Is the Bible Just a Bunch of Fairy Tales?

I am often asked if the bible is "just" a bunch of fairy tales or "just" some old stories. For a lover of stories, "just" seems misplaced. 

Religion is mythological. Myths are meant to help us get at truth, not facts. 

Bible stories, for me anyway, are allegories for life. I honestly couldn’t care less if not one thing in the Bible ever literally, factually happened...because in my experience, what the stories are trying to communicate are true and timeless and relevant for my life. I’m Joseph. I’m Jacob. I’m Mary. I’m Elizabeth. I’m Miriam. I’m Aaron. I’m Elijah. I’m Amos. I’m the serpent. I’m Eve. I’m Noah. I’m Peter. I’m Paul. I’m Stephen. Each story shows me who I am, or who I have been, or who I can be. Each story shows mistakes I’ve made or are likely to make. Each story shows me that redemption is possible, that I am more than what I currently know and more than what I’ve done so far. So, they are true for me, even if they are not factual (and, honestly, I doubt if many of them are entirely factual).

Remember the famous editorial in the 1897 Sun answering the question “Is there a Santa Claus?” When “Virginia” asks if Santa is real, the writer explains that what Santa represents (hope, generosity, kindness, goodwill, etc.) is very real and very much needed. “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” is the most remembered line from that piece. There isn’t a man living at the North Pole, flying with magic reindeer tossing presents under trees, but there is a human urge and need to care for others, to express love, to be generous...we need, and in our best moments believe in everything Santa is supposed to be. So, Santa is true, while not being factual. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Marcus Borg said there are three phases to faith development:

1. Precritical.
They sold it, we bought it. We accept the stories as they are, taking them as literal facts with no need to question them. This is how we start out.

2. Critical.

Things don’t make sense and we have a lot of questions. We start to not believe some of the stories. Walking on water? Lazarus coming to life after 4 days of decomposition? Abraham willing to slaughter his son? People in the desert being cured of snake venom by looking at a serpentine tchotchke? At the critical level, we start to call “bullshit.” [Of course Borg didn't say "B/S". The categories are his; the explanations of them in this piece are mine]

Most people get stuck at the first or second level. But Borg says there’s an important third. We have to go through 1 and 2 to get to #3, but 3 is the goal.

3. Post-critical.
That’s where we reclaim the stories and find new meaning and relevance in them. We don’t take them literally, but we no longer need to toss them out entirely. We read them and breathe new life into them and let them be free of the bondage of literalism and they become alive for us and fresh and exciting.


Sometimes people fear that expanding their understanding of and relationship to the bible is akin to giving up on God. One - don't worry about that. Two - we all give up old notions of God as we grow. We've all cast upon the garbage heap of life old gods (or understandings of the divine) that no longer serve us. Meister Eckhart wrote, “I pray God to make me free of God.” When God is presence and power and goodness and possibility rather than a person (with personality quirks), that may not be abandoning God as much as simply letting God be bigger for us...beyond description and images. Graven images of God are too limiting, that’s why the Decalogue discourages us from having them.

And what of the biblical Jesus? Was he a prophet? A teacher? Philosopher? Rebel? Social activist? Healer? Miracle worker? Revolutionary? Messiah? Divine being? Someone who lived so authentically into his humanity that people thought he must something more?

Jesus himself (in the story anyway) asks the important question: “Who do YOU say that I am?” Following Jesus, in my view, will include seeing Jesus differently over time. Relationships grow and evolve. If Jesus is going to have a primary place in my consciousness, then my understanding of him will probably change over time.  I don’t think we can get it wrong really, unless we stop trying. 

No wonder one is to work out one’s own salvation “with fear and trembling” (h/t the Apostle Paul)! It is a lot of work, and every question leads to more questions, and every answer must eventually be discarded or replaced or upgraded. But that’s the journey. That’s the faith walk. Doubting and questioning and wrestling and wondering...that’s the gig! And that’s what we see in scripture...people working out their stuff and sharing their journey in literary, symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical, mystical, mythical, tragic, comedic, political, ritualistic, poetic, clumsy, smooth, and courageous ways. 

Even if the characters aren’t real (and honestly, some aren't), the writers certainly were real, and the writers are using their characters to tell their stories and when we read and question them, we are adding our own. That’s the magic of scripture. Again, I don’t need one character to be historical in order for their stories to be relevant and powerful and life changing for me. 

Those of us who free ourselves of literalism find the Bible to be new and refreshing...offering something powerful with each new reading. It’s a conversation rather than a crystal ball, a builder’s tool rather than an anchor, an open door rather than a locked one.  So, maybe there was no Abraham. Almost certainly there was no global flood (there may have been a regional disaster). Of course Jonah didn’t live three days in a fish. Snakes and donkeys do not talk and never have. Virgins and 90 year old women don’t have babies. And the resurrection may be more about resurrecting hope and purpose and courage than about one body that was reanimated for a few weeks. AND...none of those “facts” change the truth that I find in each of those stories - truth that is applicable to my life, my journey, my faith. 

Not Worried YET About Voter Turnout

So, I see people lamenting about the less than robust Democratic primary turnout. Let me throw some positive spin on the situation. The GOP turnout is apparently hearty. That's good (people engaging in politics is a good thing). However, they started out with close to 20 candidates, and still 5ish that are hanging on. Perhaps there are only two REAL contenders at this point, but still, that was a lot of candidates each with a fan base, and some of those former candidates have thrown support to some of the survivors. That's a lot of energy. 

Meanwhile, the Dems have two (really), and and while the discourse between their camps is disappointing sometimes, in reality, neither camp REALLY believes the other would be a disastrous choice. So, if I'm marginally more in favor of Clinders over Santon, but could pretty easily live with Santon instead of Clinders, I might be less motivated to take off work early to cast a vote. 

So, I'm not worried yet about primary turnout. I am choosing to hope that regardless of primary numbers, people come out in DROVES in November to vote. 

Women's sovereignty over their own bodies, the survival of marriage equality, the continuation of economic recovery, access to higher education and to healthcare, a non-hijacked supreme court, and true religious freedom (including the freedom to live safely as a Muslim, or as a non-religious person, or as a gay-positive/pro-choice/transgender-affirming religious person) are all on the line. I'm guessing those issues will be much more compelling when it just a two person race. I do hope so. 

So, Dems (and 3rd partiers), the GOP is showing us how to be good, engaged citizens throughout the process. Let's thank them and follow their example. But in any case, get your asses out there, stand in line in the rain for hours if you must, and VOTE (and demand that your vote be counted if there are any shenanigans) in November. A lot is at stake.

Great Piece by my seminary Church History professor

St. Nick in the Big City

By JOHN ANTHONY McGUCKIN

Published: December 25, 2007 (NYTimes)

 

ST. NICHOLAS was a super-saint with an immense cult for most of the Christian past. There may be more icons surviving for Nicholas alone than for all the other saints of Christendom put together. So what happened to him? Where’s the fourth-century Anatolian bishop who presided over gift-giving to poor children? And how did we get the new icon of mass consumerism in his place?

Well, it’s a New York story.

In all innocence, the morphing began with the Dutch Christians of New Amsterdam, who remembered St. Nicholas from the old country and called him Sinte Klaas. They had kept alive an old memory — that a kindly old cleric brought little gifts to the poor in the weeks leading up to the Feast of the Nativity. While the gifts were important, they were never meant to overshadow the message of Jesus’s humble birth.

But today’s chubby Santa is not about giving to the poor. He has had his saintly garb stripped away. The filling out of the figure, the loss of the vestments, and his transformation into a beery fellow smoking a pipe combined to form a caricature of Dutch peasant culture. Eventually this Magic Santa (a suitable patron saint if there ever was one for the burgeoning capitalist machinery of the city) was of course popularized by the Manhattanite Clement Clarke Moore published in “A Visit From St. Nicholas,” in The Troy (New York) Sentinel on Dec. 23, 1823.

The newly created deity Santa soon attracted a school of iconographers: notable among them were Thomas Nast, whose 1863 image of a red-suited giant in Harper’s Weekly set the tone, and Haddon Sundblom, who drew up the archetypal image we know today on behalf of the Coca-Cola Company in the 1930s. This Santa was regularly accompanied by the flying reindeer: godlike in his majesty and presiding over the winter darkness like Odin the sky god returned.

The new Santa also acquired a host of Nordic elves to replace the small dark-skinned boy called Black Peter, who in Christian tradition so loved St. Nicholas that he traveled with him everywhere. But, some might say, wasn’t it better to lose this racially stereotyped relic? Actually, no, considering the real St. Nicholas first came into contact with Peter when he raided the slave market in his hometown and railed against the trade. The story tells us that when the slavers refused to take him seriously, he used the church’s funds to redeem Peter and gave the boy a job in the church.

And what of the throwing of the bags of gold down the chimney, where they landed in the stockings and little shoes that had been hung up to dry by the fireplace? Charming though it sounds, it reflected the deplorable custom, still prevalent in late Roman society when the Byzantine church was struggling to establish the supremacy of its values, of selling surplus daughters into bondage. This was a euphemism for sexual slavery — a trade that still blights our world.

As the tale goes, Nicholas had heard that a father in the town planned to sell his three daughters because his debts had been called in by pitiless creditors. As he did for Black Peter, Nicholas raided his church funds to secure the redemption of the girls. He dropped the gold down the chimney to save face for the impoverished father.

This tale was the origin of a whole subsequent series of efforts among the Christians who celebrated Nicholas to make some effort to redeem the lot of the poor — especially children, who always were, and still are, the world’s front-line victims. Such was the origin of Christmas almsgiving: gifts for the poor, not just gifts for our friends.

I like St. Nicholas. You can keep chubby Santa.

John Anthony McGuckin is a professor of religious history at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia.

Various Thoughts & Prayers Re: Possible Strikes on Syria

"Jesus’ call to be peacemakers takes us in a different direction than missile strikes. I believe the just cause being laid out against Assad is indeed a moral case, and I trust both President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry’s intentions around that cause. But I believe that the military strikes now being proposed are not the best moral response to this moral crisis — and they could ultimately undermine both our moral case and the moral intentions." Jim Wallis

Even some of the most conservative religious voices oppose military intervention at this point: "Geoff Tunnicliffe, CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance, pointed out the negative effect military strikes would have on Christians in the Middle East. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in a letter to Obama that strikes would be 'counterproductive' and 'exacerbate an already deadly situation.' And the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell Moore echoed the concerns, saying, there are just-cause principles missing 'both to justify action morally and to justify it prudentially.'"

“War brings on war! Violence brings on violence."
Pope Francis, who supports a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war, calling upon people of faith around the world to pray and fast for peace this Saturday, Sept. 7.

Prayer for Peace in the world:

"Great God...save us from ourselves, save us from the vengeance in our hearts and the acid in our souls.  Save us from our desire to hurt as we have been hurt, to punish as we have been punished, to terrorize as we have been terrorized.  Give us the strength it takes to...trust rather than to fear, to try again and again to make peace even when peace eludes us.
We ask,... O God, for the grace to be our best selves. We ask for the vision to be builders of the human community rather than its destroyers. We ask for the humility as a people to understand the fears and hopes of other peoples. We ask for the love it takes to bequeath to the children of the world to come more than the failures of our own making. We ask for the heart it takes to care for all the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, of Palestine and Israel [and of Syria] as well as for ourselves...
[M]ay we be merciful and patient and gracious and trusting with these others whom you also love.
This we ask through Jesus, the one without vengeance in his heart. This we ask forever and ever. Amen" - Sister Joan Chittister, OSB

 

"Let nothing disturb thee, nothing affright thee; all things are passing, God never changeth! Patient endurance attaineth to all things; who God possesseth in nothing is wanting; alone God sufficeth." Northumbria Community blessing

 

Prayer for Peace (adapted): 

"Eternal Hope, in whose perfect kin-dom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, no strength known but the strength of love: So mightily spread abroad your Light, that all peoples may be gathered under the banner of...Peace, as members of one global family. Amen."

 

Under the heading of there is nothing new under the sun:

"[In 1914] Paul Jones was ... made Bishop of the Missionary District of Utah. He was an outspoken pacifist, and when World War I began in 1914, he spoke against it. As the war progressed, and when the United States entered the war in 1917, many Americans were vehement in holding that pursuing the war was a moral duty, and opposition to the war was immoral.In the spring of 1918... Bishop Jones resigned as Bishop of Utah. He continued to speak out within the Church as an advocate of peace and the Christian renunciation of war, until his death on 4 September 1941." James Kiefer

 

"If all our options are bad, why pick the one that involves missiles?" Rachel Maddow

 

Q&A with Dr Durrell Watkins

Question: As Christians, should we support attacking Syria?

Answer: The answer to questions of military intervention are always complex and defy simple answers. I can tell you that early Christians were pacifists and I can remind you of the angelic prayer from the Nativity story, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward all people.”

 

There is also an ancient Jewish tale of God reprimanding the people of Israel when they were celebrating the drowning of Egyptian forces. God, according to the tale, reminded them that the Egyptians were children of God also and God was very sad that they had perished.

And, of course, we know that peaceful revolutionaries such as Gandhi and Dr King changed the world with non-violent resistance.

From political or national security perspectives, there are probably arguments for and against military action. Ethicists might weigh in with their own understandings. From a theological viewpoint, or at least from my theological viewpoint, I always prefer peaceful solutions, or at least attempts at peaceful solutions to major conflicts. I always hope military action will be a last resort.

If a dictator has committed genocide against his own people, then it would be obscene to remain silent in the face of such atrocity. However, there may be ways of showing disapproval of such action and of standing in solidarity with the oppressed short of drone strikes that will also cost human lives. I also wonder why we find one act of atrocity to be worthy of military action and another to not require such action. We seem oddly selective about our moral outrage in these situations.

My opinion, or yours for that matter, will unlikely change the course of events. But I hope as a faith community we never are comfortable with rushing to violence. And, come what may, we should continue praying as we do every Sunday, “May peace prevail on earth.”

(from Sept. 8th, 2013 edition of The Sun Burst, Sunshine Cathedral's weekly newsletter)

 

"As humanitarians confronting the horror of the Syrian civil war, we must consider how we can best protect civilians, end the violence, and uphold the international prohibition on using chemical weapons. But we shouldn't make matters worse on the ground just to answer war crimes with a limited and largely symbolic show of force." Credo Action

 

11 Reasons Why We Shoud Not Attack Syria

http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/eleven-reasons-why-we-should-not-attack-syria#.UiSfQHAP2tE.facebook

 

 

 

 

 

Response to the Zimmerman Verdict

My dear friends,

 

By now we all know of the Zimmerman verdict. He was cleared of all charges regarding the killing of Trayvon Martin and  feelings are thick in the air like humidity. There is no statement that will appease everyone, and yet, the situation is too heavy to not offer something, if only an acknowledgment that this is a painful, confusing, and utterly unsatisfying moment in history.

Some will say that our emotions are running too high, that legally. reasonable doubt trumps our emotions and perceptions, that none of us were on the jury or, for that matter, at the scene of the incident where a young man had his life taken away. The unknowns, they will say, should keep us from forming opinions or experiencing pain. I, however, strongly disagree with them.

I am not an attorney or a journalist or a sociologist, so I wouldn’t dare enter into the technicalities of the case. But we aren’t outraged or devastated or confused because of technicalities. We are broken-hearted because a young man died, many of us are in no way convinced it was unavoidable, and a grieving family has lost a child and must feel as if they have been denied justice. In our humanity, how could we not ache for the family, for the life that will never get a chance to mature, for the pathology of racism that still infects our society? Our pain isn’t about legal loopholes; our pain is about human life being wasted.

I just keep thinking of the biblical myth of Cain and Abel. Cain slays his brother (feeling justified in doing so), and infinite Love groans in agony as a response. The divine Voice says to Cain, “What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!”

That’s why we are so upset. Not because of disagreements about juris prudence; but because our young brother’s spilt blood cries out to us. And in response, we cry also.

Is this all complicated by Zimmerman’s racist history. Of course.

Is it complicated by what many feel are draconian gun laws? Probably.
Is it complicated by the notion that Zimmerman never needed to confront the young man face to face?
Is it complicated by the almost certain reality that this is one death that did not need to occur?

For many reasons, our feelings are complex, and they are real, and they cannot be easily dismissed by insensitive comments or myopic suppositions.

So, while I have no answer to what is in so many ways a tragedy, I felt that the issue merited an acknowledgement of its gravity. I felt that our collective pain and sorrow deserved some validation. And I felt it absolutely necessary to affirm a deep sense of regret that a family has lost a loved one, has been denied closure, and has had their pain and disappointment so publicly aired.

To Trayvon Martin’s family, I send, as so many of us do, heart-felt regret and deep sympathy as they face the continuation of their nightmare.

We long with the prophet Micah for the day when swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. But until that day, we continue to work, and wait, and pray. And on this day, we bless Trayvon’s memory and we hold his family in our hearts.

 

Spirit of hope and healing, wipe our tears , renew our faith in goodness, and comfort those who mourn. Amen.

It's My Life, Not an Issue

http://gaysofla.com/articles/commentary/255-its-my-life-not-an-issue.html

Piece I wrote for SoGayFla.com

Enjoy

Facts vs. Rumor, Legend, or Myth

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." Andy Rooney

This explains why gossip seems so much more powerful than verifiable metrics. People are looking for facts that agree with their opinions, and if they can't find them, they'll just stick with their opinions. Sigh.