or city limits of Chapel Hill. Technically, the address of the church is within the city limits of Chapel Hill due to annexation of what had been, long ago, farmland with country roads. As a result, there were some annoying extra costs and ordinances that we had to abide by. This became a problem upon the discovery of a dead tree on our property. According to a city ordinance we were required to file a request (and pay a fee to do so) for permission in order to cut it down. And, while we awaited a reply, which could come as a denial for permission, who knows what might have happened? It was a tall tree. Might it fall on our church building thus creating damage or injury or death? Might it fall in another direction and land on a neighbor’s house, as houses were within range, or upon an innocent person taking the family dog for a walk near the church? In such a case the city would not share our liability, but even more importantly, by what right could we stand by and risk injury or death to our neighbors? In such a case we had no difficulty in deciding that “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18)” constitutes a higher moral priority than “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (Romans 13:1),” and “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21).” So, we had it cut down as quickly and as safely as possible. And that was the correct decision in the eyes of God, I have no doubt.

We all know the famous quotation:

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him [Jesus] in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. (Matthew 22:15-22)

In a recent article on Substack, Mark Ramm wrote:

When Jesus held up the coin and asked whose image was on it, the trap his interrogators had set required him to answer in a way that endorsed either the imperial extraction or the rebellion. He answered with a second clause that was bigger than the trap. The coin is Caesar’s. The human is not. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God every person who is made in God’s image. 1

How many times have you heard the passage from Matthew 22 used to serve the interests of the state and of those in power? As an American I can see how it may be understood to fit the significance of the date, April 15. In the movie Seargent York, it is used in the scene in which Gary Cooper, Bible in hand, reads those words and decides that he must choose the demands of his country’s government over his own religious conviction that a Christian is required to be a pacifist and a Conscientious Objector to Arms. Whether or not the real Seargent York came to that decision during World War I as simply as Gary Cooper did in the movie, I cannot say.

This is not a pacifist article by the way. My father never questioned the need to fight against the German army when his time came during World War II. He enlisted and put his life on the line because the danger was real, not only to his own country, but to mankind. My father was an exceptionally gentle soul, and it was not an easy thing to spend a long time in combat especially as the machine gunner in his unit. But after the war, he never questioned why he had been there, unlike many veterans in the current generation of solders. The suicide rate among veterans of our recent wars in this century is very high, up to twenty-two a day at the present time. I believe that World War II was one of the very few examples of what can be called a “Just War.” Most wars are nothing of the sort. And not everything the allies did was just, such as the firebombing of Dresden. But the overall war seems to me to have been a just war, mostly because the allies were given no choice about it. To give in on either front, I would argue, would have been morally indefensible. Still, I cannot imagine that a decision as momentous as the decision by Seargent York during the first World War, in real life, came so easily, and so quickly.

What Mark Ramm has drawn out (as in exegesis) from the words of Jesus is something I have preached for years: The emphasis is on the second half of what He said: “…and unto God the things that are God’s.” What is the image and superscription on your neighbor, including a foreigner who may be opposing you on the battlefield? In Mark Ramm’s article he dwelt on the countless millions of human beings subjected to the evils of colonialism and slavery because of the sermon, as he put it, of “the Master’s chaplain.” The Church in Rome had, by the sixteenth century, allowed itself to be corrupted by the European powers into allowing western kings to be become emperors over many native peoples who were deemed worthy only to be enslaved, a far cry from the command of Jesus to “Make disciples among all nations.” (Matthew 28:19)

The Higher Powers

“The higher powers” is how the King James Bible phrases what the Revised Standard Version calls “The governing authorities.” So, I will use that translation for a passage of scripture that is abused every bit as often as the passage we looked at above.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:1-10)

In August 2017, following escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, the TV evangelist Robert Jeffress made the following statement in defense of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury”:

“God has given President Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un. ... It gives the government the authority to do whatever, whether it’s assassination, capital punishment, or evil punishment to quell the actions of evildoers.” [1, 2]

That is a perfect example of the manner in which this passage by Saint Paul is partly quoted, so partly as to be appallingly out of context. According to that interpretation - if it can even be dignified with the word “interpretation” - The Apostle wrote an apologetic for raw power and the use of force, even to use “evil punishment,” which incites the imagination. For the present I will ignore the obvious partisanship of singling out the president he favored by name; that is, did not Barak Obama have the same authority? During his eight years I often condemned the seeming carelessness with which the United States killed many innocent non-combatants with drone strikes, with numbers that grew high beyond any reasonable justification. The very term “Collateral Damage” is a demonic euphemism, a product, no doubt, from “the Tongue of Mordor.” Let us call it what it is: Killing civilians, non-combatants, men, women, and children.

In the closing months of last year, and the opening months of this year, I have also condemned the mass murder of Venezuelans on the high seas by the order of the current administration. Even if some of the boats were carrying illegal drugs, the only acceptable manner in which to stop them would have been by waiting until they were in our own waters and intercepting them by the Coast Guard. If any of those boats had actually tried to smuggle drugs into the United States, the Coast Guard would have had no trouble enforcing the law. As it is, many of the boats that were targeted and destroyed, along with all hands-onboard, were powered by an outboard motor that could never have reached the United States at all. Even if that were not the case, is it right to kill a hundred innocent people in order to stop one or two evildoers? Well, it really does not matter according to preachers like Jeffress. God has given Trump the power to decide who lives and who dies because he has “authority.” That’s what the Bible says!

Except for the problem that it is not at all “what the Bible says.” Paul did not dictate his epistles to be interpreted as a collection of verses. He dictated whole sentences in whole paragraphs in whole passages, that is, according to how we print translations of his letters today. Yes, he did say to be subject to the governing authorities, and even to pay tribute and taxes, much to the disappointment of Libertarians and “Sovereign Citizens.” It is painfully obvious that taxation is not “theft,” but the price of living in a society instead of in the wild. But in what kind of a society were those ancient Roman Christians living? It was not an officially Christian kingdom, such as England in the days when the American colonies sought independence. It was not a Constitutional Republic either, enjoying the reciprocal protection of democracy and the rule of law. No. It was cold-blooded pagan empire in which no one had any real protection from the powerful. Even most of the Ceasars were assassinated because no one was safe in such a power-based empire. Many of the ancient Christians were enslaved, which is the real and only reason why Saint Paul commanded slaves to obey their masters. After all, the Church of Jesus Christ was an unofficial movement with a message of peace and salvation to all people, not the army of Spartacus that existed only for a moment before they all perished by the sword or the cross. The Church was not, and is not, of this cosmos, but is instead the agent of a Kingdom peopled with many new creations in Christ. (II Corinthians 5:17)

Indeed, within a few years, during the reign of Nero beginning in 65 AD and lasting until 313 AD, to be a Christian at all would be to commit a capital crime. Already Christians were suffering persecutions in various places here and there, especially Paul himself and his fellow apostles. The emperor in Rome was a tyrant who received worship as a god, and the local magistrate answered ultimately to him. Paul was not commanding the Christians in Rome to be loyal to the state, and certainly never to obey the state in anything that contradicted the commandments of God. He knew, as a repentant convert who had himself persecuted the Church, when the situation called believers “to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

So, what was Paul really saying in Romans 13?

Let us look again at the concluding words of the passage in question: To put it simply, the meaning of the passage is that even pagan magistrates were God’s servants when the laws that they enforced were laws consistent with the Divine law, to love thy neighbor as thyself. Right now, at this dark time, the United States is oppressed by the rich and powerful. Contrary to our Constitution and everything honorable and right, we have, in effect, two laws. One law is official, and in theory it applies to everybody. The other law is unofficial, and in practice it does not apply to the rich and powerful. We have a man in the presidency who cannot be touched by the law even while he keeps buried the dirt in the Epstein Files. Along with him we have a Secretary of Defense (who calls himself “Secretary of War”) who cannot be touched by the law as long as they he enjoys the protection that comes with the exercise of raw power, and who, for now, will not have to answer for all the murders they have committed on the High Seas. The federal agents who murdered Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and their criminal colleagues who hold innocent people in detention under harsh and illegal conditions, also enjoy unjust and temporary protection. And, indeed, I hope and pray that the times will change.

But none of that gives anyone of us the right to steal, kill, and destroy our neighbor, nor even to covet what is rightly his. Even in the Soviet Union there was law enforcement against rape, robbery, and murder despite the harsh reality that those laws were not enforced equally, certainly not against officials in the Party. In ancient Rome, the Caesars and other powerful men abused slaves, held gladiatorial games of death, worshiped false gods, and in time persecuted the Church without mercy. Christians were not called to take part in such evil nor to cheer it on because the Caesar and his servants were “the governing authorities.” It is simply this: Neither were the Christians called to stir up violence or become criminals who prey on their neighbors. When the magistrates did, in time, command them to offer incense to Caesar as a god, many refused and died as martyrs. At that point the magistrate was not acting as God’s servant, and in that moment he did bear the sword in vain. Had we allowed that tree on the property of Saint Benedict’s to fall on a neighbor, we would have obeyed men rather than God. Yes, there comes a time when a righteous person must technically break the law, as we did by cutting down a potentially dangerous tree. But such decisions are not to be made lightly, neither arbitrarily. The issue is the commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” because “love does no wrong to one’s neighbor.” Had we been discovered and fined for cutting down a tree (on our own property) contrary to a city ordinance, we would have paid the fine; a small price considering the possible alternatives.

The Mark of the Beast

You must render unto God the things that are God’s. You yourself are the image, the icon, of God. Among the things you must never render unto Caesar is your conscience. What is the Mark of the Beast in that enigmatic Book of Revelation?

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six. (Revelation 13:16-18)

At the time that Revelation was composed, Nero Caesar had been long dead. But he remained a person of large symbolic importance, the Caesar who had ordered that every Christian was to be prosecuted for the crime of honoring Jesus as the Lord, and for many to be persecuted to the death for committing this crime. Six-hundred and sixty-six is the numeric value of the name Nero Caesar. That is what is meant, according to many of the best scholars, by “This calls for wisdom. Let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number.” I see no reason to project this into some specific future called “the end times.” Throughout history many have sacrificed their consciences to the authority or to the state, a kind of tyranny and evil of which Nero Caesar is a symbol. The conscience is a gift from God, but it can be killed or even perverted. I saw a documentary in which members of the Ku Klux Klan were holding a hate rally, and among them were their own children wearing the white robes and hoods. Do such innocent lambs have a chance? Will not their consciences be corrupted into believing that hate, as long as one hates the right people, is somehow virtuous? Let us pray for them. The Affirmation of Saint Louis2 calls on Christians to form their consciences according to the word of God.

Throughout history many have chosen the mark of the beast. This includes, for example, every Belgian colonial who cut off the hands and feet of native people, every member of the Seventh Calvary who murdered the elderly, women, and children of Native Americans in the great genocide of the west, everyone who took part in the slave trade, every obedient German who took part in the killing of European Jews, etc. “I was just obeying orders” is the mantra of those with that damnable mark. It includes those who obeyed the orders from Pete Hegseth to kill, and even to “double tap,” people in Venezuelan boats on nothing more than flimsy suspicion.

Even so, with many evil men exercising power, neither you nor I have any right to violate manmade laws, no matter where or when, when those laws are consistent with “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If you choose to break even those manmade laws, the local authority is God’s servant who does not bear the sword in vain. That much honor and obedience to those in authority is perfectly reasonable, it is necessary for a peaceful life, and that is exactly what Saint Paul was telling the Roman Christians; that and no more than that.

1. The Pope Finished the Sentence, from the Substack The Second Sermon, Transparency Cascade Press, by Mark Ramm.

2. The Affirmation of Saint Louis (1977) is the founding document of the Continuing Anglican movement, and is in the constitution of such churches as the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province in America, and the Anglican Province of Christ the King.

TRINITY SUNDAY

Reposted from 2014

Isaiah 6:1-8 * Psalm 29 * Rev. 4:1-11 * John 3:1-17

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Were I to go around asking people what they think these words mean, many would think that to see the kingdom of God is to “go to heaven when you die.” I would not want, in any way, to lessen one’s faith in the gift of eternal life. The truth of God’s promise is certain, that all who are in Christ will live forever in God’s kingdom. But to see the kingdom of God is not simply a future experience to which we look forward; to see the kingdom of God is to see here and now that God’s kingdom has come. The fullness of that coming will be in the future, when Christ returns in glory to rule forever as king of the whole earth and will be glorified in His saints. But the kingdom of God has already come, and that kingdom presents each of us with a daily choice about where we stand, what we do, and how we think.

          On Trinity Sunday you may well expect a doctrinal dissertation on the theological truth that our One God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18,19). In previous years I have presented that to the best of my ability by God’s grace. But today I want to proclaim how that revelation of the Trinity has everything to do with seeing the kingdom of God. The revelation of the Trinity is also the revelation of our salvation. God did not use clever academic theologians to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, God entered into His own created world and revealed our salvation and the doctrine of the Trinity by personally bringing His kingdom into the world of human experience.

          The coming of Christ into the world as the Incarnate Word was a real historical event in matter, space and time. As Saint John the Apostle put it:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full (I John 1:1-4).”

And the coming of the Holy Spirit when the day of Pentecost had fully come, about which we read just last week (Acts 2), with visible manifestations and clearly evident supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, was also a real event in the world of matter, space and time. Hence the shocking, downright scandalous words (but for being the truth) of St. Peter:

“This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear (Acts 2:32,33).”

Indeed, the Day of Pentecost is part two of the Incarnation. In the Gospels we see the Word made flesh, Jesus the living embodiment of the kingdom of God. We see Him doing good, healing, teaching, casting out demons, showing compassion to those who were sick or tormented, forgiving sins, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (see Acts 10:38). We see His victory over sin and death by His cross and passion, and by His resurrection and glorification. In everything Jesus did or said, recorded in the Gospels, we see the kingdom of God overthrowing the power of darkness and commanding full human allegiance.

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20,21).”

Indeed, at that point the kingdom of God was a Man, the Incarnate Word Himself, overthrowing the powers of darkness, proclaiming light and revealing truth. Wherever He stepped foot, the kingdom of God was present.

And it clashed violently with the sinful world. It was not a peaceful coming. It met with the full resistance of human sin and of demons. It always came with a demonstration of power. Whether healing, casting out demons or calling Lazarus and others back into the world by overthrowing death itself, the power of God’s kingdom was manifest. It was seen and heard. Nonetheless, the time came when the world was allowed to reward the good Jesus had done with the cross of suffering and death. The kingdom of God was not welcomed by the sinful world. But the greatest demonstration of power followed on the third day, when Christ rose from the dead into a life that never ends.

Do you see how that is mirrored in the experience of the Apostles in the Book of Acts? Once again the kingdom of God came into the world, for “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4).” They too went about preaching, and healing and doing good. They too proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom of God, by proclaiming all that Jesus had done and taught. They too worked miracles, cast out demons, and clashed with the sinful world. They too were given their crosses of suffering and death, as the world persecuted Christ in them. But they were never defeated.

The kingdom of God had come with the power of the Holy Spirit; the Church became the living Body of Christ by His power and several gifts (I Corinthians 12). And in these two great historical manifestations of the kingdom of God, the coming of Christ and then the coming of the Holy Spirit, human salvation was revealed and so was the mysterious truth of the Trinity. For the Father sent the Son, and the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit. In both of these historical events it was God Who was manifesting His power and his presence, shining a light in the vast darkness of human sin and pain, setting captives free and giving life to the dead.

St. Paul constantly used the simple little phrase, “In Christ.” It is in his epistles. What does that mean? How is that your identity? The answer is, in having been born again you were translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s Son.

“For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister. (Colossians 1:9-23)”

I could use my time this Sunday to give you a very academic talk about the doctrine of the Trinity and present it in abstract terms. There is a place for theological dissertation. But I have preached to you the gospel of the Kingdom of God, because that is the cue I get from today’s reading of the Gospel of John, chapter three. My great concern now is that you see the kingdom of God, that you see it in history, in the future when Christ returns; but also that you see it now.

Two great forces demand your daily allegiance: "Choose this day whom ye will serve (Joshua 24:15)." One is the kingdom of God and the other is the power of darkness. Or we could say, the Lord Jesus Christ or the world. When I say “the world” I mean it as St. John used the term. He wrote, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not (John 1:10).” The world," as used that way, means the great power that controls whole nations of human beings, that sends them to war against one another, that moves them to exploit the poor, to steal basic necessities of life from whole peoples, and basically to deceive everyone into sin and death. It lures you with “The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (I John 2:15-17).”

But you are not of the world. Christ has chosen you out of the world, “Therefore the world hateth you (John 17:19).” You have been translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son. And, as that kingdom was manifested in power in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, we can learn to depend on that same power. Every minute presents us with a choice between the corrupt thinking of the world, and the truth of God’s word. Every issue, every moral choice, all of your daily actions – we must not live as the world around us lives; we must think not as the world thinks, but as servants of God with renewed minds (Romans 12:1,2).

My message to you all on this Trinity Sunday is this: You have been born again and you are in Christ. Open your eyes now to see the kingdom of God.

AMAZING GRACE!

AMAZING GRACE! In Basic Baltimore Black = Gospel Music Style

ALIEN FILES A THREAT TO FAITH?

Hogwash. I say, Bring it on.

A group of popular American pastors have warned that President Donald Trump’s release of ‘alien files’ could shatter Christian beliefs, according to the Daily Mail.

They have claimed that US intelligence officials have held a series of meetings with them and told them to prepare churches to hold the Christian community together in the wake of the revelations’ shockwaves.

Popular evangelist pastor Perry Stone said that the alien files could include reports and possibly videos of aliens and extraterrestrial spacecraft.

“You’re going to have people who are going to say if there are galaxies and there are allegedly other creations in the galaxies, then the whole creation story is a myth, and you’re going to have people that’s going to apostatise and turn from the Christian faith because they have no answer for what they’re about to hear,” said Stone.- Firstpost

I have run into this before. Someone insists that there cannot be aliens according to the Bible. They quote Psalm 115:16 which states, "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." (KJV) Well, I am glad they know scripture well enough to quote some of it, but what does the subject of space aliens have to do with “the children of men?” Haven’t they ever watched the Bar Scene from Star Wars? (I mean the first Star Wars, you know, Episode Four). I dig that crazy jazz, and I detect a definite Earth influence in it; but those aliens don’t look anything like “the children of men.” The evidence appears to indicate that they all come from outer space, which is why we call them aliens. I mean, I do not want to be accused of being insensitive, but they look kinda weird if you ask me.

I also think that this Perry Stone fellow might ask what “the heavens” really means, and he definitely needs to look up the definition of the word “myth” in the Dictionary. I mean, I hate to break this to him, but many saints and Church Fathers recognized that the Creation Story is a myth, and that the first eleven chapters of Genesis contained, for them, a great deal of spiritual truth by way of allegory. But that is the problem with Fundamentalism. If you do not believe that the Universe was created in exactly six twenty-four hour days, and only very recently - a mere six thousand years ago - as a literal fact, then you are not allowed to believe that God created the universe at all, or that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

“What do you mean it isn’t all one book?”

I have had the regrettable duty of breaking this fact to Fundamentalists many times, and I mean by Fundamentalists both Protestant Evangelicals and those who have moved on from Fundamentalist Evangelicalism to, as is inevitable for many, atheism. The Bible is not a book. It is a library, a collection of ancient writings in Hebrew and Greek that was created over several centuries, and it includes several genres, indeed every literary genre that existed in Antiquity. The opening of Genesis is called, properly, “the Song of Creation,” a poetic telling that has been interpreted in various ways, most often as truth that transcends mere recitation of facts. The original Fundamentalists were members of gnostic sects who believed that an evil god or evil gods are depicted in the story as creating man to keep him as a slave in a garden, and the serpent helped to set the first man and the first woman free to be like the gods in knowledge, for which cause the chief of those gods banished them from Eden (not the Gnostics: There was no one group called the Gnostics). And, if you insist on a literal reading of the story, their interpretation was as good as any. But their interpretation contradicted Judaism and Christianity, and it missed the spiritual truth, full of moral teaching, that Jews and Christians believed.

In his refutation of Gnostic and pagan views (particularly in Contra Celsum and De Principiis), Origen of Alexandria interpreted the fourth day of creation, in which God made the sun, the moon, and the stars (Genesis 1:14-19) not as the temporal, material creation of lights, but as a symbolic pedagogical event within his broader cosmological framework. Gnostics, such as the Valentinians, taught that the material world was created by an evil demiurge (Yaldabaoth) and, according to them, the luminaries were instruments of fate designed to trap souls in matter. Origen, in opposition to that gnostic teaching, wrote that the only true God is the good Creator of both the Old and the New Testaments. According to his Christian doctrine, as stated in Contra Celsum, the luminaries should be seen allegorically. He refuted the doctrine that stars are divine beings ruling by the imposition of fate. He saw them as lights that serve a purpose as stated in the text: “Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.” (Genesis 1:14, 15) Contradicting the gnostic insistence on what we today would call a literal reading, he also pointed out that if there was no sun before the fourth day, how could there have been evenings and mornings? I have come across atheists who use the same argument against what is, in most cases, their own former Fundamentalist beliefs as an argument against a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one. Of course, they imagine that by showing the folly of a literal interpretation they are somehow destroying Christianity, oblivious to the fact that earliest known use of that very argument was written by an Egyptian Christian, a Church Father, in Alexandria, who posited it as a defense of the Christian faith.

This is what I have seen many times. After they cease to believe in Christianity, they still insist on interpreting everything to do with God and the Bible as Fundamentalists. There are, to be sure, former Catholic, former Orthodox, former Anglican, former Lutheran, etc. atheists who tend to think the same way. In their case it seems they, while not formerly Evangelical, were, nonetheless, somehow also fundamentalists - “f” in the lower case. No doubt that is partly because television preachers and other cultural forces have caused confusion on a massive scale. Of course, when dealing with real Protestant Fundamentalists, I notice that their Readers Digest version of the Bible, a mere sixty-six books, never existed in that abridged form before the nineteenth century.

The very term “Bible believing” is problematic. What they mean is that they believe what their own Fundamentalist Magisterium (located perhaps in Chattanooga or somewhere) has infallibly declared. As my friend, an Orthodox priest named Patrick Henry Reardon has said, “I feel sorry for my Catholic brethren, because they have only one infallible clergyman.” I was reminded of his words when I came across the infallible utterance by Ken Hamm that space aliens do not exist, but that even if they did “they cannot be saved.” Well, I am glad we have that serious theological question resolved. Obviously, if God had made the mistake of creating other intelligent biological beings in His universe, He would certainly lack the imagination to come up with a way to save them from the effects of…Adam’s fall? It looks like we are back to that “the children of men” issue. (I mean, do these guys look like the children of any men that you know?)

I think that Mr. Spock would fail to see the logic of Ken Hamm’s ex cathedra declaration. But poor Spock is eligible to be no more than only half-saved; Doctor Who and Martin O’Hara are screwed.

The good thing is that most of the Christians in the world are not of the intellectually deprived Fundamentalist stripe. It is a relatively new gnostic sect that serves mostly to churn out angry atheists. Having no authority to interpret the Bible according to a received authoritative Tradition, an ancient Tradition that provides a large enough room for an authentic faith that cannot be overthrown by recognizing mythology and allegory in service to truth, what they call “faith” might indeed shrivel up and die if “alien files” are released (though I think it more likely that the White House announcement was to distract attention from certain other files). For them, unless you believe that the flood of Noah literally covered the entire planet Earth (even though the Bible says no such thing inasmuch as the word usually translated “earth” is eretz, meaning the land - kol h’eretz: “the whole land”), because that literal belief in a world-wide flood is what their American Fundamentalist Magisterium requires if you want to qualify as “Bible believing,” then you are unable to believe that “God is Love,” or that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. After all, it’s all one book you know, just like the local library is all one book rightly divided over many shelves, that is, if you are a library believing reader.

This is the problem with a complex system of faith. The more a structure depends on each and every part to hold it together, the more vulnerable it is. Fundamentalist “faith” cannot escape desperate fear because it is fragile. It takes only enough of a jolt for one domino to fall over, and everything comes crashing down. I know of one man who lost his entire faith because he noticed that the Gospel According to Saint Matthew mistakenly attributes a prophetic oracle from the Book of Zechariah to Jeremiah. How come the Universal Church, having that obvious human error in front of its eyes has continued to exist for two thousand years, and no Church Father, no bishop, no pope, ever saw it is as a problem? Maybe it is because it is not a problem: The point that was revealed is this: What happened on the first Good Friday was foretold by the prophets. Would realeasing “alien files” contradict the infallible Fundamentalist interpretation of Psalm 115:16? Yes, it would. Would it destroy Christianity, or overthrow the faith of any authentic believer? Of course not. Do they have “alien files?” If so, I say, Bring’em on. Show us the aliens themselves. I am among those who will have only a greater appreciation of God’s handywork in all of its variety.

INTERVIEW ON "HOPE RESURRECTED" WITH LANCE CONLEY

I was recently interviewed by Lance Conley on his podcast. For the URL to this same interview you can use this link, and can Like and Subscribe for more of his content.

RH+

REFLECTIONS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

It is my desire to use my retirement to write a book about an Epistle that deserves to be considered in light of how history and theology combine. I am posting what I may use as a prologue to see if it wets the appetite of readers for more. 

Prologue

Before opening the Epistle to the Hebrews for examination, it seems useful to look at a story from the Second Book of Samuel about Uziah, King of Judah, whose fifty-two-year rule lasted from about 790 to 739 B.C., beginning when he was only sixteen years of age. Let us look at some of the account from II Chronicles chapter 26. First of all, we see that he was a righteous king: “And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah did (v.4).”

We will pick up at v. 16.

But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the LORD, that were valiant men: And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honor from the LORD God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD: and Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land. (vs. 16-21)

The text tells us that “his heart was lifted up,” and ascribes his presumption to the sin of pride. Nonetheless, no king of Judah had ever presumed to usurp the priestly office, the office of the Kohanim, that belonged exclusively to the sons of Aaron, the brother of Moses since the time of the Exodus. What had entered into the mind of this king, one of the few who was generally a good and righteous king, that emboldened him to assume a priestly role based on his royal position? It is difficult to find what it was that seems to have created in his mind a confusion between his role and that of the male descendants of Aaron, but once we see it, it actually makes logical sense. Yes, he should have added to his learning the traditional teaching that he was reminded of, urgently reminded of, by Azariah and the other Levitical priests. But it seems apparent that his pride was that of a young man with a bit of education, a sophomore of sorts, too proud to heed those whose learning was more complete.

         Indeed, there was an old tradition from the Book of Genesis that showed an understanding that was already ancient in the time of Uziah. The story is that of Abraham who was blessed by, and paid tithes to, Melchizedek (Genesis 14:12-18). This mysterious man is described very simply, “And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.” In fact, this priest even had the word “king” in his name, which means “King of Justice,” or “King of Righteousness.” Salem (Shalem), which means Peace, is a very ancient name for what later became known as Jerusalem to this day. Perhaps Psalm 110 was used as a coronation Psalm for the kings of Judah. It opens with the words “The LORD (YHVH) said unto my Lord, ‘Sit thou on my right hand.’” In the fourth verse these words appear:

“The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, ‘Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’”

Having a memory of those words addressed to him when he was sixteen, he may have long considered it his right to assert a priestly role as a privilege to be exercised by the king in Jerusalem, a right that went back to Melchizedek himself. The possible confusion in his mind may well have been strengthened by the record we see today in the actual Hebrew words of II Samuel 8:18, which I translate literally: “And the sons of David were priests (V’b’nai David Kohanim hua).”1 I noticed that when reading the Hebrew text, and saw that English translations were mostly deficient, saying things like “royal officials” or, as even the translators of the court of King James were unwilling to deal with the seeming contradiction, “chief rulers.”

I finally found, with no surprise, a correct rendering in Robert Alter’s translation (“And David’s sons served as priests”). Alter’s explanation, in a footnote, is that “This curious detail is probably parallel to a palace guard of foreign origins: just as David creates an elite military contingent outside the framework of the Israelite troops, he invests his own sons with sacerdotal duties within the circle of the court, outside the framework of the hereditary priesthood that controlled the public cult.” 2. That may well be the case, but it is difficult to know much more about it. Perhaps this royal priesthood, of sorts, consisted simply of singing the works of their father in prayer services. It is obvious that the Psalms of David, and others, found a place of Liturgical use in the temple led by men who were not Levitical priests. They did not approach any altar of sacrifice or incense.

         In terms of Christian interpretation, most notably in the Epistle to the Hebrews about which I am undertaking this endeavor, the combination of two royal lines, a priestly lineage and a kingly dynasty, was reserved for the great High Priest who is himself the reality of which all things and persons in the temple were types and shadows. The time had not come in the eighth century B.C. because the types and shadows of the Law were yet serving as “our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.” (Galatians 3:24)

 The history of the Old Testament contains a shape, a pattern, in which two kinds of men are called “Messiah”– Meshiach 3 First it is the priests, those who offer sacrifice, and then it is the kings. To the writer of the Epistle, both offices are combined in Christ, the true Priest after the order of Melchizedek. He was writing to explain the meaning of the temple, for much of the city was about to be destroyed by the Roman army as Jesus himself had lamented and foretold in a Jeremiad.

 

        

1.       וּבְנֵי דָוִד, כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ

2.       The Hebrew Bible, A Translation with Commentary, Alter, Robert, Norton Books, New York and London, 2019

3.       Meshiach  (  מְשִׁיחָ anointed ) from the word Meshach  ( מָשַׁחְ anoint).

EASTER FUGUE

                                                          CLICK ON THE EASTER ICON

In The News

I read this report. It is time for many of you to realize that the “Christian” Nationalist Movement will not tolerate those of us who hold the old liturgical traditions.

*********

BREAKING: Pete Hegeth's Pentagon SPITS on Catholic soldiers on Good Friday by hosting a Protestants-only chapel service with the message "No Catholic Mass."

This is absolutely jaw-dropping....

According to HuffPost's Jennifer Bendery, the Defense Department has invited over 3,500 employees to a Good Friday service at the Pentagon Chapel "except it’s only for Protestants, not Catholics." She obtained an email sent out by Air Force leadership, which laid out the outrageous abuse of religious liberty in plain text.

“Just a friendly reminder: There will be a Protestant Service (No Catholic Mass) for Good Friday today at the Pentagon Chapel,” it reads.

“I guess so the Catholics know their kind ain’t welcome. It’s so ridiculous," a Pentagon employee told her.

When Bendery reached out to the Pentagon, a spokesperson confirmed that there will not be another, separate service for Catholics in the Pentagon chapel today. While Catholics do not celebrate the full Mass on Good Friday, they do hold liturgies, intercessions, distribute pre-consecrated Eucharist, and observe the Stations of the Cross. Hegseth’s Pentagon has done nothing to honor these sacred traditions.

This one isn't hard to puzzle out. The Christian Nationalist movement that Hegseth is part of is Evangelical to its core. They view Catholics with something between suspicion and outright hostility. Hegseth previously invited pastor Doug Wilson to lead a prayer service at the Pentagon. Wilson has called for a Christian theocracy in America, suggested that "biblical slavery" might come back under that theocracy, and called for banning Catholic processions.

In this Evangelical vision of a Christian America, Catholic cathedrals are torn down and replaced with golden statues of Trump holding the cross.

This animosity towards Catholics is also rooted in backlash against Pope Leo XIV's outspoken anti-MAGA sentiments. He has repeatedly condemned the cruel treatment of migrants as well as Trump's illegal, bloody Iran War. Many Republicans now view Leo and by extension all Catholics as an enemy.