Better Than Believing

Speaking of God

When skeptical people take an interest in church, they often have found themselves not only longing for God but also wanting to find a way that they can talk about God without jeopardizing their integrity. When such people try out a progressive church, they may be a little puzzled by the fact that church members do not talk much about what they believe concerning God. The question of believing does not seem to interest them very much. A visitor my need a time of careful listening to discover what different sorts of Christians mean when they speak of God.

When Christians speak of God, they may be talking about what Stephen Hawking had in mind when he announced that the universe began with an intensely concentrated bit of matter about the size of a shriveled pea. Then came the big bang and everything that followed. When they talk about God, Christians may be speaking about their sense of awe and amazement when they wonder how everything came to be.

Or it may be that when they speak of God, they are talking about the way human beings recognize how the world is, as opposed to the way they know the world ought to be. We know the world is a terrible mess—filled with crime, war, catastrophe and disaster—and we know it ought to be filled with justice and peace. When they talk about God, Christians may be referring to whatever process planted in their minds an awareness of what is as opposed to what ought to be. When they talk about God, followers of Jesus also may be speaking about the ability they have to adopt metaphors that take them further toward the way they know the world ought to be.

The God metaphor preferred by many Christians is the one that appears in the gospel of John: “God is love.” John, or the editor who used his name, did not say that God is loving or that God gives us love, but that God is love. The composer James Quinn caught the spirit of this figure of speech when he wrote:

God is love,

And where true love is

God himself is with us.

Even people who dislike using male pronouns for God can appreciate Quinn’s observation: followers of Jesus often talk about an experience of love as if it were an experience of God. People of various persuasions who do not believe in God may see that Christians choosing to think of God as love can have a positive influence on society. They are bound to judge all their actions by the standard of the greatest love for the greatest number of people. They must try to make the world around them a more loving place.

Love may not always be the dominant theme of experiences that Christians associate with God. One of these different themes is glue. They may not use the metaphor “glue”, but most of them will speak of God in reference to occasions when they felt like they might have fallen apart, but did not. Looking back on the worst week in his life, a young father whose daughter was diagnosed with leukemia a few days after he lost his job, wondered how he had ever managed to cope without going to pieces. Most Christians would describe such an experience by saying they felt that God must have been with them. The young father meant much the same thing when he reported that God was the glue that held him together during the ordeal.

Another way in which church people speak of God is in reference to the “You” to whom they direct their prayers. They do not have to believe that God is really out there listening, or that God intervenes in nature or in human affairs, for prayer to be a sustaining practice in their lives. When they speak about God, they simply may be talking about developing the capacity to name their deepest fears, their greatest longings, their most intense anger, and their fondest hopes. They also may be talking about the “You” to whom they address all that is trivial and mean about themselves. Once a psychiatrist, Joe Tarantolo, spoke to his congregation about “the God to whom I pray and whine”. Many Christians whine in their prayers. Down deep inside they feel that they are something that others don’t want to know: petty and mean. God is where they can direct their pettiness and meanness. They realize that only in prayer do they have the capacity to approach the truth about themselves with something like honesty.

God is also the "You" to whom they give thanks as a way of reminding themselves that all the good coming their way is largely the result of random luck. Both anger and thanks can be the result of the same experience. I was thinking about retiring early in order to get on with building a network of  progressive Christians, but I didn’t have quite enough money. Then my older sister died and left me half of her retirement fund. At the very same time in my prayers, God was the one to whom I directed outrage over my sister’s dying so young and the one whom I thanked for the money that opened the way for new possibilities in my life. I don’t think God killed my sister so that I could have a good life in my old age. But in my prayers, I hold God accountable for her death because I feel that somebody should be required to answer for this injustice.

Often when Christians speak of God, they are talking about their desire for justice and accountability in this world. God is the one to whom they can direct all their rage over what went wrong so that their anger won’t leak out onto somebody who bears no responsibility for an illness or an accident. Then they are free to use the energy of their anger in positive ways.

All these examples of what progressive Christians might intend when they speak of God could be summarized by the observation of  Canon Tony Barnard, former Canon Chancellor of England’s Lichfield Cathedral: “God is that which gives meaning and purpose to my life.”

Critical thinkers, who normally shy away from church, may find that progressive and liberal Christians help each other in the search for meaning by talking openly about what they have in mind when they speak of God. As a rule, such Christians welcome skeptical people to join them in honest talk about God. Church people and skeptical people are often able to encourage each other in their mutual quest for truth.

Against a Theology of Ecology

   The Declaration produced by the Environmental Commission of the Diocese of British Columbia stated the hope that it would “bear witness to the wider church and to others beyond the Christian faith”. While the Declaration might be convincing to believers, I doubt if it would make much sense to secular people.

   The primary objection to the declaration likely to be raised by secular people centers on your claim that God’s original design of creation was one of “order and perfection” (Declaration 8) and reflected “God’s original love and harmony” (Declaration 10). Instead, any careful observer of nature is bound to find ample evidence disorder, imperfection, cruelty, and discord. Charles Darwin expressed this observation most clearly when he wrote to a friend:

“I own I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd. wish to, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae (a family of wasps) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”  

    Perhaps Christians do not have any feelings for the caterpillars that are eaten from the inside out by the wasp larvae. They may not even react when seeing a cat torturing a mouse. I wonder, however, why Christians who feel “called to respect all life forms” have no sympathy for the seals slaughtered by the polar bears or the deer ripped apart and devoured by wolves. I wonder if they might react to the behavior of chimpanzees described in the Science section of the New York Times by Michael Wilson, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota:

“When they’re hunting red colobus monkeys, they will either kill the monkeys first or simply immobilize them and start eating them while they’re still alive,” Dr. Wilson said. “The monkey will continue screaming and thrashing as they pull its guts out, which is very unpleasant for humans who are watching.”

      Order? Perfection? Love? Harmony? Alfred Lord Tennyson may not have witnessed the horrifying scene of chimpanzees tearing the innards out of a live monkey, but he must have been disturbed by what he knew about the natural behavior of predators and raptors when he wrote of man,

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed   (In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850)

    Even the ancients recognized the disorder, imperfection, cruelty, and discord in nature. By way of contrast, a prophet offered a vision of nature the way he thought it ought to be:

The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.  (Isaiah 11:6-7)

    Although the possibility of wolves, bears, leopards, and lions becoming total vegetarians seems remote, the vision of animals living at peace with one another has had a strong appeal to people who are appalled by the nastiness of nature in the wild. Edward Hicks (1780-1849) portrayed nature the way it ought to be in his now famous painting entitled “Peaceable Kingdom”. The difference between the painting and reality could not be more obvious. The painting asserts that something is definitely wrong with nature. And whose fault is that?

    The Environmental Commission of your diocese has declared that environmental problems are the fault of human beings who “introduce disorder into God’s creation” (Declaration 7). The “original design of order and perfection” was “distorted when humans placed themselves at the centre of Creation” (Declaration 8). Although human beings certainly can have a negative impact on the environment, they did not introduce disorder. Scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould have shown that disorder has been the norm since earth came into being. Moreover, no reputable scientist accepts the idea that the earth was formed according to an original design, so no prior order and perfection existed for human beings to distort. I am afraid that any secular person educated in the sciences would find the Environmental Declaration to be based on faulty premises.

    Equally unacceptable are some of the “thoughts” included with the Declaration, such as: “All parts of the Creation are good because they are created by God.” Try convincing a person suffering from HIV/AIDS that all retroviruses are good or a person with malaria that all parasites are good. Unless you believe that a loving God lovingly designed these little life forms to cull the human herd, you will probably conclude that many parts of nature are not good at all. They are the enemies of the larger life forms, and human beings must continue the work of eradicating the pathogens that bring sickness, misery, and death.

    Although I doubt that any genuinely secular person would be persuaded by the Declaration, I imagine that any committed environmentalist would be happy to see religious groups urging their members to take responsibility for the well-being of the planet. Cooperation is possible between Christians and secular people in preserving or restoring a healthy environment. Such cooperation, however, often depends on mutual respect. If we Christians want the respect of evolutionary biologists and ecologists, however, I think we should be careful in our use of theological language. Using words like “God” and “design” and “Creation” in the same sentence immediately brings to mind the notion of Intelligent Design being promoted by fundamentalists, who used to call their theory “Creation Science”. The situation in Canada may be different, but here in the U.S. the Christian fundamentalists never tire in their attempts to undermine the science curriculum in our public schools.

    I think that Christians would have more positive influence on the environment if they laid aside the language of creation and concentrated on personal and collective responsibility. In other words, I think that we would be more effective in our defense of the planet if we stressed morality rather than theology. Nonbelievers rightfully expect religious people to take moral positions on public policy, which is something we can do without using God to justify our conclusions. We would not be doing violence to the principle of loving one’s neighbor as oneself if we stretched the obligation to include future generations and other life forms.

churchspeak

In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell introduced to the world a fictional language that he called “Newspeak”. This imaginary language reflected Orwell’s view that English was developing pretentious diction and meaningless words that undermine logical thinking. In the novel, the political leaders exploit this tendency by using Newspeak to subjugate and control the general populace. 

Religious leaders in the real world may not be able to control their congregations by using distortions of language, but they can influence the behavior of the unwary by twisting words in ways that benefit themselves primarily. This self-serving rhetoric is generally known today as “Churchspeak”. Most websites that post translations of Churchspeak, however, treat this artificial language as a benign phenomenon—and well they might since most of them are maintained by religious organizations. They present Churchspeak as the rather amusing jargon used by insiders to establish their place in the institution. Typical of this light-hearted approach is the Web posting, Get your Apse out of my narthex! “A churchspeak for dummies”. 

A careful consideration of some Churchspeak suggests that perhaps not all this ecclesiastical rhetoric is as harmless as advertised. Many of the expressions have meanings quite different from standard English, and many metaphors are used in ways that are directly contrary to biblical usage. 

stewardship = giving your money to the church

In standard English, “property management” comes closest to the church’s usage of stewardship. While the term is no longer popular in the world of business and finance, conservationists often use it when discussing general responsibility for forests and wetlands. In neither case, however, do the stewards get to decide what portion of the income should be returned to the owner of the property. Even if they did, the analogy fails when we get to the question of the rightful owner of the church-goers’ property or the rightful recipient of their wages. The answer to the question of who has the financial rights is always “God”, but who gets the money is always the church.

In the Bible, the Greek word for steward is oikonomos, literally house manager. In  I Corinthians 4:1-2 , we read that the followers of Jesus are to be “stewards of God’s mysteries”.  With I Peter 4:10, we learn that they are “stewards of the manifold grace of God”. Titus 1:7-9 says that “a bishop, as God’s steward” is responsible for preaching “sound doctrine”. Stewards of mystery, grace, and doctrine, but nowhere do we find that Christians are stewards of money or property. It is also interesting to note that the Gospel according to Luke presents a rather dim view of an oikonomos in a parable attributed to Jesus. Perhaps because of the growing popularity of using “stewardship” in church fundraising, the NRSV, unlike the KJV, translates the Greek word in Luke 16:1-8 as dishonest “manager” instead of “steward”. 

tithe = giving one tenth of your income or produce to the church

Although few mainline Protestant or Catholic churches actually receive a tenth of their people’s income or produce, they continue to bring up this peculiar standard, perhaps to show the people in the pews what cheapskates they are. When the church introduced the tithe in Britain, it was not a standard for voluntary giving but a tax on those who farmed church lands. Evidence for the practice still exists in the many tithe barns that once held the church’s share of the grain. The biblical precedent for this practice is apparently the system reported in Numbers 18:24, which describes a tax to support the landless Levites who managed the rituals at cult sites throughout Israel and Judah. The only mention of the tithe in the specifically Christian parts of the Bible is a mockery of the practice in a diatribe against the Pharisees found in Matthew 23:23.

 

God called me = I want to be ordained.

discernment = Perhaps you misunderstood.

Theoretically, since ancient times the church has taught that it is God’s business to fill the ranks of the clergy. The people whom God has chosen are supposed to get the message and present themselves to the appropriate authorities. Fifty years ago, when clergy were in short supply, few candidates were asked about their “call” until the ritual of ordination. During the Vietnam war, when draft boards were breathing down the necks of college graduates, more people sought ordination than the church could accommodate, so the church authorities put in place elaborate screening systems. At every step in the process, committees and commissions quizzed aspirants about “the call”. Naturally, the more they had to defend their call, the more aspirants felt that they knew God’s will and the less open they were to the opinions of other people.

Often, when the church turned them down, the aspirants became enraged or depressed or both. In order to soften the blow, church authorities began to substitute the word “discernment” for “screening”. That was a curious choice, inasmuch as in the Christian tradition discernment was “perception in the absence of judgment with a view to obtaining spiritual direction and understanding” (The New Oxford American Dictionary; emphasis mine). Because the various interviewers had responsibility for evaluating the aspirants’ qualifications to prepare for ordination, calling the process “discernment” is clearly a case of the church authorities making judgments but trying to avoid responsibility for upsetting the people they reject. 

formation instead of education

While education is highly regarded in this country, formation has primarily negative connotations when it comes to human beings. While education connotes active participation, formation is passive, requiring no involvement on the part of that which is being formed. The New Oxford American Dictionary gives four examples of formation: the Great Rift Valley, clouds, the formal arrangement of military aircraft or troops, and an assemblage of rocks.  “Formation” suggests that the church intends to press people into molds so that they will more closely resemble what the church wants them to be.

The growing popularity of the term formation among Christians runs counter to our culture. The promise of education beckons us. It reminds us that, according to the gospels, the first followers of Jesus referred to him primarily as their teacher, didaskolos or rabbi. They referred to themselves as disciples, mathetai—literally those who learn. If church leaders genuinely mean by “formation” what the church used to call “education”, at least in this instance, they should abandon Churchspeak in favor of standard English.

WHAT IS BETTER THAN BELIEVING?

Some people who cannot accept church doctrines and dogmas have found other things in Christian congregations that may be better than believing:

 

• Being part of an extended family with "brothers and sisters" who care about you.

• Participating in the life of a community where your concerns make a difference.

• Locating companions with whom you can work to help bring to the world a greater measure of social, economic, and environmental justice.

• Finding your roots in the rituals and traditions of a people with a history.

• Growing in awareness of your personal values and your potential as a human being.

• Increasing your capacity for open and honest relationships with other people.

• Approaching God directly through disciplined meditation and prayer.

• Having a place to celebrate the joys of birth, marriage, and success as well as to find support in the tragedies of death, divorce, and failure.
  
  

The first version of this list appeared in a 1974 flier circulated by St. Mark's Episcopal Church on Washington, DC's Capitol Hill, the congregation I served as rector 1966-1996.

Presidents' Day and the Glorification of War

    My friends who oppose the war that the United States is waging in Iraq may not fully appreciate the enormity of the task they have undertaken.  They are trying to alter the soul or personality of their country, which was founded on the principle that killing people is an honorable way to solve economic and political differences.  If you do not agree with my assessment, I suggest that you consider the contribution of the two presidents whom we extol on the third Monday in February.
    The first, George Washington, led what began as a tax-payers’ revolt and which evolved into a rebellion against the duly constituted authority of the crown and parliament.  Most historians agree, that the protests over taxes were based on the colonists’ rights as Englishmen and that as Englishmen they were probably better off than the ordinary people living in Great Britain. The armed rebellion was supported by a minority faction of disgruntled people who resented the taxes being and restrictions on trade imposed by a distant authority.  At the Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1775, Washington was one of those who most favored war to settle their grievances.  Why else did her appear in full military uniform at every session?1  I cannot help but wonder what his attitude might have been if the British authorities had not rejected his petition for a commission in their regular army.
    When the news reached Europe that the Continental Congress had issued an elaborate justification for the war—dated July 4, 1776—the wording of the document produced everything from smirks to scorn: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” How could the American colonists themselves take seriously such a statement knowing that one in every five people in the colonies lived as a chattel slave?
    A sufficient number of men, however, were willing to put aside questions of justice and morality and follow Washington to a war in which 25,000 of them were killed.  The dead represented approximately 1% of the 2,500,000 estimated population of the time.  According to reports, the British and their Hessian mercenaries lost nearly as many.  Two results of this war that claimed 50,000 lives get little attention on Presidents’ Day. 
    The first is that the separation of the United States from Britain allowed for the continuation of slavery in this country for decades after the heinous practice had been stopped throughout the empire.  Parliament abolished slavery in 1833.  By contrast, in this country slavery continued until 1865, enshrined in the Constitution, which declared every slave to be three-fifths of a human being.
    The second result of the bloody rebellion was the establishment of a tradition in which war is glorified as a means of settling economic and political disputes.  It was this tradition that made possible citizen support for another war with Britain in 1812 and the war in which we stole the northern Mexican provinces,1846-1848.
    The tradition of glorifying war also made possible the actions of the other president whom we honor in February, Abraham Lincoln.  In their reflections on the Mexican War, President Lincoln and his Secretary of State William Seward agreed that “one fundamental principle of politics is to be always on the side of your country in war.  It kills any party to oppose a war.”2
    Even Lincoln’s admirers question his claims to have constitutional authority for launching the war against the Confederate States and for his suspension of habeas corpus.  Even they admit that he spurned the delegations from the South seeking a way to a peaceful settlement.  Because of the terrible guilt the nation rightly suffers for allowing slavery, people forget that Lincoln’s war initially was not about slavery but about forcing the southern states to stay in the Union.  As Lincoln famously wrote to Horace Greeley:

    “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.  What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the Union.”

   True to his word, in 1863 in order to discourage England’s entry into the war on the Confederate side, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which in fact freed no slaves at all.  He simply declared that the slaves within the states and parts of states still in rebellion were free.  That is, Lincoln proclaimed the freedom only of the slaves who were currently beyond the protection of the federal government.  The slaves in the Union and in the parts of the South under federal control were still the property of their white owners.
    The war was about the right of states to secede from the Union, a right established by the Declaration of Independence, a right asserted by South Carolina as early as 1833, a right claimed by the New England states several times in the nineteenth century.  To deny the right of secession, Lincoln sent over 600,000 young men to their deaths.
    Without our tradition of glorifying war, I doubt that Mr. Bush could have garnered enough support to launch his invasion of Iraq.  To my friends who want to put an end to this cruel and immoral war, I say let us put a stop to the glorification of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.  Let us stop the glorification of the two presidents whose support made these wars possible.

1. Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency George Washington, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p.69
2. quoted by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005), p. 546

Back to the Middle Ages?

                                                    1.
    When I read about Pope Benedict quoting a fourteenth-century Christian’s attack on the integrity of Islam, I thought to myself, “How appropriate.”  Western civilization seems to be drifting back to a mind set that was the norm before the age of reason.  Trying to strengthen support for the church or for “Christian” governments by stirring up animosity toward Muslims is just one example.

                                                    2.
    Another is the preference for religious ideology over scientific inquiry.  For example: the refusal to accept the evidence of climate change brought about by the release of green house gases, the refusal of the FDA to accept the recommendations of their advisory panel of scientists in regard to the “morning after” pill, the refusal of the administration to support stem cell research, and the refusal to accept evolution and the transmutation of species as the basis for the understanding of biology.  Somehow the responses to Copernicus and Galileo come to mind.

                                                     3.
    The use of torture in attempts to extract information and confessions has come back into fashion.  I thought that with the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791, at least in this country, we accepted the principle that no person could be compelled to be a witness against himself.  If the principle doesn’t hold any longer for non-citizens, how long will it be before any accused person can be put on the rack?

                                                    4.
    Although the right of habeas corpus may not have been as firmly established by the Magna Carta in 1215 as I was taught in high school, the principle was deemed to be sufficiently important to be embodied in the 1789 Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 9).  When I read that the new national security laws permit the government to deny habeas corpus to green card holders, I thought of my son-in-law Slavčo, and my blood ran cold.  He has black hair and a dark complexion.  All it would take for him to be locked up indefinitely without recourse to the courts would be for someone to accuse him of having a terrorist connection.  Locking up suspicious people indefinitely was a primary way for the church and the king to maintain order in the middle ages and earlier in human history.

                                                      5.
    Tax farming was common in biblical days and continued to be practiced for centuries, but I never expected to see in this country contractors making a living by a percentage of the back taxes that they can extract from helpless delinquents.  Although the government could increase tax revenues more efficiently by expanding the number of IRS agents, that approach would go against the promise to slim down the federal government.  The government would probably net $1.1 billion from private debt collectors over 10 years, compared with the $87 billion that could be reaped if the agency hired more revenue officers, as former commissioner Charles O. Rossotti has recommended.

God and Katrina

While many struggle to make sense of the devastation to the U. S. Gulf Coast produced by the hurricane Katrina, extremists of various persuasions had quick explanations. Alan Cooperman in his September 4^th article in the Washington Post compared the views of several fundamentalist Christians and a Muslim.

One fundamentalist Christian whom Cooperman quoted is Steve Lefemine, an anti-abortion activist in Columbia, S. C.: "In my belief, God judged New Orleans for the sin of shedding innocent blood through abortion. . . Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Another fundamentalist also pronounced the disaster as the work of God but attributed the divine wrath to a different cause. Michael Marcavage of Philadelphia wrote, "The day Bourbon Street and the French Quarter were flooded was the day that 125,000 homosexuals were going to be celebrating sin in the streets."

From Israel, "Christian" journalist Stan Goodenough identified a connection between Jewish settlers losing their homes in the Gaza strip and Americans losing theirs in New Orleans. "What America is about to experience is the lifting of God’s hand of protection; the implementation of His judgment on the nation most responsible for endangering the land and people of Israel.

The Muslim extremist, Kuwaiti official Muhammad Yousef Mlaifi, agreed that God was responsible. "It is almost certain that this is a wind of torment and evil that Allah has sent to the American empire," wrote Mlaifi under the headline, "The Terrorist Katrina is One of the Soldiers of Allah."

By putting these pronouncements together, Cooperman has made the clear the problem of holding to the view that God intervenes in nature and in history. If God sends calamities or decides to not prevent them, then people of faith are driven to find explanations for this cruel and outrageous behavior on the part of a just and loving God. In my mind, many liberal Christians, who would reject all the explanations for God’s criminal action quoted from the article, participate in the problem by talking and writing as if they have an inside track to the mind of God. They tell us of God’s plan, God’s creation, God’s hope for the world. I think if we are to hold out the promise of discovering God’s love and justice, we must abandon all notions of an interventionist God. We may learn important lessons by observing history and nature, but we put ourselves in peril if we claim to learn God’s intentions.

Unintelligent Design

Much to the annoyance of many scientists and progressive Christians, The New York Times lately has been paying unwarranted attention to the proponents of "intelligent design". By granting space for the neo-creationists to express their objections to the basis of evolutionary biology, newspapers and magazines are providing an aura of legitimacy that these anti-intellectual Christianists do not deserve.

Although genuine scientists often refuse to engage in debates about evolution, some of them are becoming more determined to expose the absurdity of the "intelligent design" notion. One of the best pieces I have seen on this subject is an article by a former veterinarian, Lisa Fullam, who is currently an assistant professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, California. In the article, which first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle under the title "Of God and the case for unintelligent design", she points out that the digestive track of rabbits is so poorly designed that they have to eat some of their own feces in order to extract the nutrients they need for survival. She goes on to describe how "horses are similarly badly put together." Their inefficient digestive systems produce gut blockages that without prompt veterinary intervention "lead to slow and excruciating death."

Only scientists may be aware of the badly designed digestive tracks of certain mammals, but anyone can observe the evidence that points to the design flaws in human beings. Was it really necessary for the vast majority of the population to suffer from backache? Then there is this silly business of nipples on men. What designer would want to accept responsibility for these useless appendages?

Unfortunately, in the midst of the political controversy over evolution, some well-meaning progressive Christians continue to write and speak about God as "creator", as if they really believed that God constructed the world and intervenes in nature. They may realize that they are using a metaphor, but to the general public they often sound as if they support the notion of intelligent design.

A related word that appears to support the concept of the intelligent designer is "creature". It suggests that all mobile life forms were created. I was surprised and pleased when I discovered that the Hebrew Bible has no equivalent term. When "creature" appears in English translations, the literal meaning of the Hebrew word might be: breathers, dumb beasts, living things, feathered ones, or howlers. For more on the subject, by late October you will be able to see more on the subject in my latest book, From Literal to Literary: The Essential Reference Book for Biblical Metaphors.

Evolution and Creation

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Vienna, on July 8 published an op-ed piece in The New York Times announcing that the theory of evolution is not true. Although Pope John Paul II had said that evolution and the church’s commitment to divine purpose were not incompatible, Cardinal Schönborn, dismissed John Paul’s comments on the subject in 1996 as "rather vague and unimportant."

The same day, the Catholic News Agency followed up on the article with its own assessment of the Cardinal’s pronouncement. Scientists have now asked Pope Benedict XVI to clarify the situation.

If people would only understand that the Bible’s descriptions of God’s purpose come to us in metaphorical language, they would not have get involved in these conflicts between science and the church. Nor would they become enamored of such theories as "intelligent design". My newest book — From Literal to Literary, The Essential Reference Book for Biblical Metaphors (to be published by Rising Star Press this coming October) — has this to say on the subject.

create, verb; creator and creation, nouns  The Greek root behind the creation words is ktizo, which means to fabricate or manufacture. The Hebrew root, bara, is rich with other connotations, some of which seem the opposite of create. For example, bara is sometimes translated cut trees or clear the ground or cut down people.

Joshua said to them, "If you are a numerous people, go up to the forest, and clear ground there for yourselves in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim, since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you.". . . Then Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, "You are indeed a numerous people, and have great power; you shall not have one lot only, but the hill country shall be yours, for though it is a forest, you shall clear it and possess it to its farthest borders." [Joshua 17:15, 17-18]

The assembly shall stone them and with their swords they shall cut them down; they shall kill their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses. [Ezekiel 23:47]

The first use of the word bara as a creation metaphor appears at the beginning of the Hebrew Bible. The poem in the first chapter of Genesis reflects the human experience of feeling sustained in the midst of turmoil. It is as if the chaos of existence has been made suitable for human habitation. This theme is picked up later by Isaiah.

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [Genesis 1:1-3]

For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no other. [Isaiah 45:18]

The creation metaphor also reflects the experience of awe and wonder that arises in the contemplation of the intricacy and magnitude of nature. Although Albert Einstein did not profess religious beliefs, in reflecting on his work in astrophysics, he sometimes referred to "the old one". In much the same fashion, people over the ages have found it helpful to personify nature.

Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his host! Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created. He established them forever and ever; he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed. [Psalm 148:4-6]

Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these? He who brings out their host and numbers them, calling them all by name; because he is great in strength, mighty in power, not one is missing. [Isaiah 40:26]

Another use of the creation metaphor reflects the experience of new possibilities, fresh beginnings.

I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. [Isaiah 65:17-18]

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! [II Corinthians 5:17]

Taking the creation metaphor literally, that is, as a scientific description of reality, has brought the church into disrepute in many quarters of the industrialized world. In writing to a friend, Charles Darwin stated the problem of accepting literally the claim that a divine creator designed the universe and all that is in it.

"I own I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd. wish to, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

Anyone willing to put aside the notion that the creation terms have something to do with natural history, however, can find meaning in their use as religious or spiritual metaphors — on at least three levels: what it means to find stability in the midst of chaos, as an expression of awe and wonder in the experience of the natural world, and the willingness to look for new possibilities.

When using the creation metaphor, however, a person might keep in mind one meaning of bara, to cut down, a reminder that in any manufacturing or fabrication process the original form of something must be destroyed. Creation always has a dark side.

The Gospels against the Jews

Anti-Semitism has been an unfortunate component of Christianity that is rooted in the gospels. To understand the negative attitude toward Judaism that shows up in the Christian gospels, a reader of the Bible must recognize that the Hebrew yehudim and the Greek ioudaioi can carry different meanings.

The Hebrew word originally appeared in reference to the tribe descended from the patriarch yehudah, or Judah. The tribe of Judah was briefly united with ten other Hebrew-speaking tribes under David and Solomon. After the death of Solomon in 926 BCE, Judah became a separate kingdom with its political capital and cult center in Jerusalem. Anyone who lived within the realm was known as a Judean. The other tribes, to the north of Judah, formed a kingdom that was the first of the two to be conquered by foreign invaders. Judah held out until 587, when Jerusalem was invaded and the temple destroyed. The Judeans rebuilt their temple in 520.

Soon after the Maccabean revolt in 165 BCE, the designation yehudim or ioudaioi acquired an additional meaning that was neither territorial nor tribal. People whose worship life centered in the Jerusalem temple also became known as Judeans, even if their ancestors belonged to one of the other tribes. The Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, and by the end of the first century, a religion centered on the synagogues and the teachings of the rabbis had evolved from the practice of the Pharisees. Any adherent of this religion was known as a Judean.

Another use of the word further complicates an appropriate understanding of Judean. During the first century people in the southern part of Herod’s realm were called Judeans while people in the north were Samaritans or Galileans. Apparently the division was as important for them as the division between the northern and southern parts of Ireland are today. In Angela’s Ashes, Frank McCourt says that living in Limerick he was always suspect because his father, although a Catholic, was from the north. His own grandmother accused him of having "Presbyterian hair". According to John’s gospel, the Judeans challenged Jesus with a similar kind of guilt by geographical association:

The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon"? [John 8:48]

According to the gospels, most of Jesus’s early followers were Galileans so to outsiders, Greeks and Romans, the later followers of Jesus – even the Gentiles – were called Galileans to differentiate them from the Jews. When these second and third generation Christians wrote their Jesus stories, they naturally identified themselves with the Galileans, in their minds the good people, while they pictured the Judeans as the bad people. This tendency to show Judeans in the worst possible light is especially noticeable in the Gospel according to John. When a story is set in or around Jerusalem, John consistently identifies the local people who resist the teachings of Jesus as Judeans, in English "Jews".

The Christian gospels’ negative attitude toward Judeans, however, was certainly based on something more than regional prejudice. The hostility arose in regard to the use of the term Judean meaning an adherent to a participant in a particular religion. At the same time that rabbinic Judaism was taking form, the followers of Jesus under the leadership of Paul began welcoming Gentiles into their communities without insisting that they conform their diet and dress to rabbinic rules. Neither did they require Gentile men to be circumcised. The leaders of the synagogues, however, were not willing to make such concessions for their Gentile converts. In order to preserve their spiritual identity, the rabbis came to the conclusion that they could no longer tolerate the confusion caused by the Jesus followers in their midst. Even the Christians who were born Judeans and followed the rules were no longer accepted. Their rejection from the synagogues left many followers of Jesus feeling hurt and angry, but there was another reason for the hostility that developed between the two groups, Jews and Christians, that emerged from the Pharisee tradition. They found themselves in fierce competition for converts among the Gentiles. The depth of the animosity on the Christian side is reflected in a curse Matthew attributes to Jesus. In The Five Gospels the curse reads:

"You scholars and Pharisees, you imposters! Damn you! You scour land and sea to make one convert, and when you do, you make that person more a child of Hell than you are." [Matthew 23:15]

Although much of the teaching attributed to Jesus closely parallels what the Pharisees taught, the Christian writers often use the Pharisees as surrogates for Judeans in general when they want to cast aspersions on their competitors. Because of the animosity of the Jesus followers toward the Pharisees and rabbinic Judaism, and because of their ingrained antagonism toward the people of Judah, the early Christian writings have a polemical tone that continues to feed Christian hostility toward the Jews.