I Will No Longer...

While I have not always agreed with Bishop John Shelby Spong's answers over the years, he does ask the right questions. He is also one of those who moved from being an opponent of lbgtq folks to being a supporter--a major, very vocal one. I first saw this manifesto by Bishop Spong on one of my email lists early this afternoon. Since then I have been watching it spread through the blogosphere. It's worth reading and thinking about.

Peace,
Jeff

A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant." I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement. I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I
will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves. I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.

I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings, who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go unchallenged. In my
personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.

I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude. I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population. I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable.

I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be. Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dismantled as the policy of our armed forces. We will and we must learn that equality of citizenship is not something that should ever be submitted to a referendum. Equality under and before the law is a solemn promise conveyed to all our citizens in the Constitution itself. Can any of us imagine having a public referendum on whether slavery should continue, whether segregation should be dismantled, whether voting privileges should be offered to women? The time has come for politicians to stop hiding behind unjust laws that they themselves helped to enact, and to abandon that convenient shield of demanding a vote on the rights of full citizenship because they do not understand the difference between a constitutional democracy, which this nation has, and a "mobocracy," which this nation rejected when it adopted its constitution. We do not put the civil rights of a minority to the vote of a plebiscite.

I will also no longer act as if I need a majority vote of some ecclesiastical body in order to bless, ordain, recognize and celebrate the lives and gifts of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. No one should ever again be forced to submit the privilege of citizenship in this nation or membership in the Christian Church to the will of a majority vote.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union. I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church's participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth." I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.

This is my manifesto and my creed. I proclaim it today. I invite others to join me in this public declaration. I believe that such a public outpouring will help cleanse both the church and this nation of its own distorting past. It will restore integrity and honor to both church and state. It will signal that a new day has dawned and we are ready not just to embrace it, but also to rejoice in it and to celebrate it.

-- John Shelby Spong

When the Word on the Street is RESIST

At Inclusive Church's residential conference Word on the Street, Retired Bishop of Worcester (England) Peter Selby gave an address titled When the Word on the Street is RESIST. Do go and read the entire address, but here is the next to last paragraph, to which I immediately responded "BINGO!"

Above all what we need is not to take our eye off the issue, that of the treatment to be accorded to LGBT people and the ways in which they have - over many generations, not just in the last few decades - sought to live lives obedient to the gospel within the cultures in which we all, sexual majorities and minorities alike, seek to do just that. To leave that issue behind in favour of the worthy but secondary issue of how to keep the Anglican Communion together will stunt our discernment - and not keep the Anglican Communion together either. The Archbishop says the enterprise is 'becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclaiming of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ'; but that means engaging in the search for the truth together, not settling for the stalemate which is what his paper actually advocates.

Peace,
Jeff

B033 Is Falling Down, Falling Down, Falling Down

This weekend my email lists went into overdrive. On Saturday, the search committee for the next bishop of the Diocese of Minnesota announced its slate of three candidates. On Sunday, the search committee for the next bishops suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles announced its slate of six. The Minnesota election will be held October 31, and the Los Angeles elections on December 4 and 5. Usually, the members of my mail lists respond by asking where the various candidates stand on lbgt issues. These two announcements elicited excitement because one of the Minnesota candidates and one of the Los Angeles candidates are out lesbians, and another of the Los Angeles candidates is an out gay man. All three of them are partnered.

Take a look at Episcopal Cafe's The Lead for more in-depth coverage of the news.

These nominations follow logically from General Convention 2009 Resolution D025, which, although titled "Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion," was a compromise resolution merging the dozen or so submitted to General Convention in an attempt to repeal GC2006 B033, the infamous "manner of life" resolution. In spite of the fact that the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies insistence that D025 does not repeal B033 (see the Episcopal News Service story here), many people on both sides of the issue see it as a first step, if not as an actual repeal.

Even though the Minnesota and Los Angeles search committees did not make their final decisions until after General Convention, clearly they were already considering the lesbian and gay candidates that made their final lists. We will probably never know if either search committee intended to place those candidates on their final lists even if D025 had not passed in Anaheim.

Will any of the candidates be elected? There is a good chance, especially in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Once one, or more, of them is elected, there is the consent process. The Bishops will have the final word, this time. I am guessing that if any of the lesbian or gay candidates is elected, they will not receive the required consents. This time.

If dioceses in the Episcopal Church continue to raise up and elect openly lbgt candidates for bishop, and if the bishops with authority continue to refuse consents, there will be a backlash much stronger than any backlash the remaining conservatives inside the Episcopal Church will raise when lbgt candidates are elected and, finally, ordained.

It may take us another three years, until GG2012 in Indianapolis, or even another six, until GC2015, but we will have more openly lbgt elected and ordained bishops. B033 cannot stand in the face of the Church moving forward, even if it moves at glacier speed.

Peace,
Jeff

Such A Drama Queen

According to The New Vision, "Uganda's Leading Website," Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi says he's afraid that "he fears for his life because of the campaign he has waged against homosexuals." You can read the full story here.

I have only one thing to say:



I love the title Lisa gave her post about the story: "Holy Homocidal Homosexuals." And Mark Harris had a similar reaction to mine, though I didn't read his "Threatened Prelate or Drama Queen" until after I'd started putting this together. James at The Three Legged Stool has a slightly different take.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: The End

Reading Plan Text for July 8: John 21:20-25

And so we come to the end of the Gospel, and to the end of this Bible Study with the bishops leading up to the Lambeth Conference. At times writing these short reflections has been tedious. At others they just seemed to flow onto the screen. As I look back at them, some seem to lack depth. Yet all of them, in one way or another, fulfilled the purpose with which I started way back in February. They were meant to spark further reflection. Some of you did reflect and leave comments from time to time. And sometimes rereading one would spark further reflection for me.

Moving forward there seems to be little more for us to do than the title of Burridge's last commentary and the subtitle of its final section: "Follow Me" "Bearing witness." Such a simple thing. One that will take the rest of our lives.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Feed My Sheep

Reading Plan Text for July 7: John 21:15-19

Peter's roller coaster ride continues. After the Disciples' earlier encounters with the risen Jesus, Peter needs something familiar and comforting--fishing. His joy and excitement at seeing Jesus once more is evident by the way he jumps into the water and swims ashore ahead of the others in the boat. Yet after breakfast, things take a serious turn.

Jesus takes Peter aside and asks, "Do you love me more than these?" This cannot be an easy question for Peter to hear, especially after his denial of Jesus just a few days ago. In fact, Jesus asks this question three times, just as Peter denied him three times. It is obvious that these questions are more for Peter's sake than for Jesus'. Peter needs to know that following Jesus from now on will only get more difficult and more dangerous. In fact, it will be the cause of Peter's death in Rome.

But it is Jesus' responses to Peter's answers that stand out for me.

Feed my lambs. (21:15)
Tend my sheep. (21:16)
Feed my sheep. (21:17)

Today these three short commands to Peter make me wonder if I'm doing enough. What else should I be doing? Will I ever feel like I'm doing enough? Or will there always be that "one more thing" I feel like I ought to be doing?

The only answers I'm likely to find can only come through prayer and continued action.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: What If?

Reading Plan Text for July 4: John 21:8-14

A priest of my acquaintance once pondered what the church, let alone our Sunday worship, would look like if the early church had taken as its model this breakfast by the sea rather than the Last Supper. This may not be as far fetched as it might first appear. After all, the Feeding of the 5,000, or the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, is one the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels. Burridge notes

All the resurrection appearances suggest that Jesus was recognizable, eventually, yet somehow different. His old ways and habits are still there--yet transformed. So Jesus answers their questions with a familiar action: 'he took bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish' (21:13). these words recall how he fed five thousand by this same lake (6:11). We saw then that 'taking' and 'giving' are eucharistic and the reflection of the communion is below the surface her. Pictures in the catacombs and early churches use images of fish and bread for the communion as often as the cup of wine. (p. 239)

This photo by Patty Brdar shows the mosaic on the floor of an early church built on the supposed site of the miracle.


This painting, commonly called the "Eucharist fish," is in the Lucina crypt in the Catacomb of Callixtus, Rome.

My first reaction to this notion was "Sushi for communion? EEEWWWW!" Of course, the priest was not talking about the menu of the meal, but the concept. And the theological implications.

What if?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study with the Bishops: One Last Visit

Reading Plan Text for July 3: John 21:1-7

The final chapter of John's Gospel appears to be a later addition, especially since the last two verses of Chapter 20 appear to be a logical conclusion. The footnote in my NRSV points out differences in language and style. It also tells us that the appearances in John 20 all take place near Jerusalem, as they do in Luke 24, while the appearance chapter 21 takes place in Galilee, mirroring Matthew 28 and Mark 16. Burridge adds

Also, it is difficult to fit the story into the sequence of chapter 2o and the early church in Jerusalem. On the other hand, the story recalls many key themes from the gospel and no manuscript is without it. It deals with some 'loose ends' from the gospel, especially about Peter and the beloved disciple and their relationship. So it may be better to see it as an epilogue, balancing the prologue at the start. (p. 236)

As the chapter opens, we have some familiar faces: Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin, and Nathanael--remember Nathanael? Then we have two new faces, the sons of Zebedee. They are not given their names, James and John, and this is the first and only time we see them in John's Gospel. There are also two unnamed disciples with them. Later we learn that the Beloved Disciple one of those present on the boat.

Tradition, as both the NRSV footnotes and Burridge tell us, identifies the Beloved Disciple with John son of Zebedee. Maybe, maybe not. Throughout the Gospel, including this "appended" chapter, the Beloved Disciple is identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Nor does the writer name either of Zebedee's sons. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Probably not. What matters is that the Disciples are seeing Jesus again.

During this last visit between Jesus and his Disciples we see familiar patterns. Jesus provides an abundance of food. The Beloved Disciple recognizes what's going on, if not fully understanding. And Peter acts the fool. He gets dressed and then jumps in the water to swim to shore? These familiar faces and their familiar actions are comforting right now. The future is still uncertain, and they know that Jesus will be gone very shortly.

How many of us cling to the familiar in the face of change? The time-worn actions are comforting, even as we realize that we must let them go. Yet change we must, or we stagnate and die--even if we go on living.

One last visit, and then we must go.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Thomas Returns

Reading Plan Text for July 2: John 20:24-31

Did you note the discrepancy in the first of yesterday's pictures? Like most, it shows the 11 remaining Disciples sitting at the table with Jesus. The second one more accurately depicts the story in John where only 10 of the original 12 were present.

Today, along comes Thomas. He missed the first reunion, and he refuses to believe unless he can see Jesus for himself. Jesus tells him

Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe. (20:27)

For this reason he has been called "Doubting Thomas" down through the centuries. In spite of the fact that nowhere in his Gospel does John call Thomas by that name. Every time Thomas appears, John adds "who was called the Twin." This is the man who according to tradition took Christianity to India. He is not someone either John, or the Jesus of his Gospel, holds in low esteem. Instead, this encounter sets up Jesus' concluding statement:

Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe. (20:29)

Which would be everyone but the handful of men and women who saw the resurrected Jesus first hand.

Which would be us.

Peace,
Jeffri

From Conference To Movement To...?

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which was held in Jerusalem from 22-29 June 2008, is a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it. The movement is global: it has mobilised Anglicans from around the world.

GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and
we hereby:

• launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
• publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
• encourage GAFCON Primates to form a Council.

--From the Introduction of the GAFCON Final Statement

Unable to bring their parallel communion into being, the rejectionists and their allies have decided they are a "movement":

It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future.

Perhaps they will pull off a schism in the future, but they will not be members of the historic Anglican Communion. Instead they will be a new denomination, not unlike the Missouri Synod Lutherans. Jerusalem Declaration Anglicans perhaps?

In any case, their declaration has some problems. Take a look at the Anglican Scotist's commentary, which is amongst the better ones.

And is it just me, or does "Primates Council" come across like "Windsor Bishops"?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Breath Of God

Reading Plan Text for July 1: John 20:19-23

This was one of the first Scripture passages I signed in ASL for a Pentecost service. It has become a sense memory. I cannot read or hear this passage without my hands coming together to sign the locked door.

So many times we see Jesus' appearance to his disciples depicted like this painting by Duccio di Buoninsegna. Neat. Orderly. With the air of a corporate retirement dinner. Where is the surprise? The excitement? The awe? Is this not Jesus returned from the dead? Where is the Spirit? Why is everyone sitting around like a lump of clay?

Compare this depiction by Hanna Cheriyan Varghese of Malaysia. Here we see Jesus breathing the Spirit on the disciples. There is life here. The breath of life breathed into Adam and into dry bones of the valley.

Breathe on me Breath of God.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Messengers

Reading Plan Text for June 30: John 20:11-18

Angels here. Angels there. Angels everywhere. Paging Dr. Suess!

They just appear in the tomb. They even sound a lot like Jesus: "Woman," just like Jesus addressed his mother. "Woman, why are you weeping?" What is it with Marys and angels? Just like Jesus' mother when Gabriel shows up unannounced, Mary Magdalene doesn't seem fazed in the least. They show up out of thin air, and she simply tells them why she's crying.

And once she turns around, the angels disappear from the story. Was there even a purpose for them to be there? If they are messengers, they have remarkably little--to announce. Or maybe they are the heralds with their trumpets announcing the arrival of the king.

And there he is, although Mary first mistakes him for a gardener. Jesus whole and and alive, standing before her. He sends Mary to tell the other disciples what has happened. She becomes his messenger, the first bearer of the good news to the world.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Seeing For Ourselves

Reading Plan Text for June 27: John 20:1-10

Mary Magdalene arrives to find an open tomb. She does not look inside but runs immediately to Peter and the Disciple "whom Jesus loved," telling them that "they" have taken Jesus' body. There are two "theys" who would have done this, and possibly three. The first they that this little group would have thought of was the Jewish religious leaders. The second would be grave robbers. The third possible "they" was the Roman officials, perhaps Pilate tweaking the noses of the Jewish leaders.

The two men race--literally--to the tomb. The Beloved Disciple arrives first. Burridge reminds us that if this individual is the witness writing, or telling, this Gospel, the he is quite a bit younger than Peter. However, when he arrives, he waits respectfully just outside the tomb waiting for Peter. Peter enters first and sees the empty linen wrappings. The Beloved Disciple follows, sees the wrappings and believes. The possibility that there is no "they" begins to dawn on the Disciples. But neither Disciple really understands, and they return to their homes leaving Mary at the tomb.

Some theories claim that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple. Clearly, according to John, that is not the case. These theorists will go on to claim that because she was a woman, the writer of the gospel created another male disciple to fill that role. That seems far fetched given the role Mary Magdalene plays in the resurrection stories of all four gospels. Nor does John show the other disciples disbelieving Mary's story. I don't think John is telling us that Peter and the Beloved Disciple disbelieve Mary. A disaster has happened. Mary has gone to the most obvious people to inform. Their teacher's body has been stolen. The human need to see the scene of the crime, so to speak, kicks in, and the two men race to the empty tomb.

Peter and the Beloved Disciple did what most of us would have done. We all have the need to see for ourselves. Over two thousand years later, we still have to rely on their reports as recorded by those who heard it second, third, fourth, and even fifth hand.

And we still wish we could see it for ourselves.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Coming Out

Reading Plan Text for June 26: John 19:35-42

The Disciples, with the exceptions of Judas and the "one whom Jesus loved," are nowhere to be found. Jesus is dead. The one disciple is comforting Jesus' mother, not to mention trying to deal with his own grief and shock. The Jewish leaders still hover--they asked that the crucified men's legs be broken to hasten their deaths. This is not a particularly safe time to be identified as one of Jesus' followers.

Yet two who have remained hidden to a great extent come forward.

Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. (19:38)

In spite of that fear, Joseph approaches Pilate. For whatever reason, he has decided that he can no longer remain hidden. It is time to declare himself publicly.

And then

Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. (19:39)

We have seen Nicodemus speak up for Jesus at a meeting of the Jewish religious officials, but he did not exactly declare himself a follower. Yet now he comes openly to assist Joseph with the burial of Jesus.

As a gay man--an Out gay man--I understand what it took for these two men step out into the open and publicly identify themselves as followers of Jesus by word and action. I know the feeling of liberation when the hiding is over. And like these two, I learned that not every reaction to Coming--and being--Out is negative or violent. Pilate gives Joseph permission to take Jesus' body for burial. Joseph and Nicodemus prepare the body and place it in the tomb unmolested. That is not to say that others will not experience the violence and hatred, as we see when we read about the stoning of Stephen in Acts.

Joseph and Nicodemus have entered a new life, and not because Jesus died, and will rise, for them and all of us. They have entered a new life of freedom in part because of their own actions. Even as we grieve with them, I rejoice for them.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Interpretations

Reading Plan Text for June 25: John 19:31-35

After talking a little bit yesterday about interpreting Scripture, I am going to quote the third section of Burridge's commentary for today in its entirety.

As often, there are many interpretations of John's deeper meaning for the blood and water. Since Jesus dies as the true Passover lamb, blood recalls how the lamb's blood was sprinkled by the priests (2 Chron. 35:11). On the other hand, water recalls Jesus' promise that out of his koilia, heart or chest, will flow 'streams of living water', which John interpreted as the giving of the Spirit after he had been glorified in death (7:38-39). Some early Fathers saw here the two-fold baptism of water and baptism of blood, or martyrdom, faced by their people in the persecutions. Others interpret it as the Lord's gift of the two sacraments: water for baptism, and blood for the wine of communion. We have noted the connection of water with baptism and the Spirit before (e.g., 3:5; 7:38-39), while blood comes only in the discourse about eading his flesh and drinking his blood (6:53-56). After the hints of bread and wine, vines and cups through John's account of Jesus' last night and day, another reference to the sacraments here is very possible.

The mystery of Jesus' death on the cross for us is so deep that none of these interpretations will ever fully exhaust it. We can only stand at the foot of the corss, like the disciple who witnessed it (19:35)--and marvel. From that messy, all to human death pours a flood of spiritual benefits of forgiveness and new life in the Spirit, freely given to us and to all God's people. (p. 225)

All of that out of four short verses of Scripture (19:31-34)!

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Jesus Loved

Reading Plan Text for June 24: John 19:25-30

Only in John do we have this conversation between Jesus and those gathered at the foot of the cross. It is another one of those little details John likes to include without a great deal of explanation. Jesus loved all his Disciples, but these words indicate a special fondness for the unnamed one “whom Jesus loved,” who later is also identified as the writer of this Gospel. The bond was special enough that he gave his mother (who is never named in John’s Gospel) into this particular Disciple’s care.

Over the past few decades some commentators have taken this passages to indicate that Jesus had a same-sex relationship with the Disciple whom he loved. Predictably, this brings howls of outrage from conservative Christians—and even some liberal ones. And even if these two men did have a physical relationship, I’m relatively certain it was not writer’s intention to indicate that they did. It is much more likely that this description has to do with validating the writer’s witness and authority in the Johanine community. And perhaps the community’s tradition was that Jesus’ mother was one of their own, and this scene at the cross tells them how that came to be.

However, one cannot escape the conclusion that a special relationship existed between these two men. If nothing else, it is one of the few purely human attributes John gives his characterization of Jesus. Jesus loved another human being, an individual human being. Can we read a sexual component into it? People have been interpreting things from Scripture that are not explicitly in the text probably since before it was in written form! Jewish Midrash is a tradition of interpretation. Engaging Scripture in this way enriches our understanding of Scripture. It brings us into the story. It gives us the opportunity for new insights.

Jesus loved someone special. Amen. Amen.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Jesus On The Cross

Reading Plan Text for June 23: John 19:19-24

The Crucifixion. John’s account lacks many of the details found in the Synoptic Gospels. Burridge reminds us “John stresses that Jesus is in control throughout the Passion..” (p. 220). Pilate, however, is able to have the last word with the Jewish religious leaders. They object to what he wrote, in three languages, on the placard: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

“Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.” (19:21-22)

In his discussion of the soldiers dividing up Jesus’ garments, Burridge tells us, “Part of the humiliation was being executed naked in public view.” (p. 221) Naked? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a naked Jesus on any crucifix I’ve encountered so far. Usually he is depicted wearing some sort of loincloth. And speaking of depictions of Jesus on the cross, have you ever really looked at them when you see them? The guy looks pretty good for someone who spent the last three years of his life wandering and then just endured a beating before being crucified. Clean, well fed, not a hair out of place… Clearly, some crucifixes show us the risen Christ, and others have different messages, but rarely do you see the full agony of crucifixion in them.

Here is the kind of depiction we're accustomed to in most artwork.


Here is Carivaggio's ECCE Homo. Note how calm and serene Jesus is, showing none of the effects of his flogging.



Clothing on the crucified Jesus appears even in early depictions, as in this 8th century icon.


This poster shows a Jesus who looks like he works out at least three times a week!

Poking around on the internet, I actually found a naked Jesus on the cross--a little known work by Michaelangelo.


This next "sculpture," done in 1801 by James Legg, is rather gruesome. It was

cast from the corpse of a murderer, taken straight from the gallows to be nailed to a cross and flayed in order to settle an artistic debate. Three Royal Academicians... conducted this experiment to prove their belief that most depictions of the Crucifixion were anatomically incorrect. " --The Royal Academy of Arts Website

And finally, here is Edwina Sandys' 1975 Christa.

All of these images are worth reflection and meditation.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Who Was Pilate?

Reading Plan Text for June 20: John 19:9-15

At every turn throughout this entire encounter Pilate finds resistance and frustration. The Jewish religious leaders do not want Jesus released and stir up the crowd so that the threat of rioting looms. Jesus refuses to defend himself against the charges brought against him. Finally, Pilate tries one last time:

"Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but the emperor." (19:15)

We have only three sources from which to draw a portrait of Pilate: the Gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus, and Philo of Alexandria's copy of a letter from Herod Agrippa to the Roman Emperor Caligula. None of them show Pilate in a good light. Essentially, Pilate was a political appointee serving at the whim of Caligula, who was notoriously cruel and unbalanced. The Jewish leaders know this and make an implied threat, saying

If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor." (19:12)

Whether or not Pilate was a good or bad person, the deck is effectively stacked against him. He has run out of options.

These last three posts have followed a similar theme. But no matter who the historical Pilate was, or who we think we see in the Gospels, the character of Pilate has a role in the drama John lays out before us. His actions in the story are as carefully and skillfully plotted as Peter's, Thomas', Judas', and those of everyone else who appears. John is not concerned with recording historical facts. This is the story of the Good News of Jesus the Christ as told to a particular community many years after the events recorded took place.

And now Pilate has one last action to take in this drama before he disappears from the stage.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: What Would We Do?

Reading Plan Text for June 19: John 19:1-8

For the third time Pilate attempts to release Jesus. He has Jesus flogged, which according to Burridge is not the more serious scourging indicated in Matthew and Mark, and then mockingly dressed as a king. Perhaps he thought this would satisfy the Jewish leaders. The only thing it accomplishes is to draw the truth from them:

We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.

Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. (19:7-8)

An interesting reaction, considering their statement clearly makes this an internal matter in which he need not involve himself. On the other hand, if he does not do what they ask, he will have a riot to contend with, or the Jewish leaders will tell Rome of his inaction, or both. What's a governor to do?

I wonder what one of us might do if we were Pilate?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Pilate's Choice

Reading Plan Text for June 18: John 18:29-40

The Jewish leaders bring Jesus to Pilate. They are being disingenuous when they tell Pilate "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." They plotted to kill him several times and were unsuccessful. Now that they have him in custody, they are reluctant to do the deed themselves. Instead, they put Pilate in an awkward position.

Pilate's first priority as the Roman Governor of Judea is to keep the province under control. Here he faces the possibility of unrest if he does not do what the Jewish leadership wants. On the other hand, if he executes Jesus, he could still have a rebellion on his hands. So he questions Jesus carefully, trying to find out what sort of man this is that the Jewish leaders are so afraid of. As Annas found before him, he does not get particularly helpful answers. Except that Jesus tells him one important fact.

If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (18:36)

Obviously, Pilate received no reports of rioting or other armed uprising in the wake of Jesus' arrest. Over time he may have heard rumors or reports of an itinerant preacher and healer with a large following, but clearly this man before him is not the military Messiah so many expect. In fact, he tells the Jewish leaders that he finds no case against Jesus. He even tries to release him as a gesture of goodwill at Passover. The Jewish leadership, and the crowd they brought with them, will have none of it. They ask for the release of a bandit instead.

Pilate's hands are tied. Faced with the choice of releasing a man innocent under Roman law or inciting open rebellion in Jerusalem, he chooses what he sees as the only path to keeping the peace in Judea. In the long run, he made the wrong choice both for himself and for Rome.

For centuries Christians have blamed Pilate for making that choice. Yet, like Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, his choice played an important role in our salvation history. Where would we be, if he had chosen differently? Would Jesus have died later at the hands of a different governor? At the hands of the Jewish leadership? Or would he have simply vanished into the mists of time like so many other long forgotten prophets? Would God have tried again someplace among the Jews of the diaspora?

The answers to those questions belong to the realm of alternative history fiction writers. For the world as it is, the results of Pilate's choice continue...

Peace,
Jeffri