Tell Me A Story

"A Girl Reading" Pierre Auguste Renoir 1890

“Once upon a time” was a magic phrase for our children growing up. Without access to cable TV or a shelf full of DVD's, they relied on tales read from books or that we shared from our memories for a lot of their entertainment.

Bedtimes at our house were known as “story time”, when we read and re-read, told and re-told tales new and old--stories from the Good Book and from countless other books, along with favorite family stories, made-up stories, silly stories and serious and sad stories.

Now that our three are grown and long gone, we miss having them on our laps, tucked in their beds or beside us on the living room sofa, begging for just one more chapter from Little House on the Prairie or from our Bible story book.

Good stories never grow old, become better with retelling. They bond the teller and the hearer together, and are powerful in the ways they inform, influence and shape the values and faith of our young. They have always been a primary means by which societies pass on their way of life to the next generation.

Unfortunately, Hollywood is replacing our homes and congregations as our society’s primary story teller. And according to an organization called TV-Free America, today’s children are spending nearly 30 times as much time passively absorbing these pathetic myths as they do in meaningful conversations with their parents, or in hearing them share tales from the past.

Here are some examples of how many media generated stories tend to undermine our values:

1. Girl meets boy, they fall in love, and within minutes (or at most, hours), they are physically passionate. It’s portrayed as what everyone does. And there are few negative consequences, no worries about pregnancy or STD’s, almost no concerns about the emotional or social effects of these kinds of near instant hook-ups.

2. Our (good) guys always beat up their (bad) guys. The other guys are clever, but ours are armed with more intelligence and better weapons. Almost always, our guys' use of violence proves to be a justifiable, instant and permanent solution to almost any human problem.

3. Cool people routinely put down, embarrass and outsmart uncool people. Most parents, teachers and other adults are definitely not cool people.

4. The only way to get to be anybody--or to be liked by anybody--is to be physically attractive. And the only way to be attractive is to be thin, young, and to be made up like the latest Hollywood idol.

These are lamentable narratives indeed, fit for neither children nor adults.

We parents and grandparents do have some advantages in the storytelling department. We have laps, and loving arms to wrap around our children as we introduce them to some really “happily ever after.”

"True Evangelical Faith"

Menno Simons, 1496-1561

Some 500 years ago members of the "Anabaptist" or free church movement in western Europe (founded on freedom from state control of religion) began to be referred to as "Mennists" or "Mennonites" due to the influence of one of their most loved and long-lived leaders, Menno Simons.

Menno, a former Catholic priest from Friesland, was not the group's founder, having joined the movement ten years after it began in Zurich, Switzerland in 1525, but became its leading voice and its most prolific writer.

He uses the term evangelical here as distinct from both the Catholicism of his time, which strongly emphasized the necessity of good works, and contemporary reformers, who stressed faith alone as necessary for salvation:

True evangelical faith
is of such a nature that it cannot lay dormant;
but manifests itself
in all righteousness and works of love;

It dies unto flesh and blood;
destroys all forbidden lusts and desires;
cordially seeks, serves and fears God;
clothes the naked; 
feeds the hungry;
consoles the afflicted;
shelters the miserable;
aids and consoles all the oppressed;
returns good for evil;
serves those that injure it;
prays for those that persecute it;
teaches, admonishes and reproves with the Word of the Lord;
seeks that which is lost;
binds up that which is wounded;
heals that which is diseased
and saves that which is sound.

The persecution, suffering and anxiety which befalls it
for the sake of the truth of the Lord,
is to it a glorious joy and consolation.

- Menno Simons, "Why I Do Not Cease Teaching And Writing" 1539

Maybe We've Married Just The Right Person

At our 50th anniversary August 2014

“Destructive to marriage is the self-fulfillment ethic that assumes marriage and the family are primarily institutions of personal fulfillment, necessary for us to become ‘whole’ and happy.  The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person.  This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage.  It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person.  We never know whom we marry; we just think we do... The primary problem is…learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married.”   

- Stanley Hauerwas

I mostly agree with Hauerwas, but also believe there is something just "right" about the "wrong" (as in imperfect and imperfectly matched) person we choose to marry.

I often meet with couples in my office who are on the verge of breaking up. Each is angry and vindictive, and all they seem to be able to do is to disrespect, blame and accuse each other.

On one such occasion, in a moment of inspiration, or maybe a bit of desperation, I said, “OK, imagine if you were to split up, and the only way you could be relieved of your partner was to persuade someone else to take them off your hands. And to do that, you would have to create an classified ad listing all of the virtues of the other person you could think of, much as you would do if you were advertising a vehicle, ‘One owner, well maintained, nice looking, in excellent condition, etc.’"

I suggested this tongue in cheek, of course, to help them recall all of the good qualities that attracted them to their partner in the first place, qualities that sooner or later someone else would be sure to find attractive, just as they had years earlier.

Those good assets in our marriage don't tend to just go away, but typically a mound of negative behaviors begins to get in the way of our seeing and appreciating our spouse as we first did. But in spite of everything that blocks our vision and hinders our appreciation, those good qualities are likely still there, along with the not-so-great ones.

Of course, I'm not encouraging staying with an unrepentant adulterer, abuser or addict. But under normal circumstances, we need to recognize that each of us comes as a package, with our own mix of assets and liabilities. And since our marriages weren’t arranged by others, we need to remember that we chose each other because of what we really valued, and chose to minimize the other person's faults, much as we continue to minimize our own.

So we probably deserve each other, and need to be remind ourselves regularly of why we made the fateful choice we did, based on our own best judgment at the time.

So what if could each stop blaming the other for our lack of happiness, and to go forward with the belief that we are somehow just right for each other, a perfectly matched couple. That doesn’t mean we’re a perfect couple, which would take two perfect people, but what if our unique mix of assets and challenges were seen as just right for us to experience the optimal amount of growth that may have never happened with any other combination of two human beings?

Then we could stop complaining and start putting our efforts into building a satisfying and God-blessed relationship.

Another Sign of Mercy's Law

We're all familiar with Murphy's Law, the one that says if anything can go wrong, it will. But I also keep running into examples what I call "Mercy's Law", seemingly random happenings that turn out much better than expected.

Take a medical scare I had a couple of weeks ago, when I experienced some unusual rectal bleeding for the first time in my life, ever. I was definitely alarmed at what I saw, bright red, obvious and ominous. 

More than concerned, I called my doctor's office immediately, and was told that my primary physician, Dr. Alan Morgan, could see me at 7:30 the next morning. That seemed providential.

The hours that followed were good for me. I thought about how God-graced my life has been, how few my ailments, how many my blessings. Alma Jean and I hugged each other, prayed for the best and even pondered the worst. It was a time for gaining perspective.

Then a blessed relief. 

My good doctor diagnosed me as having a benign case of ICD 455.0 ("internal hemorrhoids without mention of complication"), which came as a complete surprise, since I had never experienced any discomfort of any kind. Needless to say, I have never been so grateful for a diagnosis in my life.

ICD 455.0. I can live with that.

The Misrepresented Mary of Magdala

source

In the Easter account in John's gospel, Mary Magdalene, or Mary of Magdala (the town she was from along the coast of the Sea of Galilee), is honored as the first person to give witness to the resurrection of Jesus. She is also named as among the few of Jesus's followers who remained at his side during his crucifixion (the male disciples who fled undoubtedly knew they were more likely to be arrested than the women).

Over time Mary Magdalene, mentioned more often than any other woman in the gospels (even more than the most of Jesus's twelve male followers), became identified as one of the several women of questionable character who anointed Jesus in an act of penitence--and even as the woman caught in the act of adultery.  

Since most of these women are unnamed, this is pure speculation. And adding to the confusion, there are numerous other "Marys" in the gospels, Mary the mother of Jesus (think "Magnificat"), Mary, an avid student of Jesus and the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, or Mary Clopas.

By the time of Pope Gregory I, Mary Magdalene was known as a composite figure erroneously identified with some or all of the female characters in the gospels who showed their devotion to Jesus by pouring expensive ointment on his head or feet, then drying them with her hair. According to his Homily XXXIII, this sixth century Pope declared,

"She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. What did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?

"It is clear, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears. She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears. She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet. For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself. She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance."                

Most scholars no longer accept this view of Mary Magdalene's identity, and insist she was almost certainly a person of both sterling reputation and of considerable means, who with the other women named, were Jesus' patrons and confidantes during his ministry, according to this text:

"After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means."    - Luke 8:1-3 NIV

The "seven demons" that once afflicted her, most current scholars believe, probably had to do with a complicated physical (or mental?) illness from which she had been delivered, not some kind of demon possession.

In an article in the June, 2006, issue of Smithsonian magazine, historian James Carroll concludes that the church has wrongly made a caricature of Mary Magdalene. They created this Mary as a representative of her entire gender, as redeemed but weak and vulnerable, and destined to remain subservient and secondary.

The actual truth, Carroll believes, is that she was a respected and valued part of Jesus's inner circle.

Living By The Fifth Gospel

source

Jesus went about announcing, "God's rule is breaking in everywhere, right here and now. Radically change your ways to God's ways and embrace this good news!" 

(Mark 1:15, paraphrased)

I have always professed to live by the gospel (good news) according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but during this Holy Week I'm realizing how much I may be living by an antithetical version of Jesus' life and teachings, one we might call "The Gospel According To US".

This widely celebrated gospel affirms that...

1. It's OK for some people to accumulate more and more wealth and possessions while others lack even bare necessities.

2. We can accept huge worldwide and US wage and income inequities as normal and inevitable.

3. We can secretly support the maiming, dismembering and slaughtering of enemies like ISIS or any other groups that commit atrocities or who simply threaten our national interest.

4. We can support the investment of huge amounts of money in expensive real estate for ourselves, as well as in state-of-the-art furnishings and amenities and million dollar endowments to enhance and support our church buildings and church institutions.

5. We can "fare sumptuously" every day, and whenever we host any of our frequent feasts we need only invite our close friends and family members.

6. Our social life and church life need involve only people who think, look and believe much as we do.

7. Our wardrobes can represent the kind of fashion statement that includes expensive jewelry and multiple changes of clothing to later be disposed of in yard sales or thrift stores to make room for more.

8. We can enjoy luxurious cruises and expensive vacations whenever and however we can afford them.

9. We can look forward to a leisurely retirement and to living to a ripe old age without having to risk any major discomfort or sacrifice for our faith.

10. All the while, God will look with favor on our living by this "fifth gospel", will comfort us in our distresses, shower us with blessings and give us a free pass to eternal bliss.

Now is that good news or not?

All Life Is Precious--A Conversation With Dr. Roman Miller

source

I sent the following draft of some reflections and questions to EMU biology professor Roman Miller for his response: 

This Great God,
Like a mammy bending over her baby, 
Kneeled down in the dust
Toiling over a lump of clay
Till he shaped it in his own image; 

Then into it he blew the breath of life,
And man became a living soul. 

 - James Weldon Johnson's "Creation", from God's Trombones--Negro Sermons in Verse

According to the Genesis creation account, human life begins with the creation of Adam from adamah, or dust. God forms a human prototype, adam, (Hebrew for man) from ordinary clay (adamah), then that God-formed soil becomes a living, God-breathed soul, Adam.  So the progression is from adamah (dust) to adam (generic human) to Adam (individual soul/person.

I understand that in the Bible, a "soul" is not something that comes to inhabit a person, but is a term synonymous with the essential person one becomes, a whole, living human being made "in God's image".

So from the creation event on we might think of human life not so much as "beginning", either at conception or when exiting the womb, but as continuing, in a sequence involving distinct forms somewhat like a swallowtail evolves from pupa to chrysalis to an individual butterfly.

From my perspective, human life at each stage of development is to be respected and guarded as God's special creation. But just as there is a difference between sperm/egg life and fetal life, is there a similar difference between a body in formation (still on life support in the womb) and soul life, or whole life? And might the original creation account offer some helpful perspective?

Certainly neither God nor any other creature would have dreamed of terminating the sculpting and designing process the Creator was engaged in when God "made" the first human adam. All the organic elements of body life were being "knit together", much as they are during each pregnancy. As with the first "adam", we humans are fearfully and wonderfully "made" in that process, formed from existing organic material (adamah, or dust), and with all of the complex physical parts and organs required for human existence.

It is then, after God makes this first human creature (complete with all of its organs and other body parts), that God creates something amazingly wonderful and unique, as in, "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being (or 'living soul')." (Genesis 2:7).

The actual Hebrew word for create ("bara") is used only three times in the six stanzas of the original creation hymn (Genesis 1-2:3), first when creating something from nothing (the "heavens and the earth"), then when creating living creatures (sea life), and finally when creating human life (Genesis 1:26-27). In all of the other steps in the creation account, the text uses terms like "Let there be," as if the Creator were setting things in motion and watching them develop. Or the text describes God as having "made" things, presumably with existing material, as in the case of both the heavenly bodies and of human bodies.

Interestingly, I recently learned that the Celtic theologian Pelagius disagreed with Augustine's view that God created everything in the world ex nihilo; out of nothing, but rather that God created the world ex Deo, out of the very essence of God's being.

At any rate, to create is usually thought of as bringing something entirely new into existence. And so it is when God breathes spirit into the generic adam, since it is at this point that the human being (formed from adamah) appears to become a living soul and is named Adam, a formal name that distinguishes that person from all others, including Eve and every other human creature. Thus human beings, male and female, are indeed a special species, bearing God's image.

So should we see pregnancy as a similar process of a human in formation, of our being assembled with all of the amazing organs and body parts needed for the soul life which comes with God's "breath"? Thus we would never dishonor organic (physical) life, would always treat it with utmost reverence and respect, and experience any termination of that form of life (via a miscarriage) with a deep sense of loss and the greatest of regret, especially as it represents the loss of a dream of all that this life could have become. But are there understandable differences of degree between that and the mourning the death of a child or adult who has actually lived and breathed among us?

Societies and cultures from the beginning of time have all seemed to recognize that "difference of degree" in one way or another. For example, we seldom name, christen, or have formal memorial services and burials for a miscarriage in the early stages of pregnancy. Not because we regard this or any form of human life as mere tissue to be discarded. No, an embryo or fetus represents something fearfully and wonderfully God-formed. And we grieve and mourn whenever a life doesn't continue to full term, and never has the opportunity to realize its full potential.

The Torah makes clear, in Exodus 21:22  that any human-caused miscarriage is a wrong that must be atoned for, ^"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine."  (NRSV)

Meanwhile, while Christians have long been divided over whether the willful terminating of a pregnancy is murder, I pray we would no longer be divided over whether we protect and preserve human life at whatever stage, from the womb to the tomb.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What follows is Dr. Roman Miller's helpful and thoughtful response:

1) Interesting to link embryonic development to forming adam.  Never thought about it quite in that way before.

2) Using the Johnson's poem creates beautiful imagery which may not necessarily depict reality.

3) Suggesting human life "as continuing" (your 2nd paragraph) resonates with the biological reality.  Living cells (sperm and ova) merge to form a living zygote (single cell) which subsequently divides to form a ball of cells (morula) which hollows out (blastula) and then implants into the maternal endometrial wall as a trilayer early embryo that undergoes continual development forming a fetus and then is birthed as an infant.  In all of those processes, biologically speaking at least, life does not begin, rather it continues.  Usually when people say "When does life begin" what is meant is what is the origination of individualization or sometimes when is the emergence of personhood?

4) Subscribing to the "breathe" idea as central (paragraph 7), i.e. "God breathes spirit into the generic adam" resonates with many Jewish perspectives who see protection for the developing person only when he/she draws a first breath.  (Personally, I disagree with that perspective and think it is short-sighted.)

5) You talk about ensoulment--i.e. becoming a living soul -- (Paragraph 7).  Traditional Roman Catholic view was that God inserts a soul into the developing embryo at some stage -- while the debate is "when" -- but most Catholics put it rather early in development.  In contrast I would think of "ensoulment" as an emergent property of embryonic/fetal development that corresponds with other emergent properties -- e.g. migration of cells to form distinctive tissues and organ seeding, development of sensations, increasing brain activity, complex movements, etc.  All of these happen pre-birth.

6) I think the crux of the discussion on abortion -- embryonic stem cell research etc is really hinged on the concept and value of the embryo (especially the early embryo).  Your discussion values the embryo (more than simple tissue) but probably doesn't value it enough (in my view)!  You refer explicitly to two scriptures (the Genesis creation passage) which is the focus of your piece and then make a side comment about Exodus 21.  Maybe a fuller view of how Scripture portrays the unborn would be helpful?  For example, Luke 1:41 personifying fetal movement or reflecting more on the meaning of the incarnation.  So what was the earliest point (time-wise) of Jesus of Nazareth?  "Quickening"?  Parturition? Or is there another view of ontogeny here?  I think there is and by reflecting on the meaning of the incarnation (assuming a divine conception) we gain an insight into the nature of development. (Consider Luke 1:35; Matt 1:20 for example as starters.)

7) My personal approach (you don't need to buy this) is to talk about personhood as a mark of individual originalization.  I'm not talking about "functional personhood" as frequently described, i.e. cognition, reflection, etc, as evidence of soul or individualization, rather I'm talking about biological personhood establishes the identity of a new individual -- while entirely dependent upon another, still expresses its own individuality.  I think that individuality, soul, personality, thinking, etc are all emergent properties that occur in utero but find fuller expression in infancy, childhood, adulthood, and maturity.  Finally those emergent properties (instead of continual flowering) begin to decline with aging and exit into another existence at death.

************************************

Here's a link to a post on evangelicals and abortion http://harvyoder.blogspot.com/2016/10/until-recently-evangelicals-condoned.html