Mystery: Beyond Understanding#yiv3031022403 p{margin:10px 0;padding:0;}#yiv3031022403 table{border-collapse:collapse;}#yiv3031022403 h1, #yiv3031022403 h2, #yiv3031022403 h3, #yiv3031022403 h4, #yiv3031022403 h5, #yiv3031022403 h6{display:block;margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv3031022403 img, #yiv3031022403 a img{border:0;height:auto;outline:none;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3031022403 body, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403bodyTable, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403bodyCell{min-height:100%;margin:0;padding:0;width:100%;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnPreviewText{display:none !important;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403outlook a{padding:0;}#yiv3031022403 img{}#yiv3031022403 table{}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ReadMsgBody{width:100%;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass{width:100%;}#yiv3031022403 p, #yiv3031022403 a, #yiv3031022403 li, #yiv3031022403 td, #yiv3031022403 blockquote{}#yiv3031022403 a .filtered99999 , #yiv3031022403 a .filtered99999 {color:inherit;cursor:default;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3031022403 p, #yiv3031022403 a, #yiv3031022403 li, #yiv3031022403 td, #yiv3031022403 body, #yiv3031022403 table, #yiv3031022403 blockquote{}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass p, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass td, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass div, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass span, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403ExternalClass font{line-height:100%;}#yiv3031022403 a .filtered99999 {color:inherit !important;text-decoration:none !important;font-size:inherit !important;font-family:inherit !important;font-weight:inherit !important;line-height:inherit !important;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403bodyCell{padding:10px;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403templateContainer{max-width:600px !important;border:5px solid #363232;}#yiv3031022403 a.yiv3031022403mcnButton{display:block;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImage, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnRetinaImage{vertical-align:bottom;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent{}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent img{height:auto !important;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnDividerBlock{table-layout:fixed !important;}#yiv3031022403 body, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403bodyTable{}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403bodyCell{border-top:0;}#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403templateContainer{border:5px solid #363232;}#yiv3031022403 h1{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:26px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 h2{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:22px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 h3{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:20px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 h4{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent a, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader{background-color:#FFFFFF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:0;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent a, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p a{color:#007C89;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody{background-color:#FFFFFF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:2px solid #EAEAEA;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent a, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p a{color:#007C89;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:center;}#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent a, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}@media only screen and (min-width:768px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403templateContainer{width:600px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 body, #yiv3031022403 table, #yiv3031022403 td, #yiv3031022403 p, #yiv3031022403 a, #yiv3031022403 li, #yiv3031022403 blockquote{}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 body{width:100% !important;min-width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnRetinaImage{max-width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImage{width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCartContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionTopContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnRecContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionBottomContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnTextContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnBoxedTextContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageGroupContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionLeftTextContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionRightTextContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionLeftImageContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionRightImageContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardLeftTextContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardRightTextContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardLeftImageContentContainer, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardRightImageContentContainer{max-width:100% !important;width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnBoxedTextContentContainer{min-width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageGroupContent{padding:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionLeftContentOuter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionRightContentOuter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent{padding-top:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardTopImageContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionBottomContent:last-child .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionBottomImageContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionBlockInner .yiv3031022403mcnCaptionTopContent:last-child .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent{padding-top:18px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardBottomImageContent{padding-bottom:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageGroupBlockInner{padding-top:0 !important;padding-bottom:0 !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageGroupBlockOuter{padding-top:9px !important;padding-bottom:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnBoxedTextContentColumn{padding-right:18px !important;padding-left:18px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardLeftImageContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnImageCardRightImageContent{padding-right:18px !important;padding-bottom:0 !important;padding-left:18px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcpreview-image-uploader{display:none !important;width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 h1{font-size:22px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 h2{font-size:20px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 h3{font-size:18px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 h4{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 .yiv3031022403mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader{display:block !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templatePreheader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{font-size:12px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateHeader .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateBody .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent, #yiv3031022403 #yiv3031022403templateFooter .yiv3031022403mcnTextContent p{font-size:12px !important;line-height:150% !important;}} | | | | View this email in your browser | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mystery: Beyond Understanding | | | | | | | | | | Essay by Dr. Carl Krieg September 2, 2021In our technological world, it may be difficult to believe that reason has its limits. Not that the accumulation of knowledge is limited or even limitable, but by definition there is that which is unknowable. Sometimes, the deeper we dig, the more profoundly aware we become that at the center of reality are dimensions that defy linear and logical analysis. Whether it be in the realm of science, quantum or cosmic, or in the realm of metaphysics, oftentimes mystery is the ultimate order of the day. Leaving science to the scientists, I would like to here consider two theological questions that defy logical analysis, one aspect of the nature of the biblical God [hereafter shortened to simply God, with a capital G] and one aspect of the nature of human beings. We are all familiar with the concept of god as a person. Such a god, male or female, exists some place in the universe and exhibits human characteristics, such as love, and perhaps anger. The deists thought that god created the universe and then retreated to somewhere to do something else. Such a god is not a god one relates to, but the image is there of one who exists as a person. So too for the god people pray to or turn to in daily devotion or non-daily disaster, sometimes asking for help, sometimes giving thanks. God is personal, loving and caring. That implies, of course, that god is involved with our lives, unlike the deist god who is absent. There is definitely an attraction to believing that god is a person with whom I can relate personally and individually. Such a god may be omnipotent or not, performing miracles and creating disasters or not, but at least a person to whom I can relate. The problem is that locating this god is difficult. The old man sitting on a throne seems a bit infantile. But where might this god be? On the other hand, one could believe that god is not a person, but rather the sum total of the universe. Not that the stuff of this world is god in a purely pantheistic sense, but that god inheres in reality and is the Ground of all that is. In distinction from deism and theism, the word panentheism is used to describe a divinity that can be personal but not a person. How that works is never really described convincingly, most likely because it can’t. Tillich tried in his “Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality” but whether he succeeded or not is debatable. The question remains: how does one attribute the concepts of love and caring to Being? Is god a person or being? If god is a person, where is this god located? Or, if god is a dimension of what is, how does one relate personally to this deity? The dilemma must resolve as dialectic, which is to say that we must say both truths, which is to say that we have moved on from linear logic to imponderable mystery. The reality of God as both person and as being transcends our ability to comprehend. That’s just how it is. The second issue pertains to human nature, and it comes in two parts. The first part pertains to how we got to be the way we are, and the second part deals with how we can escape the way we are. There are at least two approaches to these questions. St Augustine, followed by Luther and Calvin, was of the conviction that all of humanity suffered from a common disease. Taking the Yahwist story of the Garden literally, and thereby misinterpreting the meaning of the myth, Augustine concluded that all human beings had inherited from Adam and Eve original sin, a disease that was inescapable, universal, and damnable. Baptism washed the slate clean, and there was some special dispensation for those outside the influence of the Christian church who never got the opportunity to be baptized, but the problem was universal. Why we are the way we are, for Augustine, is a linear sequence. Adam was free, chose to eat the fruit, was cursed by God, and we suffer the consequences. That was not the Yahwist’s intent in writing the story, but it’s what we got. There really is no sense of mystery here. The cause of sin is logically explained. Continuing, we ask whether a person, by sheer force of will, is able to escape this original sin? As you might expect, the answers fall into two categories, yes and no, and the history of Western theology is replete with the arguments back and forth. Calvin was one who answered in the negative and brought this line of thinking to its logical conclusion: God predetermines who will receive grace and thereby escape eternal damnation. This is hardly a point of view that would challenge a person to live a more loving life, except that you never know if you are among the elect, so you better keep trying. Some escaped that uncertainty by arguing that God favored the elect with financial success, which, of course, put a knowing smirk on the face of the wealthy. On the other hand, those who argued in the affirmative, asserting that all persons do have the power to escape original sin, have a tough time explaining why the world is in such a mess. And on a personal level, we can probably all agree that all too often we do not live up to our best intentions. The problem with Augustine’s framing of the situation is that the problem is described in a linear and logical fashion, and therefore the solution to our problem is described linearly as well. The choice is either grace or free will. Setting aside the concept of original sin, there is another way to frame the question. I have written often describing how our human nature matures. [See The Void and the Vision.] Briefly, we come into the world bombarded with sensation and we must make some sense out of it. Our brain begins to organize and categorize the sensory input coming our way, building a structure of interpretation, and voila, we all create our own world. We see reality with our own special spectacles. That process seems pretty much agreed upon, but there is more. Given that we relate to other people, and given that those other people have created their own little world just as I have, we have two ways to relate. I can either assume that I am right and everyone else is at least mostly wrong, or I can realize my own narrow-minded limitations and try to learn from others, thereby slowly overcoming my self-contained world and rounding out my own perception of reality. Given those two choices, one might assume that a certain percentage of us would go one way and the remainder would go the other, all things being equal. But that is not what happens. We all choose the same outcome. We all apparently have an egocentricity problem, and by that I mean that we proceed along a personal natural process by which we are enabled to make sense out of the external reality. At some level, we all absolutize the little world we have created, unable to understand and accept that other folks perceive and think differently. And that’s the puzzle: what’s wrong with us? There is no requirement that we develop in a self-contained fashion and thereby diminish our perception, but it happens to everyone. There is no necessity that this process should be inevitable. Why this is so transcends our understanding, but there it is. Given this universality of world-creation, the next question pertains to whether or not we have the power to escape or to not absolutize one’s world? Or does one need God’s help to accomplish that? There are plenty of folks who believe that we do have the power to escape our world and overcome our self containment. My own personal answer is to say that we need God’s help, and that this help comes in those moments of self-transcendence, moments in which we are temporarily liberated from our confinement. [Again, see my book, The Void and the Vision.] But even there, as the moments come, there must be some dimension of our being that is open to receive them. And thereby mystery re-enters the situation. We need God’s help, and we must be open and accepting. Both are necessary. There is no logical explanation. That’s just the way it is. Taking this all together, in the original sin model, a linear description of the problem produces linear answers, and we are forced to choose between free will and grace. One or the other. In the brain development model, although we don’t inherit a disease, we do come into the world with a neuronal sequence that mysteriously and inevitably leads to the development of a private and self-contained worldview, escape from which involves an interaction of personal will and divine grace. Not either/or, but both/and. With respect to the two issues we have considered, divine nature and human nature, we conclude then that both are a mystery. At the most basic level, both we and God defy logical analysis, and we must rest content in that knowledge, or lack thereof. Resting content implies a certain quiet and peace, suggesting that perhaps the best way to relate to the mystery is simply to acknowledge it and be still.~ Dr. Carl Krieg Read online here About the Author Dr. Carl Krieg received his BA from Dartmouth College, MDiv from Union Theological Seminary in NYC and PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is the author of What to Believe? the Questions of Christian Faith and The Void and the Vision. As professor and pastor, Dr. Krieg has taught innumerable classes and led many discussion groups. He lives with his wife Margaret in Norwich, VT. | | | | | | | | Question & Answer Q: By A Reader Do you believe in the power of prayer? A: By Rev. Deshna Shine Dear Reader,I believe in energy. I believe in the physics theory that no energy is ever lost in the universe. I believe thoughts are energy, and even more so, that words are energy. Science has discovered that all human matter and physiology are made up of energy. What I am certain of is prayer changes the person praying. Our thoughts in prayer (or anything we spend time focusing our brains on) become written into the neural connections of our brains. As Bruce Lipton, a biologist, writes, “The cells in your body react to everything that your mind says.” (1) When we pray, the frontal lobes of our brain are activated and the parietal lobes go dormant. This is the area of our brain that takes our sensory information and creates a sense of self, orienting that self in the world. When that part goes dormant, we can lose a sense of self. If we are praying and connecting with what we feel to be God, or Spirit, during that time we can feel a sense of sacred oneness, a blurring of the lines between self and other. (2) There are also many scientific studies that show words have energy and can affect living beings being spoken to. Plants exposed to kind words grow more and are healthier than ones who experience silence or negative words. A Japanese scientist and water researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto studied the effects on water from sound vibrations and specifically human emotional sound vibrations. Using high speed photography, he found that words of love and gratitude formed beautiful geometric shapes in the water crystals and that negative words on the same water in another sample destroyed the shapes and formed broken, smashed crystals. (3) Who knows if God hears our prayers… I certainly have no idea. But god within me certainly does and the life around me certainly does and for that reason prayer remains a powerful way to shift the energy both in and around us.~ Rev. Deshna Shine Read and share online here About the Author Rev. Deshna Shine is Project Director of ProgressiveChristianity.org’s Children’s Curriculum. She is an ordained Interfaith Minister, author, international speaker, and visionary. She grew up in a thriving progressive Christian church and has worked in the field for over 13 years. She graduated from UCSB with a major in Religious Studies and a minor in Global Peace and Security. She was Executive Director of ProgressiveChristianity.org, Executive Producer of Embrace Festival and has co-authored the novel, Missing Mothers. Deshna is passionate about sacred community, nourishing children spiritually and transforming Christianity through a radically inclusive lens. 1 https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FINDING-MY-RELIGION-Bruce-Lipton-cell-33... https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1043104433 https://dailytimes.com.pk/291794/the-science-behind-power-of-words/ | | | | | | | | Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together.Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Your support is helping expand Progressive Christianity. Read that again. I hope it makes you feel as hopeful as it makes me feel. ProgressiveChristianity.org is one of the largest sources for progressive theological perspectives as well as resources. It's hard to overstate its value (and I believed that long before I worked here!). Our social media outlets are also amazing spaces for meeting and connecting with other Progressive Christians. Every time one of you donates or makes a reoccurring donation, it expands our ability to do all those essential offerings even better. And that, gives me hope! So please, if you are able, consider making a donation or a reoccurring donation to ProgressiveChristianity.org. Every time you do, you are helping Progressive Christianity reach more people with valuable resources and, we believe, making the world a little better for all of us. Thank you! Rev. Mark Sandlin, President Help keep ProgressiveChristianity.org online and going strong - click here to donate today! * Another way to support us is to leave a bequest in your Will and/or Trust designating us a beneficiary. | | | | | | | | Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited Examining the Story of the Cross, Part V: Barabbas – Another Interpretive Figure Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong April 7, 2011In Mark’s original story of the Passion of Jesus, he introduces for the first time in any written Christian record the figure of Barabbas. In this story we are told two things: First, it was a Roman custom to release a prisoner at the feast of the Passover, one whose freedom the people desired. Second, the Roman authorities were holding a prisoner whose name was Barabbas, who had been part of an insurrection in which a murder had been carried out. In occupied Judah an insurrection might be an act of terror against the oppressive rule of Rome where Roman soldiers and Jews who collaborated with the Romans were regarded as targets for death. It does not have quite the same meaning that we might have in our society when a person is designated a murderer. In Mark’s narrative, nonetheless, the crowd asks to have Barabbas not Jesus released to them. When Pilate asked what then should he do with Jesus of Nazareth, the response of the crowd was “Crucify him! Crucify him! The first hint I had that this story might be something other than history came when I decided to research this supposed custom of the Romans freeing a prisoner at the Passover. I could find no reference to such a custom anywhere in either in Roman records or Jewish records. This Marcan narrative appears to be the only place where such a “custom” was mentioned. One-time customs are always a bit suspicious. Next I looked at the name ‘Barabbas.’ I am not fluent in either Hebrew or Aramaic, but I do know the meaning of many Hebrew and Aramaic words. Barabbas contains the familiar term for God – Abba. It was the name Jesus, somewhat uniquely, was said to use for God. It is a name that has an intimate, deeply personal connotation about it. So the last half of Barabbas’ name turns out to be nothing less than the word for God. Turning then to the first part of the name we discover that “bar” is also a familiar Jewish word. It means “son.” Jesus says to Peter at Caesarea Philippi, “Blessed are you Simon, bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed these things to you.” Bar-Jonah means son of Jonah. The name “Bartimaeus,” in the account of the restoring of sight to Bartimaeus, means the son of Timaeus. So the name Barabbas literally means “son of God.” So Mark was telling us in his story of the passion of Jesus that at the time of the crucifixion, there were two figures, not just one, about whom the “son of God” claim was being made, one was Jesus and the other was Barabbas, so the intrigue builds. As this passion drama played out one son of God, namely Jesus, was killed, while the other son of God, Barabbas, was set free. With this distinction now clearly worked out, my mind began to roam over the Jewish liturgical terrain against which I now was beginning to understand that the story of the crucifixion was written, and new possibilities began to open that a literal reading of these texts would never be imagined. Let me develop a few of these possibilities. Jesus was called in the early days of the Christian movement “The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” In Jewish worship tradition, two holy days required the sacrifice of an animal, normally a lamb. One was Passover where the blood of the paschal lamb was placed on the doorposts of Jewish homes in order to repel the power of death. We have already observed in this series on the passion of Jesus the way in which the Passover shaped the story of the cross. There was, however, another Jewish holy day in which another animal, again normally a lamb, was sacrificed for the sins of the people. It was called Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement, which came on the tenth day of the Jewish month of Tishri, which would place it in October in our calendar. It is that liturgical observance that I want to examine in this study. In the traditional observance of Yom Kippur, two animals are brought to the High Priest. They could be lambs or goats, but as the tradition developed it tended to be one of each. These animals in this liturgy represented what human beings yearned to be. The people felt a need to come into to God’s presence, but considered themselves unworthy to do so. So they developed a liturgical act which employed a symbol of the perfection they felt they lacked. That is why this lamb had to be physically perfect, with no scratches, scars or broken bones, and since the lamb was thought to live below the level of human freedom and could not, therefore, choose to do evil, it was also assumed to be morally perfect. So on the Day of Atonement the people came to God through the symbol of the perfect Lamb of God. As this liturgical act developed the first of these animals was taken by the High Priest and slaughtered as a sacrifice. Then armed with the blood of the perfect Lamb of God, the High Priest would enter the part of the Temple known as the Holy of Holies, where God was believed to dwell. The throne of God inside the Holy of Holies was called the Mercy Seat. The High Priest would proceed to smear the blood of this lamb onto the Mercy Seat. The understanding was that sinful people could now come into the presence of God “through the blood of the Lamb of God.” Atonement was achieved at least liturgically and estrangement was overcome. Next, the other animal, normally a goat, was brought to the High Priest. Bowing over the goat with his hands on the goat’s horns, the High Priest would begin to confess the sins of the people. The symbolism here was that all of the sins of the people came out of the people and landed on the head and back of the goat, making the goat the “sin bearer,” thus leaving the people sinless and again at one with God. Then as the bearer of the people’s sins, the goat was thought to be so evil and unworthy of continued life that the gathered worshipers pronounced curses on it and called for its death. The goat, however, was not put to death, but was set free and driven into the wilderness taking the sins of the people with it. The goat was called the “scapegoat” in the Bible because it had to pay the price and suffer the affliction due to others for their sins. So in the Yom Kippur liturgy there were two animals representing the deepest aspirations of the human race for oneness with God. One was killed and its blood placed between God and sinful human lives. One was set free, carrying with it the sins of the people. Is it possible that in Mark’s original story of the crucifixion that he wrote into his narrative quite deliberately the symbols of Yom Kippur and used them to interpret the death of Jesus? In Mark’s passion story two people called the son of God are present, Jesus of Nazareth and the fictional Barabbas. As such they matched the two animals of Yom Kippur in that one was sacrificed and the other set free. The blood of the first was said to be the means whereby sinful people could have their sins covered by passing through the blood of the lamb of God. The other animal by being set free became the sin bearer, who carried the sins of the people away. Both aspects of Yom Kippur were seen by Mark to be part of the meaning of Jesus. The story line he is following seems to suggest this. In the Yom Kippur liturgy the sin bearer was cursed by the people and they called for its death. Is this not reflected in Mark’s story when Jesus is condemned to die and is made to hear the curses of the people and the calls: “Crucify him, Crucify him! If that analysis rings true, it would be one more indication that Mark, who wrote this first version of the crucifixion in the eighth decade of the Christian era knew that he was not writing history and it never occurred to him that anyone would ever read these words literally. He was interpreting the death of Jesus under the recognized symbols of Jewish worship. Jewish people attending the synagogue would recognize what he was doing and would hear and understand his words as Mark intended them to be heard and understood. Passover clearly was used to interpret the death of Jesus while Yom Kippur provided the background to the symbolic language which the gospel writer employed. Barabbas was thus a symbol not a person. This interpretive process worked well so long as most of the Christian readers of the gospels were Jewish and were thus familiar with Jewish liturgy. By the middle of the second century of the Common Era, however, the Christian Church had become predominantly Gentile. They did not know, understand or even care to learn about the Jewish symbols of worship. When Gentiles began to read the gospels they assumed that Mark was writing literal history. Over the centuries, their literalized understandings of the story of the cross were expressed in their hymns, creeds, doctrines, art and particularly in the” Stations of the Cross.” Without a Jewish background they knew of no other way to read them. With the advent of critical biblical scholarship in the early years of the 19th century, doubts began to be raised about their literal and historical accuracy. That was when creeds and faith began to wobble. How, people wondered, does the death of Jesus free us from our sins today? Is that not the claim that literal reading Christians still try to make? Does not this assertion, however, transform God into a punishing ogre, the ultimate child abuser who kills the divine son in order to forgive our sins? Does this make logical sense? Armed with this new insight we can now look anew at all of the symbols in the crucifixion story. Was there really darkness at noon on the day of the crucifixion? Did the veil in the Temple really split from top to bottom between the holy place and the Holy of Holies when Jesus died? Did Jesus really quote from Psalm 22 from the cross? Literalizing the story destroys the meaning of every detail. If one is not able to believe these literalized symbols, the only alternative here is to give up the story altogether. So mindless fundamentalism and secular humanism become the only two possibilities. What a shallow treatment of this magnificent Jewish portrait this is. The Passion story is much more than that.~ John Shelby Spong | | | | | | | | Announcements New Windows on The Cloud of Unknowing September 6, 2021 - October 1, 2021 In this one-month e-course, Bourgeault opens these new windows on The Cloud of Unknowing, showing how a medieval text can be profoundly relevant to our own times. READ ON ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |