Just a Reminder

For Tim Tebow, and his followers who practice "tebowing", for Harrisburg, PA mayor Linda Thompson, for all those people who insist on starting government meetings with prayer, and for anyone else who insists on acts of public piety in order to push an agenda...

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:1 - 6)

Just sayin'...

Photo © 2012 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Dominionism = Blasphemy? Treason?

There's been a lot in the news lately about Dominionism (also known as Dominion Theology, with subsets known as Christian Reconstructionism, Seven Mountains theology, and Christian Nationalism). Basically what it is is a belief that Christians (and in this case very conservative - and often Calvinist - members associated with the Christian Right) need to gain control of communications, the arts, finance, the marketplace, and most importantly government, in order to run the world, or at least the United States, according to what they see as God's law as opposed to the existing secular law.

Probably the most succinct expression of the Dominionist agenda is this from the Coral Ridge Ministries' executive director George Grant, who wrote in his 1987 book Changing of the Guard:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.

This philosophy is the driving force behind much of the Christian Right's political activism, including its virtual takeover of the Republican Party. Many of the Christian Right leaders these days are Dominionists: Pat Robertson; everybody associated with American Family Association (the Wildmon family empire, which includes the World News Daily news media organization) , especially their public spokesman, Bryan Fischer; the Dobson family's Focus on the Family empire; the whole Liberty Baptist Church organization, including Liberty University, its Law department, the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, and Liberty Counsel, the organization's legal arm; and Christian Nationalist revisionist "historian" David Barton. Several of the current crowd of GOP presidential candidates are also associated with Dominionism: Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and will-she-or-won't-she Sarah Palin.

The interesting thing is that now that the news media has called attention to Dominionism, most of its staunchest proponents are denying that the movement exists. In August Pat Robertson made a big fuss about it on his 700 Club broadcast and claimed he'd never heard of such a thing. And yet he's stated the prime Dominionist objectives over and over again, including this speech in Dallas in 1984 as reported in Al Dager's book Vengeance Is Ours: The Church In Dominion (Sword, 1990):

Now what do you do? What do all of us do? We get ready to take dominion! We get ready to take dominion! It is all going to be ours--I'm talking about all of it. Everything that you would say is a good part of the secular world. Every means of communication, the news, the television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance--it's going to be ours! God's going to give it to His people. We should prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ. (Dager, p. 95)

Matt Barber, an associate dean of Liberty University's law school and Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, recently tweeted this in reaction to media coverage of Dominionism: "Can someone tell me what a 'dominionist' is? Best I can tell it's some scary monster that lives under liberals' beds." Yet just last year, at a Liberty University sponsored American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference entitled "2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference - Biblical Blueprints for Victory!", Barber addressed the conference with these words:

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.

And John Aman, the current Director of Communications at Truth in Action Ministries, the successor to Coral Ridge Ministries, said "dominionism is a sham charge - one reserved for Christians on the right" that was dreamed up by the Left as "a handy way to smear evangelicals like Bachmann and Perry who bring biblically informed moral convictions into public debate." Obviously he hasn't read his predecessor's book, as quoted above.

Normally such stuff could be ignored or laughed off as a fringe movement with no real power or influence, but this is an ideology espoused by the movement that has gained major influence in one of the two major political parties, and an ideology espoused by a majority of that party's group of politicians vying for nomination as its presidential candidate. These are people determined to seek power and gain control of the country. Laugh if you want, but this is serious stuff and these are serious people.

But it also has serious flaws which have raised opposition both on the religious and secular fronts. Many Christians, and even many evangelicals, object to it as foreign to Christian belief. After all, didn't Jesus say, in response to Pilate's question "Are you King of the Jews?" that "my kingdom is not of this world"? Of course, the usual answer to that by the Dominionists is the Great Commission referred to by Matt Barber above - Matthew 28:18-20. Now he claims that verse commands Christians to teach the world to obey all that Jesus commanded, and leaves the impression that this includes some kind of Christian governance. But what does the passage really say?

And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

But what did Jesus command them to do? Feed the hungry, care for the sick, house and clothe the poor, love all humanity; there's nothing there about governing and imposing laws on the people.

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
- Luke 6:20 - 31

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.
- Matthew 25: 35 - 40

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.
- Luke 6: 37 & 38

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.
- John 8: 3 - 11

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, Which commandment is the most important of all? Jesus answered, The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
- Mark 12: 28 - 31

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
- John 13: 34 & 35

Nothing about governing there, is there? Only advice on how people can live together in harmony, with compassion and respect. In many ways Dominionist theology is, in fact, blasphemy.

Of course, it's also treason. These people are advocating taking over the government and imposing "God's Law" as given in the Bible (mostly drawn from Mosaic Law in the Torah of the Hebrew Scriptures, as Jesus didn't seem to be very big on the laws thing), in effect revoking our Constitution, which says in the First Amendment's establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (A more detailed exposition of this subject can be found here.)In other words, the government can't impose a religion on the population. But that's what these people are proposing to do. Sounds like treason to me.

Our Constitution guarantees a secular government, and we need to protect that legacy. The best protection is awareness. I hope I've contributed to that awareness.


© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Re-discovering the Divine Mother in the Torah

[I originally posted this several years ago; I thought I'd post it again for Mother's Day this year.]

Let me show you something interesting.

In the King James Version of the Bible Deuteronomy 32:18 is worded this way: "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Note well the verbs used here: to beget (to father, to sire) and to form. Both masculine expressions of the act of creation.

Why is this interesting? Because here is the Hebrew original from which it was translated:

צור ילדך תשׁי ותשׁכח אל מחללך׃
transliteration: tsuur ylaadkhaa teshii wa-tishkah! el mh!ollekhaa.

A more accurate translation of this would be: "You were unmindful of the Rock that brought you forth, and you forgot the God who labored to give birth to you." The Hebrew verbs used are yalad (to bear, to bring forth) and h!iyl (to writhe, to twist, to be in labor, to give birth to), both feminine expressions of the act of creation.

How did such a discrepancy come about? Ah, therein lies a tale!

Long ago in the mists of time the ancient Hebrews were polytheists, like everyone else in the world at the time. Their monotheism based on the High God YHWH emerged only gradually, and even after it triumphed as the "official" national religion a polytheistic folk religion existed side by side with it. When a scriptural canon was eventually compiled and written, elements of the old polytheism, including expressions of the Divine Mother, survived embedded in the text, due to the magnitude of the job and the wide diversity of the materials being compiled. Deuteronomy 32:18 is an example of those old expressions slipping through the editorial net.

Much later on Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, claimed the Hebrew canon as the "prequel" to their own canon. But Christianity was virulently misogynistic; the early Church Fathers, most notably Augustine of Hippo, even argued that women had no souls. Naturally a religion so anti-female couldn't accommodate the idea of the Divine Feminine, so translations of the Hebrew canon buried the Mother under masculine terminology. This is reflected in the Latin Vulgate translation by St. Jerome - "Deum qui te genuit dereliquisti et oblitus es Domini creatoris tui." - and the English translation of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims version, which was the Catholic Church's answer to England's King James translation: "Thou hast forsaken the God that beget thee, and hast forgotten the Lord that created thee."

[Note: Oddly enough the Greek Orthodox canon preserves those expressions of the Divine Feminine. There was a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Tanakh (the Hebrew name for the Hebrew Bible) which came out of Egypt and was called the Septuagint, or LXX, and was intended to be used by Jews living in the Graeco-Roman world outside the traditional Hebrew homeland. The Greek church adopted the LXX as its "Old Testament" unmodified, and so preserved the original intent of the Jewish canon. Deuteronomy 32:18 runs thus in the LXX:

θεον τον γεννησαντα σε εγκατελιπες και επελαθου θεου του τρεφοντος σε
transliteration: theon ton gennesanta se engkatelipes kai epelathou theou tou trephontos se.

This translates as: "The god who brought you forth you abandoned, and you forgot the God who nurtured you." As you can see, the feminine expression survives.]

Since the 1950s Biblical translation has gotten more accurate and honest. The expressions of the Divine Mother embedded in the Hebrew text are being restored, at least in most English translations. The ESV (English Standard Version), which is the 21st Century update of the Revised Standard Version of the 1950s, translates Deuteronomy 32:18 thus: "You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth."

Hopefully Christianity, which has accepted the Father all along, is now beginning to discover the Mother as well. After all, a healthy, functioning Family of Humanity needs both the Mother and the Father, something the rest of us accepted long ago.

© 2008 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Are Only Christians Moral?

It's a common accusation by the Christian Right that non-Christians have no sense of morality because morality doesn't exist outside the Bible. All the leaders - the Wildmons, the Dobsons, Pat Robertson, Charles Colson, Bryan Fischer, Cindy Porter, Matt Barber, and especially David Barton - have made this claim in writing and in public speeches and interviews. All of these people are followers of Christian Reconstructionism - and in some cases Seven Mountains Dominionism, the more radical wing of Christian Reconstructionism - an ideology which teaches that evangelical Christianity needs to gain control of government in order to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth.

Obviously not all Christians believe this; but even more interesting, not even all evangelicals believe that there is no morality outside the Bible. The late Michael Spencer, a Southern Baptist pastor and educator who created the InternetMonk.com blog (which is now carried on by like-minded "post-evangelicals" since Spencer's death from brain cancer a year ago), often made the point that evangelical Christianity had no exclusive claim on morality. Most notably, he made the point in the comment thread to his interview with former evangelical and self-described "spiritual nontheist" Dr. Valerie Tarico on July 31. 2009. Here is the dialog with commenter Matt and Michael (iMonk):

Matt says:

I think much of this discussion on both sides focuses on questions of morality. I also think this largely misses the point of what Christianity is really about. Dr. G.E. Veith expressed a great idea (that I need to read more about) that discussions of morality belong in the left-hand kingdom (society and government, in Lutheran parlance) and not in the right-hand kingdom (the church, broadly speaking). I agree with Dr. Tarico that children are born with an innate sense of fairness and morality, but every child begins to violate this “natural law” almost from day one. Christians are in this dilemma every bit as much as any other human. I’m not about to get into the comparative morality of various religions and non-religions because I think that sin (in the Christian language) is universal among humans.

Where we may have common ground is in restoring a common sense of “public virtue” that is largely free of God-talk. There are certain basic public morals that allow us to live together peaceably in a diverse society, and I truly believe that people of all belief systems can live together in harmony by upholding these common values. In my upbringing, the Boy Scouts did a very good job of discussing civic virtues (citizenship, tolerance, care for the environment) in a way that did not depend on religious doctrine or exclude people over religion.

iMonk says:

I agree, and would put the blame for shifting the discussion to morality firmly at the feet of Christians, who have spent centuries saying that no one but themselves could be truly moral. Of course, the Gospel refutes that completely. As a Christian, it is completely a non-issue whether Dr. Tarico is more or less moral than I am. In fact, should it be the case that I am proven to be immoral, it affects absolutely nothing about the Gospel. The issue for the Christian is 1) Is there a God and 2) What do we know about such a God and 3) What is our human connection to/relation to this God? Non-Theists see these questions as anthropology. We see these questions as presuppositional and beyond essential. The issue of morality meets both of us later in our conversation, and if the Christian knows the Gospel, he/she will never engage in a “Who is more moral?” debate. We must, however, talk about the comparative origin and implications of morality. As Ravi says, some people love their neighbor, and some people eat their neighbor. Do you have a preference?

I especially found this statement - "...[I] would put the blame for shifting the discussion to morality firmly at the feet of Christians, who have spent centuries saying that no one but themselves could be truly moral. Of course, the Gospel refutes that completely." - to be fascinating; I left a comment asking Michael if he could show me where this refutation was, and he sent me a private email instructing me to make a study of Paul's letter to the Romans.

How right he was. Paul very succinctly makes the point that morality exists outside the Scriptures and the community of believers. The second chapter is especially on point; in Romans 2:6 - 16:

He will render to each one according to his works:
to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
For God shows no partiality.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

And in Romans 2:26 - 29

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Paul very succinctly points out that those outside the Jewish community were capable of being as righteous as practicing Jews. God is not partial, he doesn't take nationality or ethnicity into consideration, doesn't read what books they live by; he judges only by what is in each person's heart and how that person acts on what's in that heart.

Later in the letter Paul talks about the things he sees as manifestations of the righteousness of the believer, first in Romans 12:9 - 21...

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.
Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited.
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

... and in Romans 13:8 - 10:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Well, in Paul's world those virtues existed outside the Jewish and Christians communities. Compare Paul's virtues above with the classical Roman virtues:

Auctoritas — "Spiritual Authority" — The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.
Comitas — "Humour" — Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
Constantia — "Perseverance" — Military stamina, mental and physical endurance.
Clementia — "Mercy" — Mildness and gentleness.
Dignitas — "Dignity" — A sense of self-worth, personal pride.
Disciplina — "Discipline" — Military oath under Roman protective law & citizenship.
Firmitas — "Tenacity" — Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.
Frugalitas — "Frugality" — Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.
Gravitas — "Gravity" — A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.
Honestas — "Respectability" — The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
Humanitas — "Humanity" — Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.
Industria — "Industriousness" — Hard work.
Iustitia — "Justice" — Sense of moral worth to an action.
Pietas — "Dutifulness" — More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.
Prudentia — "Prudence" — Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
Salubritas — "Wholesomeness" — Health and cleanliness.
Severitas — "Sternness" — Gravity, self-control.
Veritas — "Truthfulness" — Honesty in dealing with others.
Virtus - "Manliness" - Valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth. Vir meaning "man".

And the classical Greek virtues:

temperance: σωφροσύνη (sōphrosynē)
prudence: φρόνησις (phronēsis)
fortitude: ανδρεία (andreia)
justice: δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē)

They're not word-for-word matches, but they all hold in common the respect for their fellow humans, which Paul calls "love". All define a way to help diverse personalities live together in harmony, or at least with the least interpersonal friction possible. Obviously this sense of morality existed outside the nascent Christian community.

Commenter Matt made a statement that struck a strong chord with me:

Where we may have common ground is in restoring a common sense of “public virtue” that is largely free of God-talk. There are certain basic public morals that allow us to live together peaceably in a diverse society, and I truly believe that people of all belief systems can live together in harmony by upholding these common values.

He then brought up the subject of the Boy Scouts as an example of non-theological morality, and I, being a former Boy Scout myself, thought of the Scout Law:

A Scout is Trustworthy.
A Scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him.
A Scout is Loyal.
A Scout is true to his family, friends, Scout leaders, school, and nation.
A Scout is Helpful.
A Scout cares about other people. He willingly volunteers to help others without expecting payment or reward.
A Scout is Friendly.
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.
A Scout is Courteous.
A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows that using good manners makes it easier for people to get along.
A Scout is Kind.
A Scout knows there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. Without good reason, he does not harm or kill any living thing.
A Scout is Obedient.
A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.
A Scout is Cheerful.
A Scout looks for the bright side of life. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.
A Scout is Thrifty.
A Scout works to pay his own way and to help others. He saves for the future. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.
A Scout is Brave.
A Scout can face danger although he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at him or threaten him.
A Scout is Clean.
A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.
A Scout is Reverent.
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

This is the perfect example of a code of "civic virtue" based on values common to all theologies and philosophies without being attached to any one in particular. It was conceived of by Robert Baden-Powell, a British man of no particular religious creed who was influenced by the writings of Rudyard Kipling, which were based as much on Indian Hindu and Muslim folktales and religious sagas as on the British Colonial Code. Scout law is followed by Scouts all over the world, of many cultures and religions, with no objection from themselves, their parents, or their religious leaders (the various international iterations of Scout Law can be found here). In fact, many evangelicals are Boy Scouts, and yet none have objected to this secular moral code.

Obviously Paul's statement that righteousness exists outside of the Scriptures and the community of believers receives collaboration both in the classical world and in the contemporary one. David Barton hasn't a leg to stand on.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Bigotry in the News Again, Sadly

I realize that title isn't exactly news these days, but two news items in particular made my radar zoom in on them in the past week. Both of them involve self-professed Christians making statements very much in contradiction to the teachings of their Savior, both in spirit and in letter.

One of the news items concerns Franklin Graham (left), son of Billy Graham and heir to his monumental evangelism franchise. In an op-ed piece in the Washington Times on Tuesday, he objected to an invocation being given by a Native American practitioner of his native religion, one Carlos Gonzales, a member of the Pascua Yaqui tribe, at the memorial service for the shooting victims in Tuscon, AZ. Apparently Rev. Graham objects to spiritual expressions outside his own rather narrow viewpoint. He wrote:

Mr. Gonzales blessed the "eastern door, from where we get visions and guidance," the "southern door, where we get the energies of the family," the "western door, where we honor the sacred ways and sacred ancestors," and the "northern door, where we receive challenges and the strength to meet those challenges." Rather than calling on the God of heaven who made us and created this universe, which He holds in the palm of His hand, the university professor called out to "Father Sky, where we get our masculine energy" and "Mother Earth, where we get our feminine energy."

Gee! Well guess what, Mr. Graham? There are a lot of people in this world who aren't members of your church; some belong to religions quite a bit older than your own, and more than a few of them live out there in the Great American West among the tribes of Native Americans. Are you trying to say that they aren't allowed to express their own grief at these events and call on the healing powers of their own Deities, and only your version of God is allowed to be invoked? Oh but wait, it gets worse:

How sad. Father Sky and Mother Earth can do nothing to comfort Capt. Mark Kelly, who had been at the bedside of his wife, Rep. Giffords, wondering if she'd ever leave her bed. Or Mavy Stoddard, who was only alive because her husband sacrificed his life by shielding her with his body. Or the family, classmates, teammates and friends of little Christina, whose life was snuffed out before she could play another season of Little League.

How do you know, Mr. Graham? Have you ever been to a Diné (Navajo) Beautyway ceremony? I have, and I've seen people, myself included, come away comforted and healed. You don't live in Tuscon; you weren't even out there for the memorial service. How dare you criticize Tusconians for choosing to seek comfort and healing in their own way rather than in your way? It isn't any of your business!

Another bit of bigotry to make the news involves the newly-elected governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley (right). He used a celebration of Martin Luther King Day at King's own church, Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church in Montgomery, to spew bigotry. In effect, he sullied the celebration by uttering ideas contradictory to everything Dr. King ever taught. From the pulpit of the church Gov. Bentley said:

There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit, But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.

Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother.

In other words, if you want Gov. Bentley to consider you his brother or sister, you have to convert to his particularly narrow and bigoted brand of Christianity. No thanks, Bob! As far as I can see, my family is much better off without you in it.

As I said at the beginning, there are more items like this out there. It's a sad fact that the loudest voices in Christianity today seem to be the voices of bigotry and negativity, of hatred and condemnation. This is in strong contrast to the stories in the Gospels of the man who turned the tables on the self-righteous ones who brought the woman caught in adultery to him, when he challenged them and ended up embarrassing them and sending her gently on her way. The man who ate with tax collectors and prostitutes and drunks. The man who taught love. Somehow his teachings don't seem to have very much in common with the words of Franklin Graham and Robert Bentley, who profess to being his followers.

Postscriptus - As I was writing this essay I learned of the passing of author Reynolds Price and listened to an interview with him on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Price wrote haunting novels about the New South, but he was also a Biblical scholar of great skill and sensitivity. I highly recommend his Three Gospels, which include his own translation from the Greek of the Gospels of Mark and John. As someone who reads Greek and has done Biblical translation and exegesis, I thoroughly enjoyed his approach to both Gospels; they were both written by non-native speakers of Greek (and in the case of the author of Mark, a not very good grasp of the language) and Price matched their writing style in English. It's a fascinating and insightful read on a traditional and potentially stodgy subject; luckily, there was nothing stodgy about Reynolds Price! He'll be missed.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Glenn Beck Fails Again

Good ol' Glenn has managed to make a public spectacle of himself again, and this time he's even managed to alienate more than a few of his usual allies. It seems that he's taken to delving into theology without actually studying the subject first, and in the process he's managed to stomp on the toes of just about the whole range of denominational Christianity, including his own home church, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons.

So what did Glenn say? Basically, he told his listeners to run away from their church if they believed in social justice, calling it a code word for communism and fascism and a perversion of the Gospel. Here are his exact words:

I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! …

If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing”—I’m in the wrong place.

That was from his original radio broadcast. The next is from a follow-up broadcast:

Where I go to church, there are members that preach social justice as members–my faith doesn’t–but the members preach social justice all the time. It is a perversion of the gospel. … You want to help out? You help out. It changes you. That’s what the gospel is all about: You.

Social justice was the rallying cry—economic justice and social justice—the rallying cry on both the communist front and the fascist front. That is not an American idea. And if we don’t get off the social justice economic justice bandwagon, if you are not aware of what this is, you are in grave danger. All of our faiths–my faith your faith–whatever your church is, this is infecting all of them.

Did you notice that one parenthetical aside? He says that while there may be members of his church who preach social justice, his church itself doesn't. And he couldn't be more wrong. In fact the LDS does indeed both preach and practice social justice, starting with exhortations in its chief scripture, The Book of Mormon. I'm not an expert on the LDS, although I've read both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as some church documents. But I would never pass myself off as a spokesperson for the church. There are two excellent articles online by people who are Mormons and can speak for the church, and I urge you to go read them: a post on the Spiritual Politics blog and an article by Jana Reiss on Beliefnet. Both of these state the LDS policy on social justice clearly, and it's obvious that Glenn Beck doesn't even know his own church's teachings on the subject. Gee, Glenn, looks like you're gonna have to leave and find a new place to go on Sunday mornings!

Not that he'll have much luck. He calls social justice a perversion of the Gospel, but the fact is that it's pretty much hard-wired into all four of the Gospels. Jesus raises up the poor and condemns the rich for hoarding all their money and allowing the poor to get even poorer. He exhorts his followers to care for the poor, the sick, the widow, the disabled, but he doesn't stop there; he makes it an obligation, and punishable by an eternity in hell if you don't. Check out these passages:

20) And he raised his eyes to his listeners and preached: Congratulations, you poor, for God's domain belongs to you.
21) Congratulations, you who starve now, for you will be filled. Congratulations, you who weep and wail now, for you will laugh.
22) Congratulations to you when people detest you and exclude you, and rail at you and drive you out and call you evil because of the Son of Man!
23) Rejoice on that day and leap for joy! Behold, your reward in heaven will be abundant. Remember that their ancestors treated the prophets the same.
24) But beware you wealthy, for you've already received your consolation.
25) Beware you who are filled now, for you will famish. Beware you who laugh now, for you will mourn and wail aloud.
26) Beware whenever everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors regarded the false prophets.
– Luke 6:20 - 26

That's the Beatitudes, the Lukan version (and in my own translation). And here's the passage from Matthew where he makes it an obligation to care for the poor and the weak:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.

Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. Then they also will answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you? Then he will answer them, saying, Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
– Matthew 25:31 - 46 (ESV)

Every denomination, and even the independent churches, go out into the community to help the poor and the sick and the homeless; they all, and I emphasize all, have social outreach programs. Not only that, but they also all petition the government to legislate on and promote such activities, which is really what Glenn is objecting to. He objects to the social activism of the liberal churches, but the conservative churches see their programs against state approval of things like abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. as social justice issues, and the Southern Baptist Convention has even gone on record as scolding Beck because of exactly that. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said on his weekly radio program March 13 that if taken literally, Beck would be asking people to leave Southern Baptist churches. That is because the denomination's official confessional statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, includes an article titled "The Christian and the Social Order" that challenges Southern Baptists "to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society."

So Glenn Beck has failed big time. He's even managed to embarrass his usual supporters. He's failed both New Testament 101 and Book of Mormon 101. Do you think it'll teach him to do a little more studying before he opens his mouth on a subject he doesn't know? Naaaah!

© 2010 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Is There Really a "War on Christmas"?

I've been hearing about this "war on Christmas" a lot in the past few years; a lot of people on Fox News, like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, and the Dobson family's Focus on the Family empire and Don and Tim Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA) seem to think it's the real deal. And yet everywhere I look there are trees with lights, wreaths, Holly, people wandering neighborhood streets caroling... You get the idea. Somehow there doesn't seem to be any kind of "war" going on. So what's the beef?

One of the complaints is that the "Christ" has been taken out of Christmas. But if you really, carefully look at the situation, there's not much Christ in Christmas in the first place, at least concerning when and how Christmas has been celebrated down through the ages. Take the date: tradition has assigned December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth. But on what evidence? Certainly not on the Bible's testimony; there's no way to figure out when Jesus was born from the Gospels. Neither Mark nor John even include a birth narrative. Matthew's narrative is minimal at best, no mention of shepherds and their flocks, but we get the visit by the Magi (Matthew 1:18 - 2:12). Luke's is the narrative we're all familiar with - the shepherds and the multitude of angels (but no Magi) - but there's no way to tell when Jesus was born, even to the season of the year (Luke 2:1-20). [Note: Feel free to click on those links and read for yourself. I'll wait...]

So if there's no clue in the Gospels as to when Jesus was born, where did December 25 come from? Well, there just happened to be a lot of Winter Solstice celebrations around at the same time in the world Christianity developed in - the Roman Saturnalia from the 17th to the 23rd, the later Roman feast of Sol Invictus on the 25th, and the Germanic (Yule, Jul) and the Gaulish Celtic (Deuorius Riuri) solstice observances. Early Christianity was in direct "competition" with all of these contemporary religious cultures, and apparently it was seen as a best bet to make the birthday of the founder of their religion to be at the same time to establish legitimacy and eventually superiority. So the date of Jesus' birth was set on a date that had nothing to do with him and his teachings, but was a matter of convenience and "public relations".

Interestingly, very early Christianity seems not to have celebrated Christmas at all. I found this interesting little tidbit in the Wikipedia article on Saturnalia:

There is no evidence scripturally or secularly that early Christians in the first century commemorated the birth of Jesus Christ. In fact, in keeping with early Jewish law and tradition, it is likely that birthdays were not commemorated at all. According to The World Book Encyclopedia: "early Christians considered the celebration of anyone's birth to be a pagan custom." (Vol. 3, page 416) Rather than commemorate his birth, the only command Jesus gave concerning a commemoration of his life of any sort actually had to do only with his death (Luke 22:19). It was not until several hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ that the first instances of the celebration of Christmas begin to appear in the historical record.

Which, of course, coincides with the cult of Sol Invictus gaining supremacy in the Roman Empire, thus becoming Christianity's chief rival. And the birth of the god Sol Invictus was celebrated on December 25. Not too hard to connect the dots, is it?

As to how the holiday is celebrated... Most of the traditions and symbols of Christmas come from the earlier religions Christianity set out to supplant. An evergreen tree hung with decorations and lights? Taken from the German Yule tradition. Garlands and wreaths of evergreens and Holly? Taken from just about all the European Winter Solstice celebrations (including the Roman), as evergreens symbolized the continuation of life through the dark, dead months of Winter. Mistletoe? Taken from Celtic and Germanic solstice traditions. The giving of gifts? Taken from both Saturnalia and Sol Invictus, both of which included the giving of gifts in their celebrations. Santa Claus? The legend of the child-friendly Christian St. Nicholas superimposed on the pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic figures of the Winter King/Holly King, who ruled over Winter. And of course the whole thing with candles comes from the bonfires and lights which burned in the dark forests of Europe to symbolize the return of the sun on the year's longest nights.

So, to recapitulate: The birth of Christ is celebrated on a date that has nothing to do with him but rather with older traditions of celebrating the Winter Solstice, and using customs which have nothing to do with him and more to do with said older solstice celebrations. So how can you take Christ out of Christmas when he's not really in there in the first place? Christ may have been grafted onto the old ways with interesting results, but still, when all is said and done, Christmas is really Christian in name only.

Oh, and the whole "Xmas" thing? That's not all about x-ing Christ out of Christmas. In fact, it's an old Christian tradition - X in the Greek alphabet is Chi, which is the first letter of Christos (Χριστός), meaning the "annointed one", a direct Greek translation of the Hebrew Mashiakh (מָשִׁיחַ) - messiah. So much for crossing Christ out of Christmas, eh?

So, how else is war supposedly being waged on Christmas? Well, apparently it's persecuting Christians to say "Happy Holidays" to people instead of "Merry Christmas". Ditto companies who say "holiday" instead of "Christmas" in their seasonal advertising. The AFA puts out a list of companies to be boycotted because of this "persecution" of Christmas, which includes The Gap, The Home Depot, Best Buy, Target, etc. None of those companies seem to have suffered from the boycott.

So why say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Because unlike even 50 years ago, America has become much more diverse. We have increasing populations of non-Christian religions in the US, and many of them celebrate solstice or other holidays at this time of year: Hanukkah in Judaism, a growing trend of celebrating Kwanzaa in the African-American community, the emergence of Ameratsu from her cave among the Japanese, Soyal among the Hopi and the Zuni peoples, and of course the celebrating of the Winter Solstice, often referred to as Yule, by the steadily growing neo-Pagan community. Retailers don't want to offend prospective customers, so the polite thing to do is to refer to "The Holidays" rather than pick a specific holiday out of the crowd.

Besides, how can you tell what religion a person is just by looking at them? A blonde, blue eyed friend of mine who just happens to be Jewish is often wished a Merry Christmas this time of year, and she usually responds with "Thank you! And a Happy Hanukkah to you!" Nine times out of ten this is an occasion for laughter and further good-natured conversation. But there's always that tenth who feels that he/she has been insulted and "persecuted" by that response.

This thinking also applies to Christmas displays on public, government-owned properties, and to Christmas celebrations in the public schools. The First Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the government to adopt a particular religion. In the beginning this was meant to keep any particular religious dogma from imposing itself on the public in general. It still has this function, but it also functions as a means of keeping the peace in the culturally diverse society we've become. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a Nativity scene set up on the Town Hall lawn, as long as there are provisions that anyone else can set up a holiday display as well, such as a menorah for Hanukkah and such. But whenever such a compromise has been suggested, people start arguing even louder. So really, it's best that government stay right out of the whole religion business.

Of course, the retort to that solution is usually "Christians are in the majority, and the majority rules in any vote." And in fact that's wrong; the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Everywhere you look in the Constitution and in Constitutional law, the law is always written to preserve the rights of the minority. Besides, Christianity is losing its edge as the majority in the religious make-up of the US; it's becoming just another face in a rather large crowd.

The worst part about all this is that most Christians have no problem with this. And many of us who are in the "minority" crowd have no problems, either. I've gone caroling in the streets of Newport with a diverse group of people that includes several flavors of Christians, some Pagans, some Jews, and even a stray Buddhist (albeit American-born) from time to time. We enjoy being together and sharing our customs for this time of year. And isn't gathering together and sharing of our own, adding warmth and light to the long, cold, dark nights of Winter what Winter Solstice celebrations are all about, anyhow?

Unfortunately there's a small but very vocal (and very media-savvy) group of hard-line "Christians" who insist that recognition of any belief or culture outside of their own is anti-Christian persecution. It's very passive-agressive behavior, this rolling up into the fetal position and screaming "VICTIM" whenever any belief outside their own is recognized and acknowledged; if you don't love only them then you must hate them, therefor they're victims of persecution. They remind me of not-very-well-behaved 3-year-olds - they haven't learned to share. In fact, they refuse to share and throw a temper tantrum whenever they're asked to; this is "their" country and it needs to be run according to "their" religion and anybody who isn't of "their" religion needs either to convert or go somewhere else. Anybody who has dealt with small children recognizes this reaction! "It's MINE! and I WON'T share it!"

So is there really a war being waged on Christmas? Actually, I think there is; it's being waged by the Dobsons and the Wildmons and the O'Reillys and the Becks of this world, ruining everybody's happy, warm Winter holiday with their scowls and their scolding and their selfishness. If they want to see the real Scrooge in all this, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

No Going Back

Recently I've had a spate of old friends from my days as a Baha'i seemingly trying to lure me "back into the fold" through various things like recounting fond memories or sending me the old "hey, howarya, have you gotten over your silly stage yet" emails, stuff like that. So I decided now was a good time to republish some older material and re-edit it to disabuse those old friends of the idea that I'd do any such thing as turn back from the road I'm currently on. It ain't gonna happen, and here's why.

I was a member of the Baha'i Faith from 1971 to 2003. When I joined in 1971, it seemed to fulfill all my longings, preaching a liberal if not radical social gospel while still appealing to my need for a spiritual basis for this kind of teaching. Among the beliefs emphasized were:

• The equality of men and women;
• The elimination of all forms of prejudice;
• World peace upheld by a world government organized on federalist principles;
• The independent investigation of truth;
• Universal education;
• Ending the extremes of wealth and poverty.

And more like this. What made it unique was that it was part of a religion! Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, claimed to be the messenger of God for this day, and that these social principals were what GOD wanted humanity to do. NOW!

You can imagine the attraction for someone like me - a progressive social agenda wedded to a spiritual base. And I wasn't the only one of my particular bent to be thus attracted; the American and European Baha'i communities experienced a huge jump in youth conversions in the '60s and '70s. "Hippies" and spiritually-minded social radicals found the Baha'i Faith irresistible.

This influx of young, intelligent, educated, and enthusiastic new converts had a dramatic effect on the American Baha'i community. This newest generation of converts immediately became involved in all aspects of the Faith - writing articles, serving on the local governing boards of the religion, becoming vocal community advocates of what they perceived to be the important aspects of the Baha'i Faith. They were intent on bringing the Baha'i community into the mainstream of the effort to revitalize America and make it the spiritual as well as material leader of the world. They took seriously Shoghi Effendi's (leader of the Baha'i Faith from 1921 - 1957) exhortation to keep the Faith at the "forefront of all progressive movements." (The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 23)

But in the late 1980s the institutions of the Baha'i Faith began balking at the enthusiasms of this wave of idealists. Foremost in these efforts at stemming an activist tide was the constant reminder that Baha'u'llah told Baha'is to stay out of partisan politics and not to interfere in the workings of governments. And they imposed quite a literal interpretation of that principle. The Baha'i Faith teaches that racial discrimination is evil, but the institutions of the Faith deemed it unwarranted interference in the affairs of a "legally" elected government for Baha'is to be involved in the disinvestment movement against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Participation in peace and disarmament marches was first criticized and then outright forbidden, despite the fact that the Baha'i Faith claims to be working for a lasting world peace. There were other similar issues.

In 1986 the more enthusiastic advocates of a more public stand on progressive social issues created a magazine, Dialogue, to provide a public forum for these kinds of issues within the American Baha'i community. The editors, contributors, even those who wrote letters to the editor, were all approached by representatives of the National Spiritual Assembly of the US (the national governing body of the American Baha'i community) and told they were walking on thin ice. In 1988 an article entitled A Modest Proposal: Recommendations Toward the Revitalization of the American Baha'i Community, was submitted to the NSA for pre-publication approval (all materials about or concerning the Baha'i Faith by Baha'i authors and scholars have to be submitted to the NSA for review - can you say censorship?). Several members of the NSA seemed to be enthusiastic about the article, but at the National Convention in April of that year (this annual convention elects the members of the NSA and discusses general community affairs) the editors and authors were condemned - in general session from the podium - for even considering publication of the article, which they denounced as an attempt to "dictate" to the NSA. Dialogue ceased publication soon after that.

There were other issues as well. The Baha'i Faith advocates the equality of men and women but doesn't allow women to serve on its highest governing institution, the Universal House of Justice. The religion has laws forbidding alcohol and drug use, but refuses to deal with the problems of Baha'is suffering from addiction; in their eyes, since it's forbidden, no Baha'i imbibes so there can't be an addiction problem. Ditto AIDS. Oh yes, and homosexuality, or to be as specific as the institutions get on the issue, the practice of homosexuality is condemned as unnatural, in spite of the growing body of evidence showing homosexuality to be a genetic predisposition, on the same level as having blue eyes or brown hair; in other words, natural. Gay men and lesbians are allowed to become Baha'is, but they're not allowed to live together or have same-sex partners; instead they're exhorted to live a life of "noble sacrifice" in order to show their love for Baha'u'llah.

Needless to say, the children of the '60s who flooded the ranks of the American Baha'i community were increasingly disheartened, and many began to leave. Many still stayed, but starting in the '90s the Universal House of Justice began removing the membership of people who they claimed "didn't have a proper understanding" of the teachings and purpose of the Baha'i Faith. And some are still hanging in there, trying to find ways to keep the struggle alive.

Many of the people who stayed, and many who were ousted, still lay claim to a love for Baha'u'llah and see the current repression as an aberration and a departure from the original teachings of Baha'u'llah, and seek to reform the Baha'i Faith. I used to be one of those, but after much consideration and research, I finally figured out that we were only fooling ourselves. That repressive spirit is written in the writings of Baha'u'llah, his son 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi, 'Abdu'l-Baha's grandson and successor. Let's face it, the exclusion of women from the UHJ and the condemnation of homosexuality are in the sacred scriptures of the Baha'i Faith.

The progressive social agenda is just a facade over something much darker; there is in the writings of Baha'u'llah an advocacy of blind obedience, and a condemnation of things that we as Americans hold as basic truths. Quite frankly, looking at the writings of Baha'u'llah and comparing them to the writings of both 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and reading some Baha'i history, it becomes evident that starting with 'Abdu'l-Baha's ministry there was a concerted effort to woo Europeans and Americans, especially Americans. Much of the darker side of Baha'u'llah's writings was glossed over or explained away, or subjected to the more soothing writings of 'Abdu'l Baha. And after 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi ramped up the westernization of the Baha'i Faith.

But despite the concerted efforts to make Baha'u'llah more palatable to western tastes, no Baha'i official has ever disassociated the religion from Baha'u'llah's anti-democratic, almost cultic utterances, and in fact in recent years have brought them out of the dark to try to enforce a conformity only vaguely hinted at before. For instance, this passage which I tried to pass over and ignore for 32 years:

"Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance.

"Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness.

"Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing.

"Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will, that pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven."
- Gleanings from the Writing of Baha'u'llah, p. 335 - 336

And these others are equally disturbing:

"Mankind in its entirety must firmly adhere to whatsoever hath been revealed and vouchsafed unto it. Then and only then will it attain unto true liberty."
- Gleanings, p. 96

"It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to exercise moderation in all things. Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things as liberty, civilization and the like. However much men of understanding may favorably regard them, they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious influence upon men."
- Gleanings, p. 216 [Note: This one always bothered me a lot; how can civilization be considered excessive?]

In 1992 the Universal House of Justice published the definitive translation (Baha'u'llah wrote in Arabic and Farsi) of the Kitab-i-Aqdas (literally the Most Holy Book), Baha'u'llah's book of laws. There had been other translations by non-Baha'i scholars, but the official Baha'i version had to have a lot of footnotes, attached documents, and addenda. Why? Because the laws themselves are labyrinthine (e.g. the laws of inheritance and marriage), ridiculous (exhortations to clip toenails, change your furniture every 19 years, men to neither shave their heads nor grow their hair long), or downright barbaric (the punishment for arson is for the arsonist himself to be burnt to death). The extraneous additions are all later writings meant to try to make sense out of all of it and to try to make the more barbaric punishments more humane. But the bald fact remains that Baha'u'llah wrote those things in the first place and no amount of backpedaling or fancy footwork can change that fact.

But aside from a canon of laws , it also contains some pretty disturbing statements regarding the individual's freedom of conscience:

"Everything that is hath come to be through His irresistible decree. Whenever My laws appear like the sun in the heaven of Mine utterance, they must be faithfully obeyed by all, though My decree be such as to cause the heaven of every religion to be cleft asunder. He doeth what He pleaseth. He chooseth, and none may question His choice."
- Kitab-i-Aqdas, verse 7

"Beware lest, through compassion, ye neglect to carry out the statutes of the religion of God; do that which hath been bidden you by Him Who is compassionate and merciful. We school you with the rod of wisdom and laws, like unto the father who educateth his son, and this for naught but the protection of your own selves and the elevation of your stations. By My life, were ye to discover what We have desired for you in revealing Our holy laws, ye would offer up your very souls for this sacred, this mighty, and most exalted Faith."
- Kitáb-i-Aqdas, verse 45

One of the more common phrases in Baha'u'llah's writings is "He doeth what He willeth"; that God is supreme and will do whatever he wants and we mere humans have no option but to obey. The following is probably the epitome of that attitude:

"O thou who hast fixed thy gaze upon the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God! Know thou for a certainty that the Will of God is not limited by the standards of the people, and God doth not tread in their ways. Rather is it incumbent upon everyone to firmly adhere to God's straight Path. Were He to pronounce the right to be the left or the south to be the north, He speaketh the truth and there is no doubt of it. Verily He is to be praised in His acts and to be obeyed in His behests. He hath no associate in His judgement nor any helper in His sovereignty. He doeth whatsoever He willeth and ordaineth whatsoever He pleaseth."
- Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 109 - 110

After many years of trying to convince myself that I wasn't a total sucker, I finally gave up and sent my letter of resignation to the NSA. And when some of my good friends who are still bent on reformation ask me why I gave up, I show them these passages (which I know they're familiar with) and say, "The current ruling regime hasn't strayed from the original purity; Baha'u'llah hard-wired religious despotism into his writings from the very beginning. Sorry, but I can't follow a god who thinks I need to be treated like a mindless sheep."

I have nothing against Baha'is themselves; I still have a lot of friends in the American Baha'i community (although a lot of people dropped me like a hot potato after I unenrolled myself). And if they want to keep on believing that Baha'u'llah is the messenger of god for modern times, and that his religion will usher in the golden age of humanity, then more power to them. I think they're deluded, but that's their issue, not mine.

As I say to my reform-minded friends, we only fool ourselves. And I finally decided I couldn't do that any more.

But having left the Baha'i community, I wasn't entirely without spiritual belief or resources. In the course of my life I've been an avid student of the world's religions, faiths, myths, folk tales, etc. My personal library has all sorts of religious scriptures and books about religion, and covers everything from Native American beliefs and practices to Walter R. Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. There's even more on the hard drive of this computer, everything from the Zoroastrian Avesta to Guru Nanak's writings. And of course I'm addicted the the Internet Sacred Texts Archive, and every time they update their DVD-ROM to include everything they've added to the website, I pony up. So I'm well-read in the texts of the world's spiritual beliefs.

When I first left the Baha'i Faith to strike out on my own, I mostly hung out with neo-Pagans because the idea that all creation, including ourselves, is sacred appeals to me. Even now I celebrate the turning of the Wheel of the Year, and especially love Samhain and Yule, the central celebrations of the Autumn/Winter half of the year. And I have my personal altar with candles and incense and the requisite representations of the four elements - Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. But on that altar I also have: a homemade Lakota-style prayer stick; a Tibetan singing bowl; a Laughing Buddha figurine; a Ganesha figurine; seashells of all kinds; a bouquet of different kinds of bird feathers; and other things of that nature. I cover some pretty diverse territory on my altar. Why? Because it all represents the sacredness of everything to me.

Part of what I discovered in my post-Baha'i studies was Matthew Fox's Creation Spirituality, which, like my own and Pagan beliefs, centers on all creation being sacred. And one of the things Fox points out about the multitude and diversity of religious belief in this world is that we all try to define the divine by what we know, how we were brought up, where we live, etc. In his book One River, Many Wells he compared the world's religions to the five blind men of the Hindu story, who could only describe the elephant standing in front of them by the part that they had each grabbed: a leg, the trunk, the tail, an ear...

Now, I've always been a big fan of the Tao Te Ching, and one day while reading it, the first two verses all of a sudden said something to me:

The way that can be described is not the eternal Way.
The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.

There it is! If you put a label on something, if you try to name or define it, you take away its sacredness. Do you know how freeing that discovery is? The Bible, the Tao Te Ching, the Qur'an, Rumí's poetry, Matthew Fox's works, the lectures of Rinzai Gigeng, the Dhammapada, the Vedas, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan - it's all true, it's all part of the eternal jigsaw puzzle that is our understanding of the cosmos. But...

Nobody's standing over me claiming any of this as a definitive revelation. It doesn't try to enforce any rules or modes of thinking on me. I don’t join an organization to do it, and I don’t give it a name. I walk the Way without trying to describe it or name it. In that I’m a free man, much more free than anybody sitting in a building reciting words written by somebody else and praying to a god created out of their own finite, constricted imaginations (while I’m out wandering in the woods and the salt marshes saying good morning to the birds).

And that freedom is such a divine gift!

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Note: The photo of me at the top was taken by my friend Elizabeth Evans - better known to friends, family, and everybody on Gather.com as Bob (her father wanted a boy and didn't get one) - on a trip to photograph seals on the rocks off Sakonnet Point on February 21, 2008.

Theme Thursday - Kiss

A little over 20 years ago I created my own Tarot deck, mostly as a way to express my own ideas about what the whole thing was about, which were decidedly more earth- and human-based and firmly rooted in Jungian symbolism than the commercial decks available at the time. This is my version of the traditional The Lovers card. To me this card symbolizes far more than just "love" as it is normally seen, but rather as the force that holds together everything in the universe. whether you want to call it "gravity" or "magnestism" or "attraction" or "harmony" or anything else. In the classic Christian theological sense, this card covers all three forms of love - agape, eros, and philia. Whatever it is that brings us together - personal or communal - is reflected in this card. I even used lovers of different skin coloring to represent bringing diverse elements into harmony. And of course the kiss is essential - the flowing together, the blending, the essential breath of each flowing into the other and creating a deep, binding unity.

One of the more famous love poems in Western culture is Paul's paean to love in 1 Corinthians 13. He uses the word αγάπη (agape) in this, which basically means complete, unconditional love. I couldn't think of a better quote for this week's theme:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

"So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

The music video I chose for this week's theme is more proof that at heart I'm a sappy romantic. Heh, heh! I couldn't help myself; I fed the word "kiss" into YouTube's search engine, and hidden in the mass of videos by the rock group Kiss was this little gem I remembered from the '90s. Yup, Seal singing "Kiss From a Rose". I love that song! This is a live version from 2004 in Wembley Stadium, part of a tribute to Trevor Horn, who was Seal's producer. Enjoy!

Artwork, photo, and text © 2009 by A, Roy Hilbinger

Twisting Translation to Fit an Agenda

The history of Biblical manuscripts and textual criticism is full of tales about monks messing with the manuscripts in an attempt to force the text be be more aligned to the church's idea of orthodoxy, and also tales of translators who used their knowledge for the same purpose. The Textus Receptus (Latin: received text) is probably the prime example of this. It was the Greek text of the New Testament that Dutch Catholic philosopher Desiderius Erasmus put together as the foundation to be used for translation to Latin (and later other languages). Most Reformation-era vernacular translations of the Bible relied on it - Martin Luther's German Bible, Tynedale's and King James' English translations, and even the Catholic English translation, Douay-Rheims.

But Textus Receptus is badly flawed. Whenever Erasmus couldn't find an existing early Greek manuscript, he translated St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate to Greek. He also included scribal marginal annotations as actual text. The most famous of these was the Johannine Comma, which occurs in two verses of the First Epistle of John, 5:7 - 8. Without the comma these verses read: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." This apparently wasn't trinitarian enough for a Fourth Century monk, who added a more suitable addition in the margin. Erasmus added it to the text itself, so that the verses then read (here in the King James Version): "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." [The bolded portion is the added comma.] Later scholars who put together the Greek texts which all modern translators and scholars use recognized the nature of the addition and eliminated it as it deserved.

Why did Erasmus do such a thing? He was out of favor with the Vatican, not only because he was well-known as a humanist philosopher, but also because he acted as adviser to Martin Luther for a time. But without the Vatican's sponsorship Erasmus would cease to have a means of livelihood, so Textus Receptus was his bid to get back into Rome's good graces; he gave them the text that would best please them. But history hasn't treated him as well as the Curia did, and most now recognize his "received text" as anything but.

But this sort of finagling with the original text didn't end in the 16th Century. It still goes on today, which is what spurred me to compose this post. Let's take a look at what's commonly known as "The Lord's Prayer", the version in Matthew 6:9 - 13. Here's the original Greek (from the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition):

9) ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου
10) ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι γης
11) τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
12) και αφες ημιν τα οφειληματα ημων ως και ημεις αφηκαμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων
13) και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου

My translation of these verses is:

9) Instead, you should pray this way: Our father in heaven, your name be revered.
10) Bring down your kingdom, fulfill your will, as in heaven so upon earth.
11) Bestow upon us today whatever bread we need.
12) And forgive us our debts just as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.
13) And do not force us to endure test after test, but rescue us from the evil one.

Now I need to establish some background. There are some old New Testament texts in Syriac, a variant of Aramaic. The earliest was put together by Tatian in the 2nd Century, called the Diatessaron, which was a book that harmonized the four canonical Gospels, i.e. didn't arrange them as four separate books but arranged them according to similar narrative threads. A later 4th Century text in Syriac eventually developed into the New Testament of the eastern monophysite churches, such as the Assyrian Orthodox and related denominations; it's called the Peshitta (Syriac "simple, common").

Why do I bring this up? Because there's a school of thought called Aramaic Primacy which considers the Syriac texts to be the real "original" text of the New Testament, rather than the Greek. They believe that because these texts are in a variant of the Aramaic spoken in Roman Palestine in Jesus' time, therefore these texts are more "authentic" than the Greek. There are serious problems with these claims.

Solid scholarship shows that these Syriac texts were actually translated from Greek to Syriac. Even Tatian never claimed his Diatessaron to be original. He split from Rome (he was a disciple of Justin Martyr and after Justin's death renounced Rome and moved back to Edessa) and considered his Gospel Harmony to be a way of casting the Gospel into the vernacular of his people. He considered Greek to be the "imperial tongue" and Syriac to be the language of the common people, and acted accordingly. The Peshitta was viewed in the same way, as a thumbing of the nose to the Byzantine and Roman powers who sought to control the Mediterranean world. This motive has much in common with Reformation-era vernacular translations of the Bible; Luther and the Protestant scholars of England who crafted their translations were thumbing their noses at Rome.

And the claim that these Syriac texts are more authentic because they share a language with Jesus is shaky at best. The Aramaic dialect of Syriac differs significantly from the seven Palestinian dialects extant at the time of Jesus; they were from different branches of the Aramaic family, the Palestinian being in the Western branch and the Syriac being in the Eastern. This would be like the difference between Gothic and Old Norse - both in the Germanic family of languages, but different branches (Old Norse in the Northern Branch and Gothic in the Eastern), and while they might be able to understand each other somewhat, it wouldn't be anywhere near complete understanding, due to differences that culture and environment (such as loanwords from neighboring non-Germanic languages). Add to that that Palestinian Aramaic was antique compared to 2nd Century (the Diatessaron) and 4th Century (the Peshitta) Syriac, and you end up looking at that "same language" claim with a large handfull of salt.

Still, the Peshitta is the Biblical translation of choice for the non-Byzantine derived Eastern churches, and in that function there can be no problem with that. The issue I'm addressing in this post comes from a particular translation of the Matthean "Lord's Prayer" passages by a particular person. First, let's look at the Syriac text (I have to use a graphic image version because apparently the Web doesn't recognize Estrangelo script):

My translation of this is:

9) Pray therefore like this: Our father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
10) Your kingdom come, your will be done, as in heaven so on earth.
11) Give us this day the bread we require.
12) And forgive us our offenses as we also have forgiven those who have offended us.
13) And do not bring us into trial, but deliver us from the evil one. [For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever.]

[Note: that last bit in brackets at the end of verse 13 is one of my prime arguments against the Peshitta being more "authentic" than the Greek texts. It's actually a Greek doxology from the Greek liturgy, added to make sure everybody saying it knew it was a prayer. It's not a Syriac addition, it's a Greek one!]

Now that's pretty straightforward and except for the liturgical doxology tacked onto the end, it pretty much follows the Greek version. But just in case anybody distrusts my translation, here's the translation of the same verses (minus the introductory "Pray therefore like this...") by George Lamsa, Syriac scholar, Aramaic Primacist, and the man who first introduced the Peshitta to western audience:

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us bread for our needs from day to day.
And forgive us our offenses, as we have forgiven our offenders.
And do not let us enter into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever.

See? Basically the same words. But...

There's another Aramaic Primacist who has a version of the Lord's Prayer that sounds nothing like this. In fact, it's not really a "translation" at all, more a paraphrase, or even more accurately a commentary. This is by Dr. Neil Douglas-Klotz, who fancies himself a modern-day Sufi and who imposes a metaphysical New Age philosophy on his Syriac translations. Which is fine in and of itself, except that he bills his translations as "translated directly from the original Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus." Except that it's not, it's ostensibly translated from the 4th Century (and later) Syriac Peshitta and the words he uses in his translation have little or nothing to do with the Syriac words of the text. You be the judge:

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.

Now do you see anything but a mere whiff of a nod towards the original Syriac text in this? No, me neither. This is pure, unadulterated New Age metaphysics, and this guy is using the Peshitta to push it. Whether I agree with his take on this is immaterial; as I said above, I probably would never have even noticed this if he had billed it as his own, personal commentary on the Lord's Prayer, which is what it is. But he had to bill it as "translated directly from the original Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus." And that it's not, as anyone can plainly see. It basically puts him in the same class as Erasmus, willing to twist Holy Writ to serve his own ideological purposes. And in the world of Biblical scholarship, that's a big no-no!

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger