MATL - Gospel of Luke - Reflection

Prompt: Based on the materials from this week, discuss the most important theological element of the Gospel of Luke, in a 2-3 pages.

When critically evaluating the world of and behind the Gospels, it is easy to spend significant time evaluating the differences between them.  Even within the synoptic texts, which are all based around the same core set of materials and sources, the differing content of the Gospels can lead to conflicting and contradictory interpretations when they are read without care to consider the larger picture. This is sometimes a useful and helpful technique, particularly when considering what the motivations of an author were, but it can also cause a reader to miss a larger message in the theological themes that tie scriptures together.  The topic of discipleship is one example, particularly when comparing the disciples of Luke to Mark or Matthew.

Discipleship is a major theological theme in all of the Gospels, which of course is inherently logical. A major purpose of the New Testament is to convert and guide Christians, so the tasks of those who follow Christ should exist in some form. This is, of course, paralleled to the Hebrew Bible, where the guidelines for the devout and followers of Yaweh are outlined and emphasized, repeatedly. Luke’s attention to discipleship focuses on a universal calling, and on a physical state of sacrifice and existence, rather than a more spiritual one, which he then contrasts with an emphasis on the importance of a relationship with God, rather than merely doing works of service and sacrifice (Kugler/Hartin, 402.)

 In Luke, the concept of discipleship focuses on the universal nature of the calling, which is consistent with the invitation of Mark’s ambiguous ending, and with Matthew’s idea that all disciples are ‘brothers and sisters’ in Christ (Kugler/Hartin, 391.)  However, Luke is the first to really emphasize the nature of Jesus’ fellowship as appropriate for both men and women, not just appropriate for both Gentile and Jew.  Mary, mother of Jesus, is really the first disciple of Christ, because she listens to God and accepts his plan without understanding. She is the first to follow in the path of Jesus, and she is the only woman in the Bible invited to choose whether or not she listens to God’s calling. All other women, even when receiving God’s blessing, are depicted as either receiving the blessing as a result of their husband (particularly related to bearing children) or in answer to their own prayers. Martha and Mary, sisters to Lazarus, are also depicted as actively participating in the ministry and mission of Christ, and they, along with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Mary mother of James, are intimate and important members of Jesus’ crowd of disciples. Mark infers their importance by making them the faithful watchers when the Apostles have fled, but Luke is the first to give them names and narratives.  Luke also balances the parables to show equality and applicability of Jesus’ lessons, offering parables of both men and women for the reader to evaluate. (Kulger/Hartin, 401.) This is important because it breaks social conventions both within the world of the text, and the world behind the text.  Throughout the Gospels, the writers make a point of depicting the salvation of Jesus as fulfilling the promises made to Israel and of the transitions in authority. Luke reminds the reader that this transition affects the role and status of women, as well.

Discipleship is an important and relevant topic to any contemporary reader interested in living a Christian life.  Certainly, while the original intent of the disciple messages has changed, the long-term intent was to provide a lasting guide and source of authority for the duration of the Christian experience. While the authors of the Gospel in canon today may not have imagined that their work to survive in the current configuration, they clearly intended it for extended use and application.  Understanding the overarching development of discipleship painted by reading all of the Gospels is just as critical for a contemporary Christian as understanding the nuance and specific messaging within each individual Gospel.

When evaluating the Gospel of Luke for application in a contemporary setting, the reader sees an ongoing commitment to the idea established in Mark and elaborated on in Matthew, which is: discipleship requires following Christ before everything else. It is not enough to merely contemplate or passively endorse Christian behaviors- one must actively participate in life as called by Jesus. Luke reminds the reader that such participation must include building a relationship with God. It is not just about doing good work, it is about being open to God, and trusting God’s purpose even when we can’t really understand what that entails. Mark calls disciples to serve and sacrifice, and Matthew instructs disciples to learn and implement the lessons of Jesus as part of the mission. Luke demonstrates the importance of trusting God’s purpose, and of forming a deep and personal relationship and trust in God. His use of women, both to break barriers within the laws and traditions of traditional roles, and as examples of how to entrust God, is as unconventional now as it was when written.  In a world where women still struggle for equal pay, healthcare access, employment opportunities, or rights within marriage and societal access, Luke is a reminder that even those viewed as unequal or less are equally important to God. Those who are least valued can be the best example of how to move forward in the path of Christ.

Works Cited:

Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

MATL - Gospel of Mark- Reflection

Prompt: Based on this week's materials, discuss the most important theological message in the Gospel of Mark, in 2-3 pages.

There are many theological messages within the Gospel of Mark, among them, the idea that Jesus is a different kind of Messiah, and a call to the readers of Mark to take up discipleship for themselves.  Within this, there is a deeper theological thread which is still keenly applicable today. Jesus the Messiah offers salvation to all people- not just the Israelites- and, therefore, everyone is capable of taking up the path of discipleship.  Mark tears down the barriers between those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out’ when it comes to the Kingdom of God. Today, this presents both the same hopeful message to those who are currently ‘outside’ but looking for God, and also serves as a reminder to the modern Christian about their own behavior and ministerial obligations.

As noted in the textbook, Jesus presents himself as a different kind of Messiah than the one expected by his followers (Kugler and Hartin, 370.) Jesus is a metaphysical savior who offers eternal life, not a socio-political figure to challenge earthly oppression.  It is not surprising that the contemporaries of Jesus expected a Judge[1] considering the rich cultural and religious tradition up that point. Throughout the history of the Israelites, when they were oppressed by outside political forces, they believed God sent them a deliverer who called for them to return to the true worship of God and, in return for their renewed faithfulness, their oppressors were destroyed.  Viewing the occupation of Rome as an oppression, and given Jesus’ message of repentance and a return to God, it is perhaps expected that his follows initially expected Jesus to deliver them from Roman occupation.[2]  Mark takes great trouble to explain to his readers about this misconception, and instill in his readers the understanding that Jesus’ task is much deeper than mere liberation.

In teaching his disciples about his different concept of Messiah, Jesus instills the reader with an understanding that this Messiah saves everyone who believes, regardless of their origin.  This is demonstrated through the miracle stories, where Jesus heals ‘outsiders’ numerous times: the unclean, such as the leper (1:40-41), the man with the weathered hand (3:3-5), or the hemorrhaging woman (5:25-34) or foreigners, such as Legion (5:1-20) and the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter (4:27-30.) Indeed, in the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, Mark voices the question and answer about who can seek salvation. Jesus, in the metaphorical role of God, asks the woman whether or not he should care first for His chosen people, symbolized by feeding children bread. The woman replies that even dogs (symbolic of the outsiders) eat the crumbs left by children, and so Jesus heals the woman’s daughter and praises her faith. This story is not about Jesus being corrected or even about the woman’s faith being tested, but rather a parable by Mark showing that Jesus’ salvation is for all believers, and his capacity of salvation is limitless- that even the leftover ‘crumbs’ of his ministry are enough.  Jesus also creates the miracles of the loaves and fishes for the Israelites (6:41-44) and for outsiders (8:6-9) alike, showing that both are valued. (Horsley, 1806.)

Mark also depicts a ‘Messiah for all peoples’ in Jesus actions and teachings. Jesus ‘breaks’ the Sabbath both to harvest wheat for his hungry followers (2:23-26) and to heal the sick (3:1-5) demonstrating that the Sabbath designation (a Jewish tradition and custom) is not subject to God’s Kingdom.  Just as Jesus physically healed outsiders, he forgives the sins of many- another task said to be impossible for a human by Jewish tradition. He challenges the Jewish law of divorce as traditionally ascribed to Moses, and reminds people to follow God’s laws rather than the laws of humans (10:2-9.)  Indeed, he even obviously announces his Messiaship is for everyone when he tells a strange man that the path to Salvation is simple: one must not just follow the commandments, he must also give up all he owns to follow Jesus and find eternal life. (10: 19-21.)  Jesus says, “Whoever does this will of God is my brother and sister and mother” (3:35) and that “(i)f any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (8:34.) Later, John speaks to Jesus about attempting to stop an outsider from casting out demons, and Jesus delivers a famous sermon, “(w)hoever is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:41.) In illustrating that the Kingdom of God is above the laws of humans, and that while Jewish faith traditions are important they alone are not the means to salvation, Jesus opens the door for ‘outsiders’ to follow him.

This transitions into the call to discipleship present throughout Marks’ Gospel.  Throughout the Gospel, Mark illustrates the necessary requirements of discipleship: service and suffering in order to follow Jesus. This invitation is not just for a Jewish reader, however.  Mark’s audience was Gentile Christians (Kulger-Hartin, 375) who, throughout the Gospel, were offered opportunities to see themselves as followers of Jesus. Mark also paints the transition of discipleship in a way that invites ‘outsiders’ into the mission.

Jesus begins with no disciples, and so goes among the people and invites people to follow him. (1:16-20) Then, from his numerous followers, he ascends a mountain, and designates twelve to help him. (3:15-19.)[3]   These twelve follow Jesus until he is arrested and crucified. Discipleship then passes to the women, who watch with Jesus while he dies and who serve Jesus in his death. (Kugler and Hartin, 373.) When the women flee the empty tomb in terror, the reader is left with a clear invitation to step into the role of disciple.   There are parallels to the evolution of the Israelite traditions.  God also sought out believers and called people to follow, and from the many followers created twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus begins with the Jewish people in his call of discipleship. Ultimately, the discipleship passes to women, who in the Israelite culture are less important than men in many ways, and particularly in a religious sense. Symbolically, the enduring faithfulness of the women, when the men have fled in fear, is an acknowledgement that others besides the preferred chosen people may follow Jesus. When the women also flee, the reader sees a clear invitation and opportunity: throughout the Gospel, Jesus emphasizes that anyone can take up the cross to follow him. Here, then, is the chance for the Gentile: The Gospel concludes the tomb empty and deserted. Who is left to follow Christ if not the reader, who from the beginning is known as an ‘outsider’?

This theological message- that salvation comes to all who follow Jesus, not just the chosen people of God- applies in contemporary settings.  The world is full of people who are outsiders. The Gospel’s call to outsiders is a reminder to contemporary Christians not to forget that the Word is for everyone- not just those who already understand and believe.  A Christian is called by Jesus to follow him and live as an example to others- in the service of others. Christians have an obligation to minister to everyone, not just those who believe or who are potentially convertible. Charities, then, should not draw distinctions between the ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ nor make conversion a condition of the charity.  Expressions of human dignity, of love, of compassion, and companionship, are due to all peoples- even those that are disconcerting or uncomfortable.  The Gospel reminds Christians that they were once outsiders, too, and Jesus still embraced them.  The Gospel offers hope to those who seek it- inviting everyone to consider what it is to follow Jesus. 

Works Cited:

Horsley, Richard A. “Mark.” Pages 1791-1825 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version: With the Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible. Edited by Michael D. Coogan et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

 [1] Judge here is used in the context of the Hebrew Bible, as in a liberator or source of deliverance.

[2] Horsley explains that the number of baskets leftover identify the content of the crowd: twelve for the Israelites, and seven for the outsiders, 1806.

[3] Horsley writes that this scene is symbolic of a renewed Israel and that the twelve are symbolic of this renewal, 1797.

MATL- He said Love!

Prompt: Today's prompt is to examine the Sermon on the Mount and consider the characterization of Jesus presented in Matthew's Gospel using this example.

Kugler and Hartin write that “(t)he Sermon on the Mount has been described as ‘a design for life in the kingdom’” (Kugler/Hartin, 382.)  The Sermon offers multiple perspectives from Jesus describing ways to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus is presented as an authority figure (Matt 7:29) and is depicted as a sort of contemporary Moses (Kugler/Hartin, 382.) Even his posture (sitting) on a mountain (symbolic of Mt Sinai) interpreting and providing laws evokes the images of Moses, as does the subsequent organization and content of the Gospel (Cousland, 1752.)  In characterizing Jesus as an authority figure equal or greater to the greatest prophets and teachers of Israel’s traditions, Matthew is giving Jesus a sense of legitimacy for skeptical readers looking to reconcile their belief in Jewish traditions with Jesus. In some ways, Matthew is saying: Of course you can accept Jesus as the Messiah- who else could have such authority over God’s scriptures?

For a reader who already accepts Jesus as the Messiah, and is seeking guidance to follow Jesus, the characterization is a little different.  Jesus is still an authoritative teaching figure, but he also exists as a figure who can adapt his message to any audience. Ultimately, the Sermon on the Mount teaches the reader one thing: Love, expressed in Faith in God, is the path to salvation.  Jesus offers this lesson in many different frameworks: as the beatitudes, as metaphors (salt and light), as admonishments not to place trust in worldly things, in a call to live beyond the mere letter of the law. Each of these speaks to a different learning style and a different audience. Even a reader who does not directly relate to at least one of these examples (as hard to imagine as that might be) still sees in Jesus a teacher who calls to everyone.

Contemporary readers take clues on how to read and interpret the Gospel from these characterizations. As noted in the gospel introduction and the textbook, the criticisms against the Pharisees and Priests was interpreted by some groups as a tacit endorsement for anti-Semitic activities – the horrific repercussions of which are still felt today (Cousland, 1747 and Kugler/Hartin, 389.)  This resulted from readers failing to appropriately contextualize the characterizations and messages of the text as they were intended.  It would be tempting for a non-believer or critic to argue that since all of the social conditions surrounding the development of the Gospel of Matthew have passed, the Gospel is no longer relevant to today’s theological interpretation. This is also misguided, as Matthew carefully and deliberately crafted the picture of Jesus the Teacher to transcend both cultural (Roman, Jewish, Syrian, etc.) and religious differences (in his attempts to reconcile the Jewish debate about accepting Jesus as the Messiah.)  Although the tensions between the emerging Rabbinic Jewish and early Christian faiths has passed, people are still seeking to better understand discipleship. Until people cease to seek answers to this question, the Gospel remains relevant in at least one perspective.

MATL: Social Justice

Prompt: What do you see as the key themes in the four prophetic books you read this week? How might these themes be applied to your contemporary setting? Who is your audience--Youth? College Students? Adults? Senior citizens? Veterans?

The overarching theme I see in these four works is a continuation of the message we see in Kings 1 and 2 and in the writings: a condemnation of power structures outside of God.  From these prophets, the message extrapolates into criticisms of, among other things, social justice and abuse of power and closely links these failures to insincere worship of God.  Together, these two concepts further support the earlier messaging that humans who follow their own hearts and ideas go astray, and we should instead endeavor to trust in God.

There is evidence for these themes in each of the books, as neatly summarized in the textbook.  Isaiah supports the claim by arguing it was trust in God’s promises to Zion and to the Davidic line that enabled Judah’s success.[1]  Hoseah condemns Israel’s foreign policy tendencies (the alliance with other political, human leaders rather than trusting in God) as a constant source of their struggle.[2]  Micah focuses this criticism even more strongly, noting that it is the cities and urban areas which are the most at fault, whereas the more rural (tribal) areas are less condemnable.[3]  Since the evolution of the great cities, and specifically Jerusalem, is a direct consequence of the kingship evolution for the Israelites, Micah’s criticism of urban corruption is also a criticism of Kingship and the governmental trappings associated therein. Amos, of course, remains one of the most famous critics of social injustice.

There is also a clear link between true worship and human action- these prophets argue it is not enough to observe the forms of religion, but rather that worshippers must actually believe in their actions, and live the religious tenants in their lives, not just in ceremony.[4]  When summarizing Hoseah, the text succinctly and eloquently outlines the deep connection between intent and execution of worship and true piety: "Rather, he [Hoseah] gives voice to the view that ritual action which connects the human to God does have its place - its essential place- in the divine-human equation, but such action becomes empty if the grounding in the divine does not also produce in the human community a desire to make it the best it can be, the most just it can be."[5] This ties back to the condemnation of corruption of authority and agitation for social justice. Leaders cannot just ascribe their legitimacy from God, they must also implement God’s will and laws in their actions. They must enforce those actions as a matter of policy, and they must trust God- not foreign nations- when determining how best to act.

The nature of emergency management is that everyone is your audience. In my current role, I’m fortunate to say that my primary audience is the Gonzaga community, which is composed primarily of college students supported by adults who value higher education and Jesuit values- which, diverse as it is, is a far more specific category than those faced by my colleagues in government.  However, as is also the nature of private education in this country, the student element of my youth are largely from the socially privileged sections of the world.[6] The support of those students in staff and faculty demonstrates a wider variety of social and economic diversity, but there are still only a tiny fraction of employees who live along the poverty line.  In many ways we are the audience of the prophets- we have some degree of political power and social or economic advantages. Just as our leaders must act justly, so too must we endeavor to change our own behaviors.  We too should hear the words of warning and admonishment from the prophets, who call us to do more than attend church or temple on Sundays- who charge us to trust in God and live our lives honestly.

At Gonzaga, we are tasked with educating our students for their entire personhood- to care for their emotional, physical, and intellectual needs. We are charged in our mission to instill a sense of social justice and responsibility in our students, to send them forth into the world not just to do good works, but to model what it is to believe in the work they are doing.  We teach them about social justice because we endeavor to live it with them, not just preach it to them. We send forth our graduates with the charge, ite inflammate omnia.  This is not a mere cheer or slogan: it is an obligation. We could better empower our students if we remind ourselves that we are also called to set the world on fire…that we should be doing so every day.

---

[1] Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: EM. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009, 238.

[2] Ibid., 238.

[3] Ibid., 296.

[4] Ibid., 238, 276. Also see Isaiah 1:12-17.

[5] Ibid., 295-296. Emphasis added.

[6] I realize that Gonzaga works diligently to increase the diversity, including socio-economic status, of the students enrolled in the program, and there is no inherent criticism against Gonzaga in my thoughts.  However, there is no denying that access to higher education (and, likely, education at all!) is limited to largely economically stable individuals. Our current efforts to admit and support students from lower-middle class families is admirable, but it is still not the same as actively enrolling students from truly destitute and poverty-stricken areas. This commentary, however, extends far beyond the assignment, although it supports the overarching theme of social justice.

David's Hope

Prompt: Reflect on and discuss the characterization of David, Bathsheba, Nathan, Joab, and Absalom you find in 2 Samuel 9-20. What adjectives come to mind in describing them? Are any “sympathetic” characters? What, if any, “timeless” qualities do you find in these stories? 

In this assignment, we visit David only as an adult and King- there is no room for David the boy wonder or David the underdog. Instead, we see David painted as the ideal King of the Israelites- a people for whom no king but God should have been necessary, but who demanded one all the same.[1] David’s recurring theme is one of justice and loyalty marred by personal desire. David seeks out the son of Jonathan to show loyalty to his best friend, despite the fact this son was lame and otherwise considered useless.[2] David expresses a desire to treat the Ammonites fairly because he had so been treated.[3]  He shows himself capable of determining right from wrong, but his own loyalty to himself and his desires interferes, as shown in his conversation with Nathan regarding Uriah and Bathsheba[4] and again later regarding the quarrel between Amnon and Absalom.[5]  The work clearly regards David as a great and fearsome leader- the enemies of Israel only ever are 'obnoxious', rather[6] than any real threat.  He loves his sons, to a fault. He begs for the life of his infant son, he sends his daughter to care for Amnon when he is ill, and though he is angry when Amnon rapes Tamar, David does not punish him. He weeps for both Amnon[7] and Absalom[8], despite the literary fact that both needed very much to die. He seems indifferent to his daughters, but that is not unusual within the Scriptures in general.  David demonstrates an enormous capacity to forgive and ignore wrongs done to him, as well- he overlooks Amnon’s rape of Tamar, brings Absalom back to the city after Amnon’s murder, honors the servant Ziba after Mephibosheth’s supposed betrayal (and subsequently forgives both Mephibosheth and Ziba) and rebukes his troops when they are all stoned by Shimei.

In many ways, David is an allegory for the relationship between Yaweh and his people. David loves his children, no matter what. He rewards faithfulness. He forgives those who ask for it.  He defends the Israelites and his family from all who threaten them. When read from the viewpoint of the New Testament, David is the early, flawed prototype for Jesus.[9] David demonstrates not only how Yaweh loves the Israelites with infinite patience and compassion, but also the flaws of attempting to humanize or replace Yaweh’s place in their lives. David cannot replace Yaweh because David is also a human, is also flawed- but he can help people understand how the relationship between humans and Yaweh should be, and why humans should not wish to place a King between themselves and Yaweh.

Like many other Hebrew Scripture wives, Bathsheba is a marginalized and tragic figure. She has an affair with David- was it forced? No one knows, but the fact that she was ritually cleansing herself after menstruation is a neat bit of symbolism as to the severity of David’s transgression. She clearly has compassion, for she mourns both Uriah and the dead son, but once Solomon is born, she vanishes from the narrative. As with other treatments of women in the Hebrew Scriptures, Bathsheba’s role is to provide David with an heir- and once that function is accomplished she no longer matters to the narrative.   Nathan, too, is marginalized in this later part of David’s life. He serves only as the literary device to explain all of the horrible things that will befall David because of his transgression with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah.  These two characters exist as plot progression narratives, not as robust or interesting characters on their own.

Joab serves the literary function of David’s conscience and temperament. He is also clearly a skilled warrior, and much trusted by David, who sends Joab out at the head of the entire Israelite army numerous times.  Joab is extremely loyal to David, never seeking to overstep his relationship with David (such as when he calls David to finish the fight against Rabbah and so assume the glory in Chapter 12) or complaining about his complicity in arranging Uriah’s death, despite any personal objections or judgements. Joab also assists David even when David cannot see what is best, such as when he works to bring back Absalom when David’s grief is so great, and later, when Joab kills Absalom despite David’s plea. Joab knows Absalom must die to keep David safe- and that David cannot bring himself to harm his son.  Joab also criticizes David and reminds David of his deeper responsibility and duty to his people- that David cannot wallow and linger in his own grief and sorrow, but must lead his people, as he has been charged.[10]  It is difficult to understand Joab’s role when one views David as an allegory for Yaweh, but from a literary standpoint, Joab is the necessary muscle that allows the hero to remain untarnished and vulnerable. We would not like David much if he murdered Absalom- no matter how much we come to dislike Absalom by the end of the tale.  We admire Joab for his devotion, we are wary of his ruthlessness, and we are thankful Joab is on David’s side.

Absalom is such an interesting character. He beings so sympathetically- he is righteously outraged by the treatment of his sister, the abuse of his elder brother, and the seeming indifference of his father. The rest of the story, though, causes one to wonder: is this an act? It seems out of place for the Scriptures to place such a huge attachment of a male on a sister or daughter.  Indeed, avenging the stolen virtue of women is more of an excuse for other grievances of Israelite men, rather than justice for a woman abused. Assuredly, Simon and Levi slaughtered those at Sechem on pretense for Dinah’s rape- but since the rape had already been atoned and the marriage legalized, it was really about pride and wealth. Absalom is no different. He uses Tamar as his excuse to plot against Amnon, who stands between him and the throne.  He plots shamelessly against David while in exile and when brought back.  He is depicted as vain and spoiled- his countenance is beautiful, with long thick hair[11] and he feels entitled to treatment like a king. Burning Joab’s fields because Joab, who serves David- not Abaslom- is an ultimate mark of petty and cruel self-centeredness. It marks Absalom’s true nature, which is further revealed as Absalom plots against his father through the rest of the story. Like those who are unfaithful to Yaweh, Absalom initially seems reasonable and appealing to the Israelites, but ultimately he is utterly and completely destroyed.  Just as Yaweh forgives those who turn from him, David forgives Absalom- but just as Absalom died for his transgressions, so too are the unfaithful to Yaweh punished.

The story of David is one of my favorites, and one with which I am very familiar through another literary venue.  The novel, God Knows by Joseph Heller, is one of my favorite works, and the coloration of the characters that Heller paints is difficult for me to discard when I turn to scripture.  The timelessness of the story itself is evident in many literary works. King Lear, with his undying love of spiteful daughters, comes to mind- or any story where a father mourns for the unruly behavior of his children. In some ways, I believe the earlier stories of David- which are much more about a shining hero, endure with a mythic sense of grandiosity. Older David, though, endures in the secret hopes of every parent, who would forgive anything of their children, and in the secret fear we all have about God: why would he punish an innocent for our mistakes? What hope would we not hold that maybe God will yield and spare one we love so much.  As David says, there is always hope.

---

[1] 1 Samuel 8

[2] 2 Samuel 9

[3] 2 Samuel 10

[4] 2 Samuel 12

[5] 2 Samuel 14: 1-21

[6] 2 Samuel 10: 6

[7] 2 Samuel 13:37-39

[8] 2 Samuel 19: 1-4

[9] This is not the place for such a discussion, but I wonder if the depictions of Jesus by the Gospel writers deliberately left out depictions of family attachments as they sought to draw a comparison to David and Jesus, all the better emphasize the perfect Love of God (and Christ and the Holy Spirit.)  This idea comes to me from the suggestion in the Bradly Embry article, when he points out that major figures of the Scriptures are often contrasted against one another to better draw out the lessons from one or the other.

[10] 2 Samuel 19:5-7

[11] It is ironic that the same thick hair he prides himself on becomes his doom, as it ensnares him in the brambles. This is also interesting symbolism, since long and beautiful hair appears on those who are devout and sworn to God. We know Absalmon is not, because he cuts his hair twice a year, but the parallels to Sampson and to Absalom, weakened and ultimately killed because of their hair, is unmistakable.

MATL- God the Warrior

Prompt: The direct intervention of God in the lives of humanity, whether it be in the life of a single individual or on behalf of the Chosen People, is a long-standing point of theological discussion. Certainly, those who believe in God likely also believe that God works in the lives of individuals and on behalf of the Chosen, whereas those who do not believe in God likely struggle with this. As in all things, there are also those who live in the greylands, which is often where I find myself.  Accepting the direct intervention of God in the course of human events such as depicted in the stories of Joshua and Judges is difficult for me to rationalize and accept.  The stories sound like the same kind of religious accounts I refer to as myths or stories in other cultures- the Odyssey comes most readily to mind.  Then, too, one is left to ask: Was God in support of the Crusades? Does God support modern Israel against its many foes? Does God actually possess such human characteristics as spite and petulance, or are these anthropomorphic literary efforts undertaken to help an entire culture better understand their situation?

If we accept that God directly influences and interacts with humans, at any level, we are undertaking theology. We seek to discover the nature of these relationships and interactions, working from a foundational thesis that God exists and cares. In this regard, God may be quite different from other gods, who are depicted as ignoring their creations, or using humans for their own (often selfish and destructive) behaviors.  Since we are explicitly examining the Hebrew scriptures, the depiction of Yaweh (which, I think, is different than the depiction of God one receives when reading both the Hebrew bible and New Testament) as the sort of God who directly interferes in the course of history is both necessary and logical. There is always an element of "PR" to any religion- it must both persuade and hold the audience. The writers deliberately crafted stories about Yaweh as both a unilateral ally in war (assuming the faithful behavior of the Israelites…!) and a God that is deeply, profoundly interested in the lives of human creation - that loves creation. As a Hebrew living in exile, of course I can accept both depictions of God, because that God sounds much better than all the other gods out there! This God loves us, this God protects us, and this God asks only that we keep faithful in return.

As a modern reader, I do see the appeal of a God that is both righteous and caring. I prefer not to accept the idea that we  embrace one depiction of God and disregard the others, because I think that limits our understanding and the breadth of knowledge from which we can build our own theologies…but then, I do not usually take a literalist reading of any religious work. Do I believe God should be used in justification for war, genocide, slaughter…? Of course not. In this regard, I believe humans like to blame God for their own actions.  What starts as a creation legend becomes justification for bad behavior

Genuine engagement

The Disney Institute Blog (DI) is one of my favorite blogs to follow.  I was fortunate enough to attend one of their locally hosted workshops earlier this year and I hope someday to attend one of their larger leadership seminars in Orlando.

Today I read a piece that talks about genuine care of leaders for their employees as a critical component of a culture of care in the workplace.  The DI folks spend a lot of time emphasizing consistency as the key word within the concept. I agree with their thoughts, and I like the direction they steer the culture development, but I think this application is for people who are already well developed in their leadership style, and in cultures that already value care and are simply learning to better integrate care into their organization.

What about leaders who don’t have robust leadership toolkits, or organizations where the concept of a care culture is new or even alien? I’ve worked for some of the most well-known employers in the country, all of whom ranked in the Forbes Top 100 workplaces at the time I was employed there, and I honestly think less than half of them really embraced and integrated cultures of care at the time.    More recently, I spent time at an organization that prides itself on the integrity of its care culture and the commitment to employees and I’m currently employed at an organization whose very mission statement includes the concept of cura personalis. What I see over my career are a lot of leaders who know (or have been told) they need to show care for their employee, but they don’t really understand what it means.

I would argue, then, that while ‘consistent’ is a great word to include when offering continued development and refinement of leadership styles related to cultures of care, it is important to begin the leadership development process with the word ‘genuine.’  One problem with offering genuine care is that everyone interprets a genuine gesture differently, and every employee will have a different value structure or metric to evaluate the kind of care demonstrated for them by their employer. Employers can help develop employees to understand the kind of care culture they offer, and can thoughtfully recruit employees who fit their model, but ultimately the manager or leader must also spend time tailoring their output of effort into understanding what genuine care looks like for the individual.

Here’s a personal example. A co-worker recently lost a spouse following an unexpected and brief illness. This co-worker remained at work through most of the experience and returned to work only a few days after the funeral. One of our leaders, looking at their own concept of genuineness, decided to ‘chat’ with the employee about taking more time off while the spouse was ill “to enjoy the time left,” and staying home longer following the funeral. This was offered with the best of intentions- the leader truly believed they were helping the employee- but in actuality, the leader’s actions intruded on the employee’s needs. Instead of being a genuine care source, it became a source of insensitive leadership projecting their own values on another, causing the employee to feel shamed or judged in their work environment.

Let’s look at a less extreme example. A previous employer valued team building events highly as a source of morale, relationship building, and a way to impart culture to employees.  Sounds great, right? But the employer lacked the commitment to engage on meaningful and individual levels. Instead, team leaders were instructed to schedule mandatory ‘fun’ days for employees, given a set budget, and told to implement a one-size-fits-all solution. The problem? Not everyone can take a day off to have ‘fun’ and not all activities are one-size-fits-all.  Rock climbing, paint ball games, even pottery painting might all be acceptable activities- but without a source of genuine relationship between the leader and recipients, it feels forced and superficial. Employees often voiced feedback along the lines of, “Just give me the twenty bucks you spent or let me go home an hour early.”  Employees who feel their time is wasted by a leader demonstrating disingenuous care are not going to find the interactions satisfying, and some may even find them discouraging or demeaning. This is not the path to an engaged workforce. A well intentioned effort that lacks genuineness will still fail.  

This is a tricky challenge for leaders- they work hard just like everyone else, and asking them to take time to actively engage in meaningful ways with each employee on a personal and individual level can become an enormous undertaking. It is expensive from a labor standpoint, taking up time of the leader. It is emotionally expensive too, because the leader must engage on a personal level with their team, rather than keeping a measure of distance. However, if an organization truly believes that employees are assets rather than resources, the investment is worthwhile.  Organizations should teach their leaders how to be genuine- how to ask about value statements of their employees, and to solicit active feedback about what care looks like. Empowering the leadership to implement solutions appropriate for their team, and the individuals who make up the team, is crucial. The first step to integrating culture into the everyday lives of employees is to give them something to believe in…and that means, making it genuine.