Untitled

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

On mother's day cards

My birthday is around mother's day and every year the family has to choose between scheduling two get-togethers awkwardly back-to-back or to make us share our special days. I never minded, which was odd, because I grew up feeling a huge need to feel special. Maybe it's middle child behaviour. I was reading my birthday card very close in time to having composed a mother's day card and was feeling some sort of sense of discontent. I couldn't shake the feeling that these encouraging words and sentiments that I had written and was receiving were somehow fake. And doing some introspection, a practice I have, now regrettably, previously spoken poorly of, I found that the reason I found them fake was because I know that when I write encouragement cards, it is an expression of myself rather than the person to whom I am writing. This beautiful card I received, full of nice things about me, isn't about me. My parents write me cards because of who they are, not because of who I am. And I write nice notes because I conceive of myself as someone who is kind, encouraging, and loving. This is one of the traps we fall into when we think too much of the self. The fakeness goes away when we consider the system as a whole, that I get to be a part of a network of people in whose character it is to bring out and name the best in each other, and to do so in writing. C.S. Lewis once said something to the effect that a truly humble individual could take just as much joy in someone else's achievements as their own. And so I take joy in my place in a kind community that cares for me as an individual. We can't help our selfish instincts. We are the centre of all our experiences. But there are so many joys available to us when we let go of our sense of grandeur and allow ourselves to be an insignificant part of something good. The celebration of a birthday isn't for having survived another year, it's for having people who want to have a party with you. I get to have people to cook for me, make cakes for me, sing for me. And later I will repay the favour and take just as much joy in that. Not because of who I am, nor because of who they are, but because of who we are. An emergent property of humans, if you will.

I think that as our individualism has risen and our communities break down we can understand some of it through this lens. The self, self fulfillment, and self expression become some form of high ideal. Maybe Disney is at fault. But I think this leads folks to depression and anxiety when, inevitably, they let themselves down. The exhortations to put community over the individual lead to some dark places too, let's not forget, but I suspect that most of us could use some humility. It's probably a healthy practice to see something that doesn't benefit, entertain, or need us and to think, "This is good."

And cause I normally blog about the bible, I'll just mention that most of the commands of Jesus and God were given to groups of people. Jesus cared deeply about the individuals in his life, but the whole bible is written to and about groups of people, not individuals. God loves me because of who They are, not because of who I am, and that's a cliche, but God also loves the whole interconnected system of human, creation, God, etc. And I think we should too.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

On Judges.

I read the book of Judges again and it's worse than I remember. There are many bits of the bible, especially in the old testament that make me take a low view of scripture, (i.e. that it is a helpful tool to show us what God is like but not inerrant or free of cultural influence or outright falsehood) but wow Judges is a mess. I don't know exactly what the archaeological record says about the sizes of settlements in this time were, but the stories suggest that there are herding peoples and farming peoples and everyone wants to be a farming people but that requires you to turf some people off their land and take it, so there are just a bunch of semi-nomadic tribes jockeying for power and small hilltop settlements.

My vaguely remembered course in biblical archaeology suggested that the earlier books of the old testament were compiled and/or fabricated by King Josiah as a political tool to unite the fractured and warring tribes of the Levant under one King, and reading Judges through that lens makes a lot of sense of it. There is a cycle of: Israel is bad and forgets God-> enemies start abusing them-> They cry out to God for help -> God raises up a strong leader to save them (And kill a bunch of people) -> there is peace for many years ->Israel forgets God. So you can see why this is a compelling story for a King to craft when trying to sell his own kingship to his people.

The last two chapters (after the last judge, Samson) specifically horrified me by the casual commodification of women. The tribe of Benjamin goes rogue, so the other tribes fight them, but end up killing all their women and children instead of the fighting men, creating a situation where men don't have wives and so the tribe will die out. So they casually just tell all these men to go to some other tribe on a festival day and each kidnap a wife for themselves. And everyone says, "Oh yeah, that sounds sensible." And so Judges ends.

I can't remember what I said years ago on this blog. I gave up my laptop for Lent (which was a wonderful experience) and got out of the habit of blogging. I think since then I've articulated my low view of scripture in a new way. There are many gods of the ancient Levant and I only believe in one of them. And we can look at what other cultures said about their gods and how they worshiped them. So if the God that I believe in acts exactly the same as the gods that I don't believe in, then what's the point? My point is that large themes and patterns in the old testament look entirely human in origin. It is full of propaganda, military aggrandizing, and the claim that god has demanded that you kill these people and take their stuff. These are common themes in other nations records of the time. We have them in Assyria, Persia, Babylon, and fragments of the earlier, smaller kingdoms. They are, I believe, just what comes of people trying to craft empire.

The incident that caused the war against the tribe of Benjamin concerned a man and his slave wife (concubine) staying in the Benjamites' town for a night. In a very similar story to the one of Sodom in Genesis, The men of the town demanded the man come out of the house he was staying in so they could sexually assault him, but he sent out his slave to save his own skin. The passage said that the men abused her throughout the night, but let her go near morning at which time she went back to the house where her master was staying and lay on the doorstep. When the man came out in the morning he found her dead. He then cut her body into pieces and mailed them to the other tribes to raise support destroy the wicked Benjamites. The rallying cry was: Such a thing should not be done in Israel.

I don't know if this story happened. Worse things have. I guess we're supposed to be on the side of the man but according to my modern morals everyone is horrible, from the man to the Benjamites, to the man who hosted them, to the woman's father who gave her away to this guy. Maybe the theme of the story is dark irony, where the man who says, "Such a thing should not be done in Israel" is damning himself too. With the possible exception of Deborah, who was a peaceful leader, all the judges were warriors and most of them were terrible. Maybe the theme of Judges is just to show how badly things go when Israel is not united under a good king, or more in line with canon, under God. In Samuel, God warns his people against having kings, against seeking empire. But they pursue it and everything degenerates.

What would a nation of priests look like if it didn't seek power, land, or money? I think it might look like the early church: People spread through the world by persecution and dedication, acting as God's ambassadors and inviting people to live in such a way that brings the kingdom of God on earth.

We still have to grapple with the violent God of the old testament, and I don't want to assume something is false just because it portrays a God out of line with my specific (and modern) view of morality, so hopefully I can learn something as I try to read through Joshua.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Faith and works

It's news to me that in Romans when Paul really starts getting into the whole faith and works debate the works that he spends time talking about are things like circumcision and eating kosher. The works he isn't talking about are things like giving to the poor and working for the kingdom. I might be projecting here, but in my mind, these are acts of faith.

I've never really understood the faith vs works debate because I tend to see things like James does. Faith without works is dead. But the word works is ambiguous here, and originally the debate seems to be about the jewish religious customs that marked them as separate. Paul says that this is not what saves you and cites a whole bunch of old testament authority on the matter. The debate subtly shifted in North American culture, or maybe before, I don't know.

Works used to be this box you tick: circumcision, kosher keeping, not eating food sacrificed to idols; and faith referred to your state of relationship with God and the community. I think it's actually reversed now, with faith being the box we tick; with baptism, chatecism, whatever; and people get to claim because they have faith they don't have to do any of the works.

Anyway, I maintain that the initial 'works' that were being described were things that were ceremonial or symbolic in nature. In a very real sense we are saved by our works, because the things that we do with our lives, how we spend our time, and how we spend our money; these save or damn us. Beyond these there is no such thing as faith.

Now I am even more frustrated with the faith and works debate.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Throw her down

2 Kings 8:16-9:37, Psalm 80:1-7, Acts 23:12-35

I have been reading, I swear. I just haven't been blogging about it. The last few days of the old testament have dealt with a span of about 80 years and are some of the more historically corroborated events of the old testament. A couple of the kings are mentioned as having been subjugated by other kings in their stone records, and it seems to line up reasonably.

There are kings of Israel and Judah and they behave more or less like the kings of all the other nations. They have their god, or gods as the case may be, make treaties, fight wars, and take slaves. The story centres around a couple of prophets, Elijah and Elisha, who call out and criticize the kings of their time. Several kings attempt their murder, but none are more criticized than Ahab, along with his wife Jezebel. The prophets go around anointing new kings, who rise up and briefly follow God before descending into idol worship again.

I think that the kings, even the good kings, of this period are far to similar to our 'Christian' leaders. They make a show of consulting God and then do pretty much the same thing as everyone else. David was a special case because he was full of mercy and kindness. When he did mess up, he repented immediately. The competing gods of power and money make it very difficult for our leaders to stay true to their ideals. This is why prophets exist, I think. Prophets call people back to god. They shock and anger people and hopefully remind them of what is actually right, not just what is good for the country.

This does read a bit like dramatized historical propaganda, I think, but counter to what one would expect the villians aren't totally demonized. Ahab repents and is spared, the king of Amon is shown to be human, etc.

A few days ago there was a story where Elisha was telling the king of Israel where the raiding bands of the Amonites were going to be and so they were thwarted. The Amonites go to surround Elisha's city and so he strikes them blind and takes them to the centre of the city, where they are helpless. The king asks if he should kill them and Elisha says to throw them a feast and set them free. And so the Amonites stop their raiding.

I don't know if this sort of taking the high road is common in ancient literature. I don't think so. But it is all too common in the Israelite story. I like to think those are the fingerprints of God. But perhaps it's also logical and beautiful to see them as the fingerprints of the best of humanity. And that, I would say, is also the fingerprints of God.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

A quiet voice

Psalm 78:17-31, Acts 17:22-18:8, 1 Kings 18:16-19:21

Elijah is depressed and almost suicidal. He prays for God to take his life and God sends him a loaf of bread and some water. Then Elijah runs for forty days and nights which is probably a symbol rather than an accurate statistic, because that would take you the distance of 24 hrs/day x 40 days x 5 km/hr = the distance from the Pacific to the Atlantic in Canada. Anyway, he made it to the mountain of God and God says that they will show up. God shows up not in the strong forces but in the calm and quiet voices.

The parallels to good mental health practice are striking. Elijah is in despair and instead of talking to him, God feeds him, lets him rest, and then tells him to go for a run. Then God shows up and talks, not as an overbearing authority figure but as a still small voice. This is one of these stories that does bear some differences from the other Gods of the area. God's presence is most closely felt when they come down to earth and talks to people. God does still send fire from heaven on some occasions too, when people ask them to.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Things get worse

1 Kings 12:25-14:20, Psalm 78:1-8, Acts 16:1-15

Jeroboam is given the kingdom and immediately begins to do evil. He worries that the people will continue to want to worship in Solomon's temple and since they have to go to Jerusalem, this will lure them back to the northern kingdom of Judah. So he creates two golden calves and has the people worship them instead. Remember that when worshiping these calves, the people aren't worshiping a god other than Yahweh. They still think that this is the god that brought them out of Egypt. The problem is when they worshipped idols of God when God specifically told them not to. Every other nation encouraged the devout to pray to images of their gods.

I think that idolatry is a good word for what's happened to the modern church, especially the really polarized bits of it, but to the church in general. We imagine that God wants something and then idolize that. For me I think the risk is idolizing community. It leaves me vulnerable to disillusionment if and when the community disappoints me. I think this is less harmful than idolizing the military, the country, money, prestige, or most other things but it carries a risk nonetheless.

And Jeroboam gets concrete proof that he's fighting against God. He tries to strike a prophet and his hand withers. He still does not repent. I don't think this is unrealistic. I think there is plenty of evidence that says that evidence is actually pretty bad at changing people's minds. I think there are plenty of Christians, even in the so called liberal church, who would riot against Jesus because his preaching threatened their money. One of the things I like about the early church is that it shows community organizing at its finest. People pool resources and care for the needy and suddenly, the downtrodden masses start to wonder why they need the rich.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Strongman tactics

1 Kings 11:14-12:24, Psalm 77:10-20, Acts 15:22-41

Maybe it's my personal bias, but I'm struggling to think of any time in the bible when a stereotypical 'Alpha male' leader was referred to in a positive light. David was constantly merciful to his enemies. Saul was big and strong but still a coward and was only spoken of well early on in his reign. Moses was not really that type either. And now we come to Rehoboam, king of Judah. He takes over from his father Solomon, who was criticized for being a womanizer, but perhaps celebrated for his lavish excess. Maybe that's the closest we get. Anyway, Rehoboam is asked by the tribes of Israel to lighten the levies and conscripted labour. Remember that Solomon had oppressed his own people for his reign and to enrich himself. Also remember that the tribes of Israel are actually tribes, far more fractured than provinces or states of a modern nation.

So Rehoboam is asked if he can lighten up a bit because his father was really hard on the people of Israel. He consults the elders who advise him to be conciliatory. But then he consults his posse, the dudes who surround him and they advise that he act like a man, puff himself up and come on strong. He says to the tribes that he's going to be an even harsher master than his father, and they abandon him like the loser that he is.

Fundamentalist obsession with male strength is difficult for me to understand in light of the bible. It heard it described as a false dichotomy. These people are neither stupid, nor are they consciously lying. This is apparently a case of what was called 'partisan blindness' where one's loyalty to a certain ideology or set of beliefs renders you incredibly biased and set on unreasonable opinions because they are judged to be in the party line. Nobody is immune to this, of course, but I will not equivocate and say that both the left and right are equally far from Jesus. The alpha male mentality is one of the more pathetic of the modern social phenomena and that's a competitive playing field.

Jesus said that those who follow him must become the least, must serve, and must take up their cross and follow him. Strength is not virtue. In fact, the pursuit of power is one of the worst sins.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Do not accumulate gold

1 Kings 9:10-11:13, Psalm 77:1-9, Acts 15:1-21

There's a passage in Deuteronomy where Moses warns his people what will happen when they enter the promised land. He says that they will ask for a king and when they do, they must be sure to choose the king according to God's word. Then follows a list of things that the king of Israel should not do. He should not accumulate horses (weapons of war) or large numbers of wives. This is a direct countercultural instruction, regardless of when it was written. He should also not accumulate gold, as most kings do. Interestingly, Solomon broke all these rules and was praised for it, except the wives thing. Solomon's great wealth is celebrated as was his large army and conscripted labour.

There are things that are obviously evil when we are the victims of them, and complicated and probably necessary when we are in control of them: things like wealth, power, and the military industrial complex.

But I think it's important that God warns against rich kings. In this time when the most notable current event is about rich people falling into a trap of their own careless making and dying because of it, it's important to remember that from a Christian perspective, that amount of wealth is inherently immoral, and if we look at all the people who need to suffer to make one person a billionaire, we don't even need to look from a Christian perspective. I don't think that I wish death on anyone, but the love of money is the root of all evil and evil has consequences, not just in eternity, but in the here and now. It's just that the immediate consequences of evil are rarely felt by those responsible for it. Recently they were. I don't think rejoicing is the right response. I think we can grieve both the evil that is a billionaire and the tradgedy that is death.

But I think it's important that billionaires know that we want them gone, not dead as individuals, but gone as a concept, and many people will settle for the former. And I think there's biblical precedent for it.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

The temple and the early church

Solomon's temple was not actually very big at all nor was his palace, although the palace was larger than the temple. The temple design was meticulous and described in such a way to make it seem like no expense had been spared.

The story of the bible holds that God wants to live with their people. It's a more revolutionary idea than we think these days. I think most gods of the bronze and iron ages were said to live far away and interact with mortals rarely if at all. God wanted to actually make their home among humans. The first place that happened was actually in the garden of Eden, then the tabernacle, now this temple, and finally in Jesus.

The jews get upset at the early Christians because they say the temple doesn't matter very much any more. These places that were holy are no longer the primary places we meet God. God's spirit has officially left the temple. The jews see the new Christian movement as a threat to their power and begin to request that the government persecute them. Peter and Paul are able to provide evidence of the divine support for their words by healing people and performing other miracles.

I think one of the most important things for religious people to do is to have principles that are above their religion. If the Jewish people trusted the principle of God living with them over their traditions of the temple and practices surrounding the Sabbath, they may have recognized where their religion deviated from what God wanted. This isn't a comment on modern day Judaism or Jewish people in diaspora, but I will say that modern day Israel is looking pretty colonialist and is acting counter to a lot of the old testament exhortations not to abuse foreigners residing in 'their' lands.

Likewise, if modern Christians have principles above religion and yet informed by religion such as peace, love of neighbour, enemy love, etc; it may make it easier to recognize when the entire religion sells its soul to a political party or ideology about which Jesus is critical.

Also, I don't believe nationalism is a valid religiously informed position. If Jesus is God, Caesar is not.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Grounded in history

1 Kings 6:1-7:22, Psalm 75:1-10, Acts 13:13-41

I used to be quite dismissive about the learning of history because I thought that the study of the world as it is would be more important. Of course, one can't just study the way the world is. Scientists can try but they inevitably find themselves seeking wisdom from the past. To understand living things we need to understand evolution. To understand stars we need to understand the times at which they formed. And to understand human societies we need to understand their past. This was profound to me when it first entered my consciousness, but then, most things are.

In this story, when the disciples are challenged on the recent past and the present, they begin their justification by going into the deep past and spinning a story. They weave together all the stories that their Jewish audience hold as true and try to convince them that the logical end of the story is Jesus's death and resurrection.

I think most of human reasoning requires stories that are compelling. I think the reason for the popularity of conspiracy theories is that they hijack the brain's desire for a compelling story as well as the reward circuit for being a part of an in-group, knowing a secret, and fighting valiantly against a much greater power. Honestly in this way they are uncomfortably similar to religions. I'm not going to go into the differences in a blog post I'm making up as I go along, so thinking up differences is your homework.

Scratch that. I did think of one important distinction: Conspiracy theories generally involve some big villain with shadowy purposes. Christianity's main villain is innate in each of us. Satan exists, but our own sin is the real problem. TBH I don't know if that's a compelling difference.

I also think that most conspiracy theories are more definitively demonstrably false than religion, but that's not something I want to get into.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Solomon's reign

1 Kings 3:16 - 5:18, Psalm 74:18-23, Acts 12:19-13:12,

One of the things I find interesting about the kings in Solomon's time and in Herod's is that they have the job of judge. People could appeal to the highest ruler of the land. Paul appeals to Caesar later in Acts. It's as if I could appeal to the Prime Minister or top official in the land. I guess there were probably barriers in place so that not everybody could just walk up to the king and ask for a ruling, but still.

Also interesting is that the two plaintifs in this notable case were women and furthermore they were prostitutes. Basically they were at the bottom of the social ladder. Solomon still took their case. I mean, the story still has the ring of mythology to it but it still says a lot that this was a story that people thought reflected well on both God and on Solomon. Throughout the bible, God is seen in this dichotomy of both being holy and set apart and also very much invested in the individual lives of the common people. It's like one of my favourite stories of Pope Francis, who would sneak out of the Vatican dressed as a normal priest to minister to the poor of Rome.

And the earthly kings, like Solomon, would often glorify themselves at the cost of the myriad poor. David did it. Herod did it. Solomon did it a lot, using huge amounts of forced labour and imposing huge levies. But Jesus showed up and had no eye for political power. He created a grassroots movement. Of course, it turned into one of largest political powers in the world and abused a whole bunch of people as it did so. C'est la vie.

It comes back to my thesis about power and how it corrupts: It is not power, but the habits of seeking power that corrupts a person. Solomon was given power and was only sort of corrupt. David resisted the temptations of power for a long time and built habits which prevented him from being super corrupt. Jesus was confident that he held all the power in existence, and so there was no possible way to corrupt him. The devil tried, but found there was nothing that he could offer that Jesus wanted more than what he already had. I wonder why Satan didn't consider using women as a temptation for Jesus. It worked for David and Solomon.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Solomon cleans house

1 Kings 2:13-3:15, Proverbs 15:1-10, Acts 11:19-12:19

Solomon doesn't strike me as such a great guy in this first few days in office. First came his older brother who had initially laid claim to the throne. The older brother, Adonijah, had asked for a young girl to be his wife, the one who had cared for David in his old age.

Interestingly enough the story a couple days ago records that Abishag, the girl, wasn't used by David sexually, even though that was obviously the intention of those who brought her to him. This might imply that both David and the writers knew that it was in some sense wrong to use a young girl this way, or maybe David just struggled with impotence when he was on his deathbed.

I don't know why Adonijah wanted this girl to be his wife or why Solomon thought this was a crime worthy of death. Was it Adonijah trying to pull off some devious power grab, or was Solomon upset that Adonijah would dishonour his father's memory by taking his close servant to be a wife, or was it just that Solomon was disgusted that Adonijah, who would probably be in his fifties or so, wanted a (probably) child bride? Anyway, so Solomon had him killed.

Solomon had a few other people killed who had been part of David's inner circle.

I hadn't read this story before, I think, but it doesn't look good for a king to start his reign with a murdering spree. He could have kept his father's counsellors and listened to them as his father did. But he didn't, and though the story goes that he had imense wisdom, most of his proverbs, at least in translation and four(ish) thousand years of culture removed, are kind of insipid.

I don't want to hem and haw around it. I seriously doubt whether or not Solomon got an extra dose of divine wisdom. It's just too much like a story that humans would make up to glorify a leader. And given how much Solomon messed up, it isn't even super consistent within the story itself.

I don't think that it's all that important, this historical fact. But I also want to treat this story with enough skepticism that prevents us from constructing a theology that's mostly based of the book of proverbs.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Oh Absalom my son

2 Samuel 18:19-19:43, Psalm 73:1-14, Acts 7:44-8:3

David's mourning for Absalom was always emotional for me to read. It shows such undeserving love. And yet David had so many sons. I think families worked differently in those days and men, especially kings were expected to take even less of an interest in what their kids were doing than today. David demonstrated his concern for his son throughout the rebellion, but I can't help feeling that the way he treated women and children contributed to his family struggles. That's an incredibly modern view of it though, so I don't put a lot of stock in it.

Joab was right though, and part of the reason that I like the David story is that he is surrounded by good advisors. Joab tells David that if he continues to demonstrate grief at the loss of his rebel son and ignore the sacrifices of the soldiers who fought for him, then there will soon be no one left with him. And unlike dramas, David simply gets up and follows the advice of Joab. He encourages his men and, not wanting to swing all the way to authoritarianism, shows mercy to those involved in the uprising.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Feelings do not care about your facts

2 Samuel 16:15-18:18, Psalm 72:1-20, Acts 7:20-43

The story of Absalom's rebellion against his father David is highly emotionally charged. David loves and cares for Absalom. Absalom is filled with contempt for his father. Rationalizations of behaviours are common but both are behaving emotionally.

I am motivated to talk about this by a conversation I had with a friend who is less academic but takes a higher view of scripture than I do. They did some work on top of some work that I did and asked for feedback. I pushed back and gave broad philosophical and scriptural reasons for what I believed and why I was nervous about the work they had done.

They told me they weren't in an emotional place to have these deep assumptions challenged at the moment and I realized that I had been communicating poorly. More than that, I was being unkind. Most of the time, people change because they feel like it, not because they are convinced. This is especially true for deeply held beliefs and emotionally charged positions. And this is good. Emotions are our machinery for relating to people and ideas in a way that intuits the effects people and ideas have on us and those we care about.

Emotions are real and factual. They don't always accurately reflect a situation, but they are nonetheless real. If our goal is to create a perfect theory of everything, certainly rationality is the best tool available. But if our goal is to create human societies containing diversity and beauty, effort and equity, then we need emotional reasoning.

I had to apologize to my friend for saying many things that were unnecessary. Their work was good and perfectly in line with the teaching of the church. It may be apparent in this blog but I am somewhat of an apostate and rebel against some of the traditional teachings of my church. Their additions probably will cause less harm.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

What does it mean when God kills someone?

2 Samuel 13:1-39, Psalm 71:9-18, Acts 4:23-5:11

I remember some clergy member suggesting that Ananais and Sapphira were not necessarily in hell. He said that God could have just done this to prevent the early church from being corrupted right when it was young and vulnerable. He suggested that God might just have reached down and plucked these two out of the world before they did any damage.

The question about whether someone can be redeemed after their death is a significant one, but I haven't heard any Jesus based arguments for one side or the other, except perhaps for the rich man and Lazarus, in which there is an impassable gulf between heaven and hell.

The old testament passage today isn't great. It tells the story of a planned incestuous rape. I could interpolate that David was not a great dad, partly because he had so many sons, which is probably fair. Maybe the moral of the story is to be a good present dad who respects women and teaches their sons to do the same? But I'm tired of trying to think about these stories.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

Character progression and regression

2 Samuel 11:1-12:31, Psalm 71:1-8, Acts 4:1-22

After Peter and John heal the beggar, they get arrested by the jewish leaders and tried in the same court that Jesus was. Jesus was often cagey and cryptic in his claims about himself, but Peter has no such hesitations. In his speech he claims that Jesus is God, claims the authority of ancient prophecy, suggests that they are on trial for healing someone, says that Jesus is the only way anyone can be saved, and accuses his judges of murder. He's not denying Jesus any more.

This is one of the main apologetic proofs of Christianity, that the people who were Jesus closest friends went to trial countless times and 11 out of the 12 disciples (including Mathias and not Judas) died for their claims about him. It is a cult of personality, perhaps, but it is distinct from most other cults of personality in that it did not grow huge while its founder was alive. Many cults have come and gone because their savior spoke compelling words and then died and the followers scattered. Christianity wasn't like that.

The old testament story of David and Bathsheba is also worth mentioning. It's awful but I think it's notable that when I heard it growing up it was always framed as, "David killed a guy and took his wife." Even Nathan's story he tells to get David to admit to his sin is framed in this way. The wife is compared to a sheep that some guy owns. (It is important to note that in the story the guy really loves the sheep.) David sexually assaulted the woman and had her husband killed. The story implies she had no choice in the matter. Afterwards she remains his wife. Not only that, her son is killed for this sin. Almost no focus at all is given to Bathsheba and her experience of all of this.

I've already asked at length what stories like this are doing in the bible. It's pretty clear that this story is told to give context to David's life. He was known as a perfect guy but here is a time he did a horrible thing. I really don't know what we can learn beyond that. Our cultural lens gives us the luxury of critiquing the biases of the day, but I think it's a notable and good thing that our holy book tells stories about our holy kings that are critical.

[edelweissacermacrophyllum]

2 Samuel 9:1-10:19, Psalm 70:1-5, Acts 3:1-26

After the rousing sermon, Peter and John go walking through Jerusalem and come across a beggar. They say that someone can be judged on how they treat those who can do nothing for them. I work in a part of town that has a lot of homelessness and I get panhandlers from time to time. And while I am in favour of safe supply, free food, free shelters, and so on; I'm not psyched about the viability of panhandling as an income source. So I don't give money but make sure to smile and greet them. Everybody always says it sucks to be invisible. Many people just ignore the homeless and while I don't think it's right, I understand. Street entrenched folks are often rough around the edges, abrasive, and unpleasant for those of us who are more 'socialized', and it's hard.

Also, I know that there are lots of places for food in the city. Not to make it seem like being poor is easy, of course, but I don't think that giving panhandlers money is beneficial at all. Much better would be to give out a larger lump sum of cash at regular intervals, like welfare, or income assistance.

Regardless, that's what my social and economic philosophy says about the problem. But what does someone's response to the homeless say about their religion? Someone who believes heavily in karma or a karmic interpretation of heaven and hell could use the opportunity to be generous and gain karma, or do nothing because the person deserved to be where they are. A person who believed in a generous God might give money or time or simply chat. But Peter and Paul apparently believe in a God who does miracles and just heal him by the power that they're so confident in. In Christian circles there are many stories of this happening today. I know people who I trust who have had it happen to them, though I never have seen it myself.

I wonder if it is an indication of my lack of faith that I do not try to perform more miracles in Jesus's name.