MATL - Genesis and Sex as a Gender Role

Prompt: What do you see as the key theological themes in Genesis 1-11?  How might these themes be applied to your contemporary setting?  How does Gen 1-11 continue to affect the way Americans view gender and race? Give specific examples (you can use internet sites as long as you give citations). How would you evaluate this usage?

 There are a number of themes presented in Genesis 1-11, many of which set the stage for the rest of the Bible. In particular, Genesis sets the stage for the supremacy of God and God’s relationship between God and humans, including God’s faithfulness to his creation and how God is different from other gods contemporary to the world within and behind the Bible. These themes form a distinguishing element for the Ancient Israelites and the early codification of Judaism, separating them from other early societies and cultures.  On a narrower scope, Genesis 1-11 also sets the conversation for the “divine command to the first couple…to produce offspring and possess the land (1:28)”[1] which in turn frames the entire Torah as it follows the journey of the Ancient Israelites on their quest to find their homeland.  This conversation about multiplication and fruitfulness can also speak to one of many ways that Genesis weighs into conversations about gender roles in contemporary cultures.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) writes that there are two major creation stories in Genesis- the one contained in chapter 1, and the one contained in the entirety of chapters 2 through 11.  These two creation stories provide very different views of the origins of the genders, and the role of sex.  The interpretation of these two texts may form the foundation for defining the roles of men and women in society, both contemporary and ancient.
 

The classic tension between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 through 4 discusses to the role of women in relation to men. In Genesis 1, of course, God created man and woman together (GEN 1:26-29) and commanded them to go forth and have children.  In Genesis 2, God creates man first (GEN 2:7) and, after giving man a task, decides man should have help with his labors. (GEN: 2:15, 18) This spurs the creation of land animals and birds, only finally culminating in woman after a period of trial and error.  The author of the story cites this as the source of marriage (GEN 2:24) although does not attribute this to God, and also indicates this partnership was without shame. (GEN 2: 25)  There is no mention of sex and it seems that childbirth is afflicted on humans as punishment during the Fall (GEN 3:16) and, in fact, only explicitly occurs starting in chapter 4.  Humans are only encouraged to flourish and reproduce in the aftermath of the flood. (GEN 9:1, 7)

In the first story, men and women are created equally and given the same charge: their purpose is to fill the earth with children, thus spreading the image of God to all corners of the Earth, and as a race are charged with caring for God's creation. Sex is a natural and necessary act between the man and woman because it is an act of procreation. The term is important: in the image of God, man and woman together emulate God: through their actions, they bring forth new life. However, they are not like God in that they cannot create from nothing (as they must have one another) and they must create with action, whereas God calls creation into being with God's Word. This concept is empowering for both men and women. As humans, we are intrinsically linked to the greater purpose of this world, and we are charged with the important tasks of ensuring the continued care of God's creation.   There is a lesson here, too, that the purpose of sex is to create, rather than for pleasure, profit, exploitation, or possession. If sex is an act emulating the Divine, it is reasonable to infer that God expects people to care for sex within the relationship of the man and woman as ordered.  This, then, may lead to contemporary discussions over fornication and homosexuality- issues discussed in greater detail in later sections of the Bible.  

In the second story, genders are created separately.  They have similar tasks, for man to care for God's garden and woman to help man in his labors, and man names woman as he named all other creatures created as partner candidates.  After the Fall, God decrees that woman shall be ruled by her husband as punishment for her sin. There are interpretations of this text that say women must be submissive to men- whether because man was created first or because woman's submission to man is punishment for temptation. 

However, there is another interpretation, again linked to the concept of sex. There is no explicit mention of sex in this creation story until chapter 4, nor is there a charge from God to the man and woman to create children, as there is in chapter 1. Indeed, children are not mentioned until chapter 3 when God first mentions the offspring of woman (GEN 3:15) and man names the woman Eve as the mother. (GEN 3:20) When man was giving out names, he named his partner woman first- she only gained a name related to fertility and offspring after the Fall.  This is important because God's punishment to woman is that she will experience pain in childbirth, and yet despite this shall still desire children. This desire is what places her under the husband's dominion.  This control is further defined within the parameter of marriage established by the author earlier in chapter 2 (sexual desire for a husband, not just for a male sexual partner.)  As with the first story, this sets up discussions surrounding homosexuality, fidelity, and fornication, but nowhere does this text actually say that men and women are unequal.

Both Genesis stories place sex squarely in the realm of procreation. Although Genesis 1 does not exhibit the same sense of shamefulness related to nakedness seen in the second creation story, both stories clearly expend energy and effort on linking sex to children. This is a recurring theme throughout the rest of the Bible as well- the use of sex for purposes other than to make children is considered sinful. Further, as the Bible begins to evolve the sanctity and importance of legitimate children, the concept of fornication as a sin rises and the Bible goes to great lengths to provide care for legitimate children who are left fatherless.

If the reader evaluates the role of sex in the relationship between men and women, one possible contemporary gender issue revolves around the conversation of contraception. A quick search on any internet search engine reveals that contraception and gender equality are related topics.  Generally, the argument revolves around whether or not access to affordable, safe, and reliable contraceptive for women (which is almost always aimed at preventing pregnancy, rather than preventing STI transmission) helps resolve gender inequality issues specifically related to the burden of childbearing. Simply, if women can control whether or not they conceive following sexual intercourse, they are more empowered to control their own lives and self-advocate. There are extrapolations that this may free women for sexual diversity (or promiscuity, depending on your viewpoint) and may make sex more accessible outside of a marriage, since the burden of single motherhood is diminished. If one places this contemporary conversation in the context of Genesis 1-11, one might argue that contraception removes woman from the dominion of man caused by her desire to have children, and thus frees her to be an equal partner again. This, of course, could also be interpreted as a sin against God as it sets aside the punishments given for sin, or because it removes procreation from the sacred intent of sex.

Contraception is certainly a relevant issue in the contemporary world. In the United States, there are concerns related to the impact of overpopulation on the environment, economic concerns, and a desire for greater equality between men and women specifically related to breaking gender roles affiliated with children and parenthood. Viewpoints advocating to maintain traditional gender roles and family structures (in the US defined as a married man and woman, wherein the woman is primarily tasted with homemaking and the husband with economic provisioning) may cite Genesis as a Biblical authority prohibiting the use of contraceptives. This prohibition is justified by the purpose of sex as a procreation tool for use between a man and a woman who are married.  Critics may cite Genesis as an example of Biblical misogyny, aimed at minimizing the potential contributions and role of women through selective reading that ignores the equality of men and woman outlined in Genesis 1, or even dismiss the writings as the deliberate constructs of a patriarchal society determined to eliminate older ‘mother goddess’ religious tendencies as a form of control and domination.

---

[1] USCCB. "Genesis - Introduction." The Bible: Genesis. August 14, 2015. Accessed September 12, 2016. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0. 

MATL - Genesis Reflections

Prompt: The ancestors are not portrayed as “perfect” people yet they still served God’s purposes in important ways. Do you find contemporary significance in this insight? Try to identify themes in these stories that may still speak to contemporary readers. What in these stories troubles or confuses you as a modern reader?

The text notes that “the story of the ancestors is a story of God’s faithfulness, in spite of the ancestors often willful contempt for his overtures.” (p 66) If we accept that the purpose of the ancestor stories is to create a cultural identity for the ancient Israelites, it seems not only reasonable but necessary that the ancestors are portrayed as flawed characters to the narrative.  In exposing Noah as a drunkard (Gen 9:21-23) and Abraham as afraid (Gen 12:11-3, Gen 20:11) the ancestor stories provide relatable flaws to the reader. The reader may easily imagine themselves in those positions, or perhaps that of Jacob, or Sarah, where they make mistakes or doubt in God. Thus, then, they can imagine how God’s faithfulness might also transcend into their own lives because the example is right before them in the story.  Because I approach these stories as a kind of parable, they are not particularly distressing to me as an example of God’s faithfulness or in the relationship between God and humans. However, were I seeking a more literalist interpretation of the stories, if I thought these stories were historical rather than mythical, or if I were looking to these stories for concrete life examples, I imagine I would struggle with the content.

In particular, the treatment of women in the ancestor stories is not empowering or supportive of a modern female perspective. Abraham and Isaac both lie about their wives’ marital status, Jacob disregards Leah, Laban abuses his daughters, Sarah abuses Hagar.  God seems to protect the virtue of women who are badly used by their husbands or owners, but does so only to protect the vehicle who must provide sons to the ancestor. God is protecting the vehicle necessary to fulfill God’s promises.  This may send the message to a contemporary reader that women are property, or are only valuable in their ability to bear sons. There is no justice for the women in these stories, only for the men. It is difficult, as a modern woman, to see any literally acceptable lessons that might be derived from this illustration of God’s relationship to humans.

MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part I Jesus' Historical Context

Prompt: What was most surprising about the historical information of the program? 

Note: this is part one of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/  I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

 The program indicates that Jesus was likely born in Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem.  The program also notes that the region of Galilee, where Nazareth is located, was apparently known as a region of radicalization and a great blending of culture and urban efforts.  Furthermore, the documentary establishes that the artisan class was very low-class, below even pastoral farmers.  Several speakers in the film argue that this contradicts the conventional picture of Jesus's life as a pastoral and rural man of humble origin, birth, and education.  They argue that, in fact, Jesus must have been fairly well educated and politically savvy in order to succeed in the urban environment of the city, and that he probably gathered all this from the city itself.  

 This historical context is, I think, supposed to surprise and challenge viewers. The first time I watched the documentary, I found myself thinking, 'is this degree path how I end up not being a Christian anymore?'  There is much scholarly evidence that Jesus lived and died differently than depicted in the Bible, and the deliberate choices to style the Gospels in specific ways for specific audiences makes me wonder if Jesus was merely a compelling apocalyptic prophet whose believers turned him into a Messiah. And yet, the more I think on the findings discussed about Jesus's life, trade, and skill set, the more sense it makes to me.  Jesus must have been an incredibly charismatic and persuasive person to engender the devotion of followers such as Paul, a person with a message so enduring as to inspire the creation of the Gospels.  It makes sense he was conversant in multiple languages (including Greek, as suggested in the documentary) and that he lived and worked in urbanized areas with lots of exposure.  If artisan class workers were less than agricultural workers, perhaps that disparity further underscores the persuasiveness of Jesus when fishermen dropped their nets to follow him, rather than diminishing his relationship to the followers.  

I actually thought Jesus always lived in Nazareth, having been born during a short and temporary trip of his parents, much the same way I was born in one part of a state and grew up in the other. It also makes a great deal of literary sense to place his birth in Bethlehem to strengthen the ties to King David.  This ties together the Jewish tradition and heritage of the early Christians, who were Jewish first, raised on the story that God promised David's family would rule forever. If Jesus, the Messiah, came to be the King of everyone, of course he must be related to David! How better to demonstrate this than draw the symbolism of his birth in Bethlehem?  I was surprised to think about this, but not terribly disturbed by it. The entire Nativity story reeks of symbolism and metaphor, so this fit right in.  

 What difference does it make who really killed Jesus? (Prompt: Think about how traditional stories contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, and the Holocaust) 

 The documentary emphasized that Jesus died as a result of Roman domestic security policy- that his death was, "was a Roman act; there was little if any notice taken by Jewish people. Jesus was another victim of the Pax Romana." The various accounts of Jesus' death in the Bible all indicate that Jesus was handed over to the Romans by the leaders of the Temple because he was the "King of the Jews" and that sedition led to his execution.   This conflicts with the story of Jesus in the Temple, which says Jesus was arrested for civil unrest. Perhaps the Roman officials asked the victims (the Temple authorities) if they wanted to press charges and that led to the imagery of being 'handed over.'   Regardless, I think the Gospels say that Temple leadership manipulated the political situation of the Roman government into executing Jesus for them. This underscores the need of the Gospel authors to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. The documentary talks about the tensions surrounding whether or not Christianity was (or could remain) a sect of Judaism in the section about Paul's letters, and about the persecution of the Christians by the Romans by dint of not being 'just' a sect. It may be unethical, but it is a stroke of propagandist genius to focus the anger and fear of early Christians against the Jewish faith, which they were already abandoning, instead of against the Roman government, against which they could not win. What better way to crystallize this anger than to rest the blame of Jesus' death on the Jewish leaders, rather than the Roman system? 

 This tactic was effective and enduring- blaming of the Jewish people for the death of Christ certainly led to anti-Semitic movements and atrocities throughout history and exists today. This is a result not just of literalist reading in the Bible but of selective reading and interpretation as well.  The Bible places the blame for Jesus' death on the shoulders of the Jewish people.  The Bible also records that Jesus' death was necessary for salvation- that without the death, there could be no resurrection and thus, no Christianity. The actions of the Jewish leaders, then, could be interpreted as an act of heroism, of a submission to God's will even unto the death of their beloved Savior and God's Son.  It could be the closing parallel to the story of Abraham and Isaac. 

 So what difference does it make who actually killed Jesus? From the viewpoint of those tasked with distinguishing Christianity from Judaism and forming a cohesive and coherent culture from a wide variety of disparate groups, it makes a great deal of difference. Unifying against the Romans was infeasible and unwise- the Christians suffered enormous losses prior to Constantine without actually revolting against the Romans. They also witnessed the great Jewish revolts against the Romans, and the devastating and crushing defeats the Jewish people suffered as a consequence of challenging Rome.  The early foundation of the Christian church needed to distinguish themselves from the Jewish faith to grow spiritually, without challenging Rome in order to flourish physically. It makes a lot of sense for these writers to blame the death of Jesus on the Jews, rather than on the Romans. 

 Whether or not the historical reasons for Jesus' execution matters to contemporary faithful depends on the way the faithful approach the question.  It is unsettling to the foundation of the Christian faith to consider that Jesus died perhaps due to bad timing, having been swept up in the consequences of heightened security efforts surrounding Passover. Knowing the political environment surrounding the death of Jesus, and the theo-political motivations of the Gospel writers, certainly diminishes the sense of grandiose mythos that the Bible associates with the Passion.  This does not have to diminish the overall importance of the death because, after all, how Jesus died matters far less than the fact that he did, because Christians believe he rose again. The resurrection is the key to Christian faith.  The challenge to the faithful, then, is to accept the allegory and lesson of the Gospel as a lens to focus the Passion while also at the same time diminishing the distractions of the historical events and preserving the importance of the resurrection. 

MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part II The Jesus Movement

Note: this is part two of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

Prompt: What was most surprising to you about the years following Jesus' crucifixion and the origins of the Christian religion? 

The documentary talks about the struggle of the early Christians trying to understand Jesus' crucifixion- specifically, how could the Son of God have been tortured and executed?  It sounds like the early followers went back to the Hebrew Bible and found the prophecies about the Messiah closely reflected the experience of Jesus at his death, and so they (the followers) decided it was not just possible that the Messiah could be tortured and executed, but that it was required, and therefore, clearly, Jesus was the Messiah.  This surprised me because I never considered the possibility that the disciples thrust Jesus into the Messiah role after his death.  Not being very conversant in Scripture, I always had a vague sort of impression that Jesus preferred to let others interpret his actions and teachings as works of a Messiah, rather than self-proclaiming them. I feel pretty confident that the Gospels depict a cagey and noncommittal Jesus with Pontius Pilot.  Combined with the extensive efforts taken to create the Gospels and the multi-century evolution of the canon of Christianity, I find myself wondering if Jesus became the Messiah because the earliest disciples needed him to be.  I'm surprised to find myself wondering…how can I still consider myself a Christian? 

Prompt: How is spreading the message of Jesus today different than for the first followers? In what ways should we imitate the first followers? In what ways should our evangelization be different, and why?

Ultimately, the call of the evangelist, whether ancient or contemporary, is to convince an audience of the veracity of their claim of Christ. The goal remains the same, but the challenges faced by evangelists have changed.  

 Since the earliest Christians were Jewish first, and members of the Jesus Movement, the Jewish Diaspora helped move the early Christians throughout the region.  Since there were far more Jewish communities outside Israel than inside Israel, this early impetus helped fling the first Christians across the empire.  The community-center function of the early synagogues also helped spread the Christian teachings, as even Gentiles were permitted in the outer areas of the synagogues, and no comparable structure or organization existed in the pantheon religions to challenge the conversations about Jesus.    Once the Christians split with Judaism, the presence of a highly developed road systems enabled the early followers of Jesus to disperse and engage with a far-flung population.  The ease of travel made it possible for early disciples to rapidly disperse from the center of their movements out to other populations, including those outside the Jewish faith, which greatly increased the potential pool for conversion.   At the same time, all of the conversations and missions were forming and developing the canon of Christianity.  The roles of men and women were not completely set, and there was no religious hierarchy or authority. The early Christian world was fluid and open to discussion.  The challenges of the earliest Christians were to get the Word out there, but even more than that, to define what the Word was. In many ways, the journey of the earliest Christians parallels the efforts of the ancient Israelites and the Jews during Babylonian Exile, to create and codify a religious identity separate and distinct from the other options in the world.  

 Today, there are only minimal challenges related to defining the place of Christianity within Judaism- the two religions are widely recognized and accepted as separate, though related. Physical travel is faster, and the advent of global, instantaneous availability of information means ideas spread at an uncontrollable rate.  The fundamental canon of Christianity is pretty set, and feels ancient to a contemporary viewer. Two thousand years is a long time, even if it pales compared to the historical age of Judaism.   And yet, the details of Christianity continue to face major changes and evolutions- perhaps due to the rapid acceleration of intellect and inventions in the past millennia, perhaps because Christianity became the first global religion, perhaps because the advent of intellectualism encouraged Christians to place their beliefs in their lives, rather than patterning their lives on their beliefs.  The massive advances in scholarly endeavors into the ancient Biblical world and the ability to find and accurately date evidence in the artefact records bring skepticism into the faith conversation.  Where the first Christians sought to ground the Messiah in the familiar teachings of the Hebrew Bible, contemporary Christians must ground the Messiah in a world of science, contradictory evidence, and skepticism.  

 A contemporary evangelist must help the audience reconcile academic contractions to the Bible, and help find a balance between one's faith (which perhaps cannot be quantified) with the world.  Contemporary American culture demands that religion be separate from the other major components of life.  Balancing the needs of a faith and religion against the civic duties and privileges is difficult.  The contemporary evangelist must find a way to make Christ relevant to audiences who have never seen the Holy Land, whose exposure to fundamentalist religions is negative (thanks, religious terrorism) and whose attention is constantly under assault by digital technology.  I'm typing this in a coffee shop, looking at a poster advertising a vacation bible camp called "Under God's Big Top" and the irony that the appeal of a circus is being used to attract youth into an evangelical environment is strong. 

MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part III The Writing of the Gospels

Note: this is part three of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

Prompt: What was the most challenging or surprising thing you learned about the writing of the Gospels? 

 While I knew the Gospels were written at different times and by authors not directly connected to Jesus (not his Apostles) I was unaware of their connectivity, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, and the presence of the 'Q' source.  I knew John was the most recent of the Gospels, but I did not know the older three were collectively referred to as "Synoptic" and I had to look up the definition of the word.  I was surprised to learn that Mark originally ended with the empty tomb and no direct mention of the Resurrection, particularly since the Resurrection is such a central component of the Christian belief structure.  I was not aware that Luke also wrote the Acts, and therefore the Gospel of Luke and the Acts should be read as a single work in two parts to see the entire story.    

I greatly enjoyed the conversation and lesson on the motivations of the different authors and the literary analysis of their style and content.  I mentioned in an earlier journal entry that I always liked Luke the best of the Gospels, but I struggled to explain the reasoning for this feeling.  The documentary talks about the novel-like qualities to Luke, the approachability and flow of the language and grammar, and the overall sense of romance to the stories.  I love reading epic fictional novels that challenge spirituality and the greater sense of purpose of humanity- Dune, Lord of Light, God Knows, Good Omens, and Ender's Game are great favorites of mine and elicit similar moments of self-reflection to readings from Luke.  

Prompt: Why does it make a difference, theologically, whether the Gospels were written directly by Jesus' Apostles or whether the Gospels were written several decades after his death? Give a specific example of how these 2 approaches would yield 2 different theological interpretations of Jesus. 

Gospel authors writing decades after Jesus' death have the ability to alter or manipulate the story to best reflect lessons and truths relevant to their audience without being challenged by 'those who were there.'  By the time Mark begins writing, the Apostles were likely all dead or extremely old so there was no one to challenge the points emphasized by Mark. It allowed Mark, and subsequent authors, to interpret Jesus' life and works without loss of authenticity or credibility by their audience.  Later Gospel authors also allows for multiple attempts to tell the story.  If the Apostles wrote one Gospel or set of Gospels, they would have a higher authority, as a primary source, than retellings written generations later.  Even if this were not the case during the Roman era (as inferred in the New Oxford Bible, p 1743) it would have extensive impact on the fundamentalist debate in Christianity throughout time. 

Written by later followers, rather than the Apostles, the Gospels become advertisements rather than witness testimonies.  It is less important for the stories in the Gospels to be accurate and more important that they reflect and fill the spiritual needs of the community for whom they are written.   For example, the documentary talks about the evolution of the role of Jewish leadership in the death of Jesus, which was likely an entirely Roman act from history's point of view, but slowly became an entirely Jewish act from the Bible's point of view.   This evolution served to mirror the experiences of the early Christians and their relationship with Judaism and Jewish leaders, as well as their early efforts to settle in the Roman empire, while providing a focus and foil for the death of Jesus.  Placing the decision to turn over Jesus to a reluctant Pontius Pilot on Jewish officials helped separate Jesus and his followers from the rest of Judaism. It helped draw the parallels of the story between Jewish tradition and the new path to salvation. By the time John writes about Passover, Jesus symbolizes the lamb sacrificed for Passover supper, so it makes perfect sense within this story that the Jewish leadership sacrificed Jesus. Passover is a Jewish tradition, not a Roman one, so the symbolism loses authenticity if a non-Jewish motivator causes the death of the Lamb.  Even the name of the Jewish leadership is altered to reflect the name of the Jewish leadership during the time of the Gospel creation- the Pharisees. This creates a real and intimate connection between the reader, the story which happened before they lived, their knowledge of Judaism as part of the Jesus sect, and their desire to be distinct and separate from the more conservative teachings of the Pharisees following the failed Jewish Revolts.   Theologically, the Gospels become guides for the journey of the faithful, answering questions relevant to the evolution of the faith at the time.  

 Finally, there is the consideration that if the Apostles wrote the Gospels, or any other primary sources about the life and death of Jesus, it would limit some areas of theological questioning and would reshape the entire concept of Christian faith.  Setting aside the fact that most 'eyewitness' accounts to traumatic events are highly unreliable, a first-hand account of the crucifixion and (hopefully) resurrection of Jesus would become an irrefutable canon of belief.  If Mary and the other women left consistent writings explaining exactly what they saw on the road, if the Roman guards left written reports documenting the circumstances of Jesus' death, if there were an official Roman inquiry into the missing corpse of Jesus, if all of the many people that Jesus appeared to after rising left the same – or even similar- accounts, then there would be little question for later readers about what happened. The mystery of the Resurrection would become the most well documented of God's miracles.  To some extent, a Gospel written by firsthand accounts would require a literalist approach. It may remove personal interpretation and reflection of Salvation and eternal life and instead say: it is this, and no other.  The story of Jesus couldn't be manipulated by later writers which means there would be no adaptation of the story to suit the needs of later faith groups as we see in the current Gospels. 

 Of course, there is the risk, too, that the first-hand accounts would be contradictory or unpersuasive. Perhaps some accounts allude to a conspiracy to hide Jesus' body, or contradict miracle stories, or say that the Holy Spirit never descended. These writings would be equally damaging to the theology of Christianity- indeed, such writings may destroy the Christian faith.   Perhaps the earliest followers of Jesus used oral tradition to share the stories and words because it was safer than writing things down- it protected the mystery and nurtured the earliest seeds of the faith.  

Prompt: What theological questions did this chapter raise for you? 

 It seems like the Gospel authors went to great lengths to mirror Jesus as the book-end figure to the Hebrew Bible stories. In some cases, he preaches on the Mountain, like Moses.  He defies the most powerful beings in the land, even Satan, like David conquered Goliath or Moses triumphed over Pharaoh.  The later sacking of Jerusalem was turned into prophecy spoken by Jesus to set him with Isaiah and Elijah.  The crisis of the crucifixion for the earliest Christians, and the deliberate decision to find ways to justify this treatment of the Son of God in the Hebrew Bible by the early Gospel writers, implies that there was doubt in the early believers, so Jesus is depicted against the story of Abraham and Isaac, the ultimate sacrifice at the will of God.  

 These deliberate literary efforts cause me to wonder- was Messiahship assigned to Jesus after his death by his believers? Were they so lost and afraid that they gave him a role he never claimed? Or is it possible that the purpose of the Messiah was to rekindle the devotion of people to God and the commitment to the Way of God (living a good, honest, kind life of love) and the more mystic elements of the Resurrection story are symbolic? I wrote earlier that the Resurrection of Christ is the central, defining element of Christianity and I find myself wondering...does it actually matter whether or not the physical body of Jesus rose from the dead?  

 My other question, which is significantly less terrifying to think about, is- why is the Bible organized the way it is? Why are Luke and Acts divided by John, if they're intended to be read in two parts? Why is Matthew before Mark, if Mark is the older tradition? 

MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part IV: The Development of Doctrine

Note: this is part four of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

Prompt: What difference did Rome's embracing of Christianity make to the development of Christian doctrine? 

 Roman policy embraced all religions, so long as the worshipers conducted civil duty, which included sacrifices to the Emperor and to national Gods on important holidays.  This implies that political policy was not driven by any one religion or sect, but rather was unified through the veneration of the Emperor.  In addition, most pagan religions were fairly tolerant of other religions and fluid in their acceptance of multiple practices of worship.  The Jewish people and the Christians challenged these conventions in their strict adherence to a single, loving (albeit sometimes jealous and possessive) God.  So, prior to the adoption of Christianity by the Roman leadership, the Christians and the Jewish people made themselves outsiders by not following civic procedures. It might loosely be compared to a modern conflict where a small group refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance before class starts, or to stand during the national anthem.  The group seems odd and out of place, but not particularly dangerous or harmful, until the anti-civic behavior begins to spread into other areas.  This 'outsideness' combined with the distinction between the Jewish people and the Christian people and ultimately led to the persecution of the Christians by the Romans.  The documentary emphasizes that the Romans would not have considered this anathema to their religious tolerance policies because Christianity was too new to be a religion.  Of course, as history shows us, the Romans were too late to stop the spread of the Christian effort, and the basic premises of Christianity- to live like Christ- filled such an important social gap in the world by institutionalizing the care for poor and suffering that had the Romans succeeded in wiping out Christianity, it would have left an enormous vacuum of social service.  The potential impacts of this on the Roman society are catastrophic.

 When Rome made Christianity the official religion, it upended the standards of belief for the region going back to the beginning of civilization, and likely longer.  This was not just the simple preference of a person for one God or cult over another- this was the Emperor, the supreme and final authority of the entire developed world known at the time, saying that there was One True God- a supreme and final authority over heaven, as the Emperor was on Earth.  This had lots of daily benefits to the Christians, because it made Christianity financially sustainable, it stopped the executions, and it supported the propaganda efforts to evangelize to the population.  Whether Constantine was sincere in his conversion or not, he wisely co-opted the work of the Christians to ensure ongoing stability among the largest social class within the Empire.

 This highly public and official status might have prevented ongoing evolution of the Christian interpretation of the events surrounding Jesus, and led to the standardization of the doctrine of the Bible. This left enormous elements of the historical record theological record out of canon, and probably for political or social reasons rather than as a result of thoughtful meditation of the will of God for the production of this (final?) Word of God.   Women were assigned the roles they lived in society, rather than the roles alluded to by the followers of Jesus.  Other Gospels were left out of the teaching. The debate of myth and symbolism over the resurrection ended, and it became fact.  One speaker in the documentary mentioned wondering whether the original writers knew not to take the Bible literally and contemporary readers were too ignorant to understand the intent of the Bible, and I think those origins of literalism started here.  A government cannot be squiffy and subject to interpretation and revision by any teacher who drums up a following or there would be chaos. If Christianity was to survive as the religion of the global empire, it had to tighten things up.  As such, the Christian church embarked on a statehood of its own. As history shows us, the Church became a social political entity with tremendous power and influence in Europe and the near East into the early 20th century.  Even yet, the Catholic Church retains legal and political jurisdiction over Vatican City inside the legal political entity of Rome. The relationship between Christianity and government, which began with Roman endorsement, is unparalleled in any other religion in the world.  

Prompt: What issues does this raise in light of the global nature of Christianity today? 

 Christianity is no longer directly hooked to the governments of most nations, although this is a fairly recent historical event. Because Christianity is no longer tied so closely to the rigid legal codification necessary for stable government, there is an opportunity for Christianity to release its own rigidity without sacrificing immutability.  Each of the early Gospel writers changed the story details of Jesus to better explain and relate the concepts of Messiah to their audiences but the underlying truth and sameness remained.  In the modern world, Christianity has for the first time in two thousand years the opportunity to revisit these practices. As religion and society move further apart, Christianity must adapt and remain relevant to the lives of Christians or it will fall away as so many other religions have.  There is a great tension in this effort, between preserving the identity and tradition of Christianity with the relevance and acceptance of modern life.   The fracturing of Christianity into many sects may actually make this an easier process- after all, if Christianity's ideals can survive multiple schisms it can surely survive a few more ideological shifts to help transition it back into the personal societies of citizens, rather than in their civic ones.  

Prompt: How does learning new historical information affect faith? 

 In some cases, new historical information is difficult to reconcile with faith because it challenges (typically fundamental or literalist) ideas and conceptions about the tenants of a faith. For example, finding evidence that supports Jesus lived and worked in a bustling urban area with a fair amount savoir-faire contrasts with literalist readings that Jesus was a poor, humble carpenter who surprised Temple leadership with his knowledge.   Archaeological evidence confirming or debunking the Noah story and the Arc, or the exodus from Egypt, or even the burial location of Jesus, could all potentially destabilize a personal concept and relationship with faith. It is important to keep this in perspective, however.  Lots of other, non-historical elements cause the same disruption or faith crises to some individuals- just consider how many people called the book The DaVinci Code

 heretical because it suggested that Jesus was married and had children, or how many Christians condemn Harry Potter for teaching witchcraft and devil worship.  Just as historical findings may challenge previous conceptions of a faith, they may also help strengthen or deepen an understanding of a faith. 

We must also remember that faith is highly personal.  Religions form the canon and the community in which a faithful person finds like-minded individuals, teaching, and comfort- but the faith belongs to a person. How much a historical finding challenges or strengthens faith depends on how the recipient of the knowledge chooses to allow the information and faith to intermingle.  

MATL - Theology and Archaeology

Prompt: Discuss 3 discoveries made by the scientists and scholars in the Nova documentary that challenged what you came into this class believing about the Hebrew Bible. Why are these discoveries troubling or challenging? How, specifically, do these discoveries challenge particular doctrines or teachings in your faith tradition? How do they challenge your personal spirituality?

The NOVA documentary identified many different discoveries about which I was either unaware or under-informed.  Only one argument seemed contradictory to my understanding of the Hebrew Bible, and that was the placement of the Exodus during the reign of Ramses II.  I found the discussion about the origins of the Israelites, and the supporting evidence for their existence, fascinating.  I also found the discussion of the evolution of monotheism interesting, in particular the extremely long amount of time the concept took to actually coalesce into standard practice.

The placement of Exodus as an event during the reign of Ramses II is troubling in a superficial, “Oh, I need to cross-reference that,” kind of way.  I wrote a piece of fiction in 8th grade about a girl who traveled back in time and viewed the events of the Exodus story- specifically the plagues of Egypt- through the eyes of an Egyptian concubine. I did a fair amount of reading to determine whether or not the Hollywood myth of Ramses and Moses (born therein my love of Yule Brynner!) was solid enough for a creative writing assignment.  In my research, I found there was no archaeological evidence to support Ramses, but also that any of the Pharaohs in the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasties might have sufficed based on oral Torah dating of the fall of the temple.  The NOVA documentary provided no compelling arguments for or against this preexisting thought of mine.  I thought it surprising that a documentary of the caliber that NOVA typically produces would make such a definitive claim, placing the Exodus story in the hands of Ramses, without also providing better evidence. All NOVA really said is that a people called the Israelites lived during the time of Ramses’ son. This surprise was assuaged a little later in the documentary when the film talked about the likelihood that the Exodus story, along with the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Joshua (but absent Jacob and Joseph…!) were likely allegorical and deliberately constructed to create a unique and unifying identity for the newly forming Israelite people in Canaan.

The notion that the Israelites were not a group of people genetically descended from Abraham, but rather a motley crew of refugees and social activists coalescing around the fall of the Canaanite city-states is completely new to me.  It sounds like a very reasonable and rational explanation- much more realistic than a mythic and enduring genetic line drawn from a single man. I tentatively accept the premise, although I think it fails to explain the genetic markers common to those of Jewish ancestry rather than just Jewish faith. Perhaps I am misinformed about the nature of this marker, however.  Obviously, this discovery challenges my understanding of the Bible’s documentation of the origins of the Israelites but I’m not distressed by that in the slightest. This affects neither my personal nor dogmatic spirituality- whether the Israelites created their history or really lived it as documented in the Hebrew Bible means little to a Catholic in the 21st century- it still sets the foundation for my religion.

 In a similar vein, I was not surprised to see archaeological evidence of polytheism in the ancient Hebrews until after the exile from Babylon. Indeed, this supports the Biblical writings, which have repeated admonishments about idolatry and false worship. It seems reasonable to this reader that the Bible would only contain the reminders and warnings if they were still necessary, which implies continued polytheism- so documentation of that seems almost expected. I am a fan of Terry Pratchett’s approach to the ‘Small Gods’ and sometimes, in fits of heretical pondering, I wondered if maybe Yaweh was not once also a tortoise in the desert.  The presence of fertility goddess figures, attributed to Ashira, was also unsurprising, although I was surprised by the willingness to use the term ‘wife’ to describe her.  Typically, fertility goddesses and the major god and goddess relationships of polytheistic cultures describe a consort relationship, which indicates more equality in the pairing, and a level of power and control for both the female and male partners.  Anita Diamond, in her historical fiction work The Red Tent, neatly depicts the tension between Jacob’s god and the gods of his wives.  There is inherent tension between a highly male and paternalistic god, who marks his followers with genital mutilation and creates a mark of covenant only available to males, with the goddess who shepherds birth and creation, who marks the menstrual cycles and supports the holiness of women’s blood and childbirth, which in its own way marks a covenant of genital…well, perhaps not mutilation…but is certainly only available to females.  I can see where this sort of revelation could be devastating, particularly to a fundamentalist mindset. I imagine it would be almost as disruptive as arguments about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

 Each of these discoveries and positions, both well supported by archaeology and those still being explored and developed, potentially impact both the spirituality of an individual and the catechistic influence of the impacted religions.  The concept of Yaweh in a consort relationship might raise spirituality questions about Yaweh’s needs or desires, or even why a god demanding sole devotion would engage with a consort, or wonder if the ancient Hebrews were completely mistaken in their understanding and worship practice. Catechistically, this discovery could affect teachings about Jesus and immaculate conception, or about the completeness of God in all things, or whether or not God is the /only/ supreme being or simply placed above the rest.  Theologically, then, the mediation between the questions and the teaching may be to explore how ancient fertility worship was an early attempt to explain God’s completeness and encompassing oneness.  If the early stories of the Hebrew Bible are mostly allegorical and designed to create identity, rather than actually depicting miracles and examples of God’s covenant with his chosen people, theology might explore the reason for defining a covenant in the first place. 

What purpose did the covenant serve, why is the imagery and belief still important today, and what did that belief in and understanding of a special relationship enable?