Amy Grant - My Father's Eyes - Album 6 of 10

Album Title: My Father's Eyes
Artist: Amy Grant

Album 6 of 10 in the 10 Album Challenge

Thoughts

In the fall of 1980, I met Sherry.

And the rest is history.

OK, that's not enough of an explanation.  Some exposition.

Very, very soon after we met, Sherry and I started spending most of our time together. And that meant spending time listening to music.

Sherry had been introduced to Amy Grant's music essentially as soon as it became available.  Amy Grant's introductory, self-titled album came out in 1977.  By the time we met, My Father's Eyes was part of Sherry's collection.  We listened to these two albums very frequently.  And, since I hadn't heard of Amy, for a while I could not really have told you which album had which songs.  In fact, Never Alone came out in 1980, and I'm sure Sherry had it very soon after, so those three albums were probably one big collection in my mind.

Until 1991's Heart in Motion, her albums were entirely Christian music, and she defined the genre for at least a decade.   But that's not what made her influential to my music tastes.

Amy Grant, the artist, is our age. Her early work (she writes a significant amount of her music) was "young" -- it sounded like a person of our age experiencing a young faith.  As she got older, her songs reflected a more nuanced, human, experience faith journey.

In my personal history, my faith was "education-based" before I got to college.  I went to church when my parents did, but I didn't ask to go, or look forward to going. I did the Sunday School thing sometimes, but not super often.  When it was time, I went through Confirmation classes mixed in with a group of kids who did NOT want to be there.  There was another group of kids who were taught together -- they were the popular kids, the "good kids" who all knew each other from growing up in the church.  But the entire group of kids was too large for one class, so we got separated, and the group I ended up with were the "rough" kids. It was not fun, but I was a good student, so I was determined to do well, no matter the group of kids.  So I learned what I had to learn, wrote the essays, took the quizzes (all A's, of course) and did just fine on Questioning.  That was 8th grade maybe? Not sure.  But when it was done, I was done with church (except when I had to go.)

I did have a faith lifeline in the sacred music I sang in choir, but other than that, my Christianity was just dormant.

Until I met Sherry.  Her faith was a big part of who she was.  And among other things, she listened to Amy Grant music.  Amy Grant's music was the soundtrack to my faith growth, coinciding with Sherry's influence, our discussions, Bible study, the religion courses I took at Luther, participation in choir and so on.

I've listened to Christian music ever since.  Not exclusively, clearly.  But Amy Grant and Michael W Smith are frequently in my listening list.  When I get melancholy, Amy Grant's music is one of the most frequent cures.  When I get joyful, or have done some learning -- particularly in philosophy or religion -- I want to hear her music.

So, I had to select an Amy Grant album.  Why did I select My Father's Eyes? First, it was among that group of two or three which started it all.  Next, because it had three of the most touching tracks: "My Father's Eyes," "O Sacred Head" and (my favorite) "There Will Never Be Another."

And now that I've written this, I think I'll go listen to Age to Age. 

Thankful For and Thankful To - Reprint

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I hope this holiday finds you well, and that you are able to spend it with family or friends or both. In what has become a Snippets and Wisps tradition, today's blog is a reprint of a little essay I wrote a couple years ago about the meaning of "thanksgiving." If you don't feel like a Small Sermon today, feel free to stop reading and go enjoy your day. You deserve it!

=======================================

Thanksgiving is a special holiday. Though we are taught to be thankful all year round, having a day set aside for feeling thankful helps focus our gratitude.

Of course, it has become "Turkey Day" to some, and "Football Day" to some, but in general, with families and friends gathering together, many people do still focus on the thankfulness.

Interestingly, though, at Thanksgiving, people primarily talk about the things they are thankful FOR. This, of course, is perfectly natural. To feel thankful, people need to feel they have received something for which they can give thanks.

For me, there are too many blessings to count and list, but I would certainly start here:

I am so thankful for my family. Words cannot express it. Though I try. I am also thankful for the friends I have, especially for those who think about me frequently, providing me company when I laugh, care when I need it, and conversation - in person or over the network. I am thankful for my work, for my home, and for the beautiful world in which we live.

But I am not done with this Thanksgiving message. I want to continue on to discuss the full meaning of giving thanks.

Here is the first definition of "Thank" from from Dictionary.com:

thank

–verb (used with object)

1.to express gratitude, appreciation, or acknowledgment to: She thanked them for their hospitality.

And for good measure, the definition of "Thanks" from the same source:

thanks (θæŋks)
—pl n
1.	an expression of appreciation or gratitude or an acknowledgment of services or favours given

In both of these definitions, there is a clear message which is glossed over by many, but it is worth considering. The definitions make it clear there is someone who is thankful, and someone who is receiving the thanks, because the latter did something for the former.

Thanksgiving, as a recent sermon said, is "relational" - that is, it involves a relationship between the one who is thankful and the one who is being thanked.

So, if you are thankful, who are you thankful TO?

Yes, I am thankful to the people in my life who make my life so blessed. And if that's as far as you go in your faith, then be sure to thank the people in your life on Thanksgiving. For, just as a secular Christmas is to be more about giving than receiving, a secular Thanksgiving should be about being thankful, and to be thankful, there must be someone who deserves our thanks. With that in mind, look around at all those people who have made your life better, and express your appreciation and gratitude as you celebrate your Thanksgiving.

To carry the message a bit further, people of faith should pause to recognize that what we have been given, the materials and relationships for which we are thankful, are not merely gifts from people, but gifts from God. The original Pilgrims were not thanking one another. They were thanking God.

If you explain to a child the concept of Thanksgiving -- that we are grateful for the many things around us -- and ask them to list those things, they will often lists parts of nature. The sun, the stars, the lakes.

If a person has no faith in a creator, then there really is no one to thank for these things. Such a person can feel lucky or fortunate to have them, and they should, but they cannot truly be thankful, because they have no one to thank.

But for people who believe in a God, today is the day to thank God, as the true source for all of these blessings. Even the blessings which appear to have come from people are truly an expression of God's love towards us. And for this, thanks are appropriate, and a form of blessing in themselves.

Lord God, Creator of all, Source of Love and Blessings, on this day of Thanksgiving, we thank you, above all, for the gift of life and for the gifts we receive in life. We especially thank you for the people in our lives who show us love and kindness. For these, and for all, we are truly Thankful. Amen.

A happy and blessed Thanksgiving to you all.

Good Friday - "Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

As with yesterday's revision and reprint of a post I made about Maundy Thursday, today I revise and repost reflections on one of the "Seven Last Words" recorded from the story of Good Friday.
----

Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)

46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Listening to the "Jesus Christ Superstar" soundtrack is a part of my Lenten preparations for Easter, so some of you will not be surprised to learn that I have heard that soundtrack several times this week. Of the famous Seven Last Words of Jesus, the "forsaken" word is included in the script as the second of three things Jesus says during the Crucifixion. (The JCS line is "My God, my God, why have you forgotten me?") As I hear that every year, I am reminded how my understanding and appreciation of this moment in Christ's life has changed and grown over time, and how Bible Study was such an important part of that growth.

When I was a teenager and first saw the film, it might well have been the first time I paid any attention to the Last Words. At that time, I took it as it is performed by Ted Neely - the frustrated lament of someone who truly believed he had been forgotten. Now, I see this "word" much differently, and that's because of studying that I've done,  together with help from other knowledgeable people.

Containing the Aramaic version of the words, the verse guides us to uncover some messages which are lost if one simplifies the "Word" to merely the translated "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"  Those messages are all related to a simple fact: Jesus is quoting the first verse of Psalm 22.  Take a quick look at the Psalm, and then think about the man who is saying the words.  Why does Jesus say this? Is it because he is actually feeling forsaken? I don't think so, and I don't think the Gospel author thought so, either, because he wrote the original Aramaic words, and then translated them for his readers.  So, what do I think Jesus intended?

First, Psalm 22 is a psalm containing messianic prophecy. At our Maundy Thursday services at my former church, we always closed the service by speaking this psalm as the paraments are removed from the altar and the pastor changes from normal vestments to all-black. We have learned, over the years, that this psalm teaches us what will happen to Jesus and what will happen because of him. The psalm tells us that the Messiah will be scorned (v.6) mocked and insulted (v.7). People will say that God should rescue him, since he trusted God so much (v.8 and fulfilled in Matthew 27:43). His hands and feet will be pierced (v.16). People will gamble to see who gets his clothing (v.18). And yet, the second half of the psalm tells of the joy that will come to God's people and the victory that will be won by the Savior He sends.

By speaking the first line of this psalm, Jesus is pointing out to those around him -- and to us today -- that the first part of the prophecy is being fulfilled, and by extension He is promising the second part is soon to come.

Second, and this is the part of the lesson which came to me more recently, Jesus continues to act in his role as "'Rabbi' (which means teacher.)" (John 1:38) In order to instruct the young, a rabbi of Jesus' time would teach his students to memorize the scriptures.  To test the memory of his students, he would speak the opening of a passage and expect them to recite the rest.  Though memorization is not taught as commonly in schools (even Sunday Schools) these days, many of us remember having this same technique used to teach us the Pledge of Allegiance, Psalm 23 or the Christmas story from Luke.  With those facts in mind, it's not hard to imaging that, by speaking these first words, Jesus is acting in his role of teacher to the end.

Third, I think what Jesus wanted to teach is the importance of the entirety of the psalm, not merely the first part. And yet, Jesus did not speak the whole psalm - He started it. Why?  Perhaps because, without his physical presence, we are responsible for learning and understanding God's will and actions, and Jesus is telling us we still have work to do. We are to finish it. We are to learn its meaning. Then we are to accept the resulting grace.

Now, could Jesus have actually been feeling forsaken? I guess it depends on whether such a feeling would be sinful or not. As a human, he would certainly be "normal" if he felt alone as he neared his death. Some would interpret feeling forsaken as a loss of faith, and that is sin.  This is what I used to believe, and because I believe Jesus was the "spotless Lamb" - without sin - I could not reconcile myself to him feeling forsaken.  Later in my life, however, I have thought more about what being "truly human" means when we're describing Jesus' humanity, and I begin to think that our Christ needed to experience the emotions we have as creatures, and then overcome those emotions.  With that thought in mind, I think it's entirely possible Jesus felt forsaken, but used the Psalm to reassure himself, as well as us, that salvation and grace would follow.

Whether he truly felt forsaken or not, the crucial lessons for us to learn from this "Last Word" are connected to the meaning of Psalm 22. Without Bible Study, I would have never known this, and so I am truly thankful to have been given that gift.




.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Maundy Thursday - The New Commandment to Love

[Revising and reprinting my original "Maundy Thursday" blog.]

Today is "Maundy Thursday." Some call it "Holy Thursday" but I like "Maundy" because it makes people say "What does 'Maundy' mean?" and that gives us a chance to talk about one of the most important aspects of the Easter season: The New Commandment.

Now, admittedly, those who attend services on this day every year probably know it as the celebration of the Last Supper and therefor the birth of Holy Communion. This is true, and we should not minimize that aspect of Holy Thursday.

Yet the more significant event, relative to how Jesus asked us to live our lives, is the commandment He gave us that same night. "Commandment" comes from "command" of course, and the root word for "command" is also the root for "Maundy."

In John 13, we have the important account of Jesus acting as a servant, though He is the Master. He washes the disciple's feet. Then, he gives the New Commandment:

John 13:34 (King James Version)

³⁴A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

In one brief evening, in his last opportunity to be with His disciples, Jesus gives us

• the sacramental gift of Holy Communion, 
• the model of servanthood, and 
• the New Commandment: Love one another.

This is nothing new, of course. When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus says (in Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10) that the greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God" but immediately follows it with "Love your neighbor as yourself."

In His final hours, Jesus knows that the disciples will soon find themselves floundering in grief. He gives them a few final lessons to solidify the foundation on which they are to build His church and spread His lessons: recognition of the need for salvation and the acceptance of that salvation (Communion), service to others, and Love.

It is this New Commandment -- to Love one another -- which we celebrate on Maundy Thursday.

Getting Ready to Sing Hallelujah

It's so great to be home!

I have only had two short business trips so far this year, and I know that will change in the coming months.  But for now, I have been enjoying the many advantages of being in Rochester.

One of many reasons was made clear to me last night.

In the Advent season (and really for all of last Fall) I was traveling so much that I could not even think about participating in my church choir.  I missed the chance to sing some very nice Advent and Christmas songs.  Viewed optimistically, I did appreciate the chance I had to hear the choir (with Sherry in it) on the few Sunday mornings I was in town.  I'd close my eyes during that part of the service and relish the chance to hear beautiful, meaningful music in a worship setting.  I really did like that.

I like participating even more.  We are in the approach to Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Easter now.  And because I am not traveling, I have been able to rehearse some truly excellent pieces.  Last night was the first of our extended rehearsals, and while I might have grumbled about a two-hour rehearsal at other times in my life, I loved every minute of it last night.  Some of the reasons I loved it were the music, the steady work towards a suitably musical rendition, the people -- all the things that have been a part of every choir in which I've sung.  Adding to those reasons, this year, is my appreciation that I am in town to sing! 

Perhaps it's trite, but it's true: you never appreciate how much you love something until you don't have it anymore.  And so the corollary is that you can appreciate something you love even more when you regain it.  "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" applies to more than romantic love.

I can't sing "Hallelujah" yet.  But I'm getting ready.  And it's a great feeling!

Statistics about Christianity and their relation to Science and Evolution

Gathered these facts in 2013.  Never posted.  Not sure why, but as they are still valid (for the time they were gathered -- unlikely to have changed since 2013)  and pertinent to a discussion I was having, I'll post now.

====

There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world.  [Sources: Washington Post, Pew Forum]

Of those, 1.2 billion are Catholic. [Sources: Catholic Culture, Pew Forum]

Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic stance that the theory (or theories) of evolution are not in conflict with scriptural truth (see Message to the Ponfical Academy if Sciences: On Evolution) and in fact, the centuries-old recognition that "We know that the truth cannot contradict the truth. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus)"

Here are two important things for people involved in the "Church vs. Science" false debate to take from the above:

Christians -- you are not the minority.  Many Christians speak, act, and even stand in pulpits and preach as if they were somehow the minority.  While it is true that there are more non-Christians in the world than there are Christians, of people professing a religion, you are the largest group.

People who claim "Christians are opposed to science and particularly the Theory of Evolution": The numbers above demonstrate that a majority of Christians in the world profess a type of Christianity which supports the Theory of Evolution, and has done so for decades.  And that's only the Catholics.  There are plenty of Christian denominations which are not Catholic, but which also acknowledge that "truth cannot contradict the truth" and that, to the best knowledge humans have today, Evolution is scientific truth.

While researching this, I came across an essay by Doug Linder: The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes, which I found very interesting.  It selected some of the key quotes from two Popes, which show the progression of acceptance of evolution in that branch of Christianity.

Theology, Reason and Science - Some History

In my previous Knowledge Series post, I discussed how Faith -- holding something to be True without the need to prove it -- is the basis for Reason.  Most of my discussion at that time was about how science uses Reason, together with Faith in a few things, to make Truth claims.  So, last time, the primary focus was on Science as a path to Truth.

This time, I want to discuss Religion and its relationship to Reason, and briefly to Science.  To do so, I need to get into a little history and introduce the idea of Theology.


In what we think of as Western culture, the search for Knowledge and Truth go back to the beginning of recorded thought. What we now think of as religions certainly had, as one of their functions, the delivery of Knowledge -- the explanation of how and why things happened and a description of what things Really were.  However, until the rise of what we now call Philosophy, Reason -- by our current definition --  was not required to support the Truth being described by those belief systems.

Around the time of Socrates (born in 469 BC) it is clear, however, that the Greek world had given rise to the idea of a "philosophy" -- a "love of knowledge" or "love of truth" -- and that philosophy in its nascent form said that Reason had to be applied in order to arrive at Truth.  This method of seeking Truth is probably the key inheritance we have received from Socrates and those who followed him.

Of course, at the time, the idea of "science" did not exist yet.  It would not exist for more than 2000 years, in fact.  What we might have thought of as "science" was more correctly called "natural philosophy" because it dealt with trying to find truths about the natural world.  Socrates, apparently, tried his hand at this sort of philosophy early in his life, failed at it, and moved on to a different branch.  Still, there were people at the time trying to apply reason to the study of the natural world, and then there were people like Socrates who were applying reason to less substantial things - truth, love, honor -- that sort of human endeavor.

OK, the first part of the history lesson is almost over.  I apologize that this is a very abbreviated and necessarily simplified history, but I need to tie it to the next part.  Because the next part deals with Christianity.

By the time Christianity came into existence, this approach of applying Reason to reach Truth was pretty well entrenched in the learned culture of the West.  I am not saying it wasn't at all in existence before Socrates, but certainly Socrates and his followers had tremendous influence by the time the first Christian churches were founded.

This meant that a reliance on Reason to support Truth statements was already inherent in the culture in which Christianity spread.  Thus was born, as part of the Christian belief system, Theology.

Theology, you see, is not simply a list of the things people of a particular Christian denomination hold to be true.  That, unfortunately, is how the word is quite commonly misused these days.  No, Theology is something quite different.

Theology is the application of reason to explain truth, given the faith statements which form the basis of Christianity, together with the theological material which has come before.

Compare this to today's view of science, modified to include my last post's view of faith statements:

Science is the application of reason to explain truth, given the faith statements which form the basis of science, together with the established science which has come before.

Undoubtedly you can see the parallels there.  Of course they are there.  Clearly, I was leading to this point.  Why was I doing this?

Long before the first professional scientist lived, there were professional theologians.  The early church was built by them.  The most famous and influential Christian who ever lived (perhaps excluding the Apostle Paul; let's not argue that point now) was Augustine of Hippo.  He deserves his own post or two, but for now I will merely talk about him as he relates to Theology.

Augustine was born to a Christian mother and a pagan mother, and for a very long time he rejected Christianity.  But he was determined that Reason would guide his path to the Truth.  Once he became a Christian, he applied his Reason very thoroughly.  Augustine laid down many of the theological doctrines which exist in Christianity today, by applying Reason to all manner of issues.

One key teaching of Augustine is that there were two "Books" of Truth.  The Book of Scripture, and the Book of Nature.  Both books, he said, demonstrated the Truth of God's Creation.  And, very importantly, whenever a conflict appeared to exist between the two, it was because people were not applying Reason properly.  In order to reconcile the two, we needed to examine, and find the flaw in, how we were reading the books.

This was obvious to him, by the way, even without considering what we'd call "science."  Augustine recognized the apparent contradictions in the stories of the scripture, and reasoned that there would be Truths explained when we understood them properly.  But when natural philosophy -- remember, the forerunner of science -- proved something to be true, Augustine was not opposed to the idea that the reading of Scripture would have to change to accommodate it.

And Augustine was not alone.  Almost 900 years later, Thomas Aquinas carried very similar beliefs about reason (as did many along the way, but Aquinas is historically and theologically very influential.)

This, friends, is the heritage of the Christian faith.  However, along the way, Theology got lost -- at least among many Christians.  Once the Reformation happened, many new branches of Christianity were so opposed to what became known as the Catholic church that they seemed willing to dismiss the centuries of reasoned thought which had grown up with the Church, in order to separate themselves from the abuses of that Church.

This was not "the fault" of the Reformation.  The Reformation and the Protestant movement did push a large segment of Christianity towards an idea that they could just read Scripture for themselves and be brought to an understanding of the Truth thereby.  While that may be true for the key teachings of the Gospel (again, let's not argue that point now) it most certainly is not true for the relationship between Augustine's Book of Scripture and Book of Nature.

Throwing out the theological baby with the corrupt bathwater allowed for the growth of denominations which do not take advantage of the benefit of theology.  They do not build on the foundation of Reason applied to Scripture which was meticulously built over time.

This leads to some interesting, and frustrating things. For example, something that might come as a surprise to many Christians and non-Christians alike:

A majority of Christians in the world belong to denominations which profess that the theory of evolution is consistent with Christian teachings.

Don't believe me?

There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world.  [Sources: Washington Post, Pew Forum]

Of those, 1.2 billion are Catholic. [Sources: Catholic Culture, Pew Forum]

Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic stance that the theory (or theories) of evolution are not in conflict with scriptural truth (see Message to the Ponfical Academy if Sciences: On Evolution).  In fact, he also supports the centuries-old recognition that "We know that the truth cannot contradict the truth. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus)"   (Sound like Augustine to you?  It should.)

It must be said: while Catholics alone are a majority of Christians, there are other large Christian denominations which are not Catholic, but which also acknowledge that "truth cannot contradict the truth."  These people individually (and I am one) and these denominations corporately, agree that Evolution is scientific truth, to the best knowledge humans have today.

To me, one of the sad parts about the way Christians are perceived in the world today, and particularly in the modern American culture, is due to the fact that a very vocal minority of Christians has turned away from the historical underpinnings of applying reason to religion: they have tuned away from Theology.  Certainly, they apply reason to their arguments; they are Western, after all.  But they start with a set of base assumptions which was discarded by Christianity in the distant past -- the literal interpretation of scripture for one; the weighting of scripture above nature for another -- and then apply their reason from those assumptions.

In conclusion, let me say this.  It took me a long time to learn the facts which went into this post.  It seems as if it has taken me almost as long to write these few down. Of necessity, I have had to summarize large sections of very important information.  I have probably forgotten some details.  If I took another four months to revise this, it would get longer and more accurate, but at this point I think it has the key points I wanted to make.

Hopefully those of you who are currently inclined away from Christianity (and perhaps religion in general) because of its supposed opposition to Reason and Science will give it a bit more benefit of the doubt as the Knowledge Series continues.  Hopefully those of you who are Christians will recognize how tightly the two sources for Truth -- Theology and Science -- are actually connected, as well.

And hopefully, it won't take me quite so long to formulate my next post, so that the Knowledge Series can continue.

Maundy Thursday

[It has become a tradition in this blog to commemorate this special day with a post about Maundy Thursday and its meaning.  Servanthood.  Loving one another.  Communion, with God and one another.  Messages I need to hear, regularly.  For those Christians who read my blog, may the rest of your Holy Week be blessed.]

Today is "Maundy Thursday." Some call it "Holy Thursday" but I like "Maundy" because it makes people say "What does 'Maundy' mean?" and that gives us a chance to talk about one of the most important aspects of the Easter season: The New Commandment.

Now, admittedly, those who attend services on this day every year probably know it as the celebration of the Last Supper and therefor the birth of Holy Communion. This is true, and we should not minimize that aspect of Holy Thursday.

Yet the more significant event, relative to how Jesus asked us to live our lives, is the commandment He gave us that same night. [The word that is the root for "command" that is also the root for "Maundy."]

In John 13, we have the important account of Jesus acting as a servant, though He is the Master. He washes the disciple's feet. Then, he gives the New Commandment:

John 13:34 (King James Version)

³⁴A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

In one brief evening, in his last opportunity to be with His disciples, Jesus gives us the gift of Holy Communion, the example of service, and the New Commandment: Love one another.

This is nothing new, of course. When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus says (in Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10) that the greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God" but immediately follows it with "Love your neighbor as yourself."

In His final hours, Jesus knows that the disciples will soon find themselves floundering in grief. He gives them a few final lessons to solidify the foundation on which they are to build His church and spread His lessons: recognition of the need for salvation and the acceptance of that salvation (Communion), service to others, and finally love.

It is this New Commandment we celebrate on Maundy Thursday.

Superstar - Of Its Time - On Purpose

 It's that time again.  Holy week is when I watch Jesus Christ Superstar.  These days, I can allow myself to turn away from the screen during some of it.  I sing along with pretty much all of it -- well, when the house is empty like it is these days -- and most of the shots are well etched into my memory.

Still, there are scenes which always draw my attention.  As I was watching them again this year, I was struck by how the show is steeped in "1970s." The performers were from a time before everyone in movies was either chiseled from stone or buxom or both.  Josh Mostel's soft-bellied Herod was the only one hinting at the shape most of us normal Americans would be in 40 years later.  (Yes, it's been 40 years!)

Of course the costumes and hairstyles make us think of those psychedelic times and the anti-establishment nature of the day.







Jesus Christ Superstar still works, though.  There are many reasons for that fact, of course.  The music, the acting -- all first rate.  Carl Anderson put so much humanity into Judas.  Ted Neely was born to play Jesus, and to sing those incredibly difficult songs.  The Kings were perfectly cast.  And then there's Yvonne Elliman, whose voice and look brought us a Mary Magdalene who was real, sympathetic and as far from both trashy and glamorous as possible.  (Either would have stained the film.)


I suppose I should ask people in my children's generation whether the '70s nature makes this movie look "old" to them.  My view is that it was carefully constructed to be, in a sense, a "period piece," even though it was created from within the period it depicted.

I suppose the film, like the opera itself, doesn't have the same sense of defiance it had at the time.  I remember as a young near-teen hearing people decry it for not be accurate enough, etc., etc.  (Then again, almost any film dealing with Jesus's life will still have that problem, won't it?)  It certainly was a different slant on the events of Holy Week than the vast majority of us American Christians were being taught.  Today, far more of us have been exposed to variations of the story.  No one should take this movie as Gospel, of course, but it's impressive how many of the key messages are contained.  We all need to realize that depicting a Jesus who is both true God and true Man is probably beyond any of us. The JCS Jesus is more Man, but a very good Man.  The film also asks us to accept that the people around Jesus were real people, with real personal motives.  And hey, that message is even there in the Gospels.

Ultimately, though, it's about the music and the performances carrying the drama and the messages.  I still find this film well worth an annual visit.

I suspect I'll listen to the music again a couple of times before Easter.  I suppose I had better close the office door, though, in case I happen to forget where I am.  I might start singing "Who is this broken man / cluttering up my hallway?"  I don't want to offend anyone.












[Still, this last image is just a bit creepy, don't you think?]

Jesus Elected Not to Get Political

So here we are in our election season again.  I've already written once in this blog discussing a couple of reasons why people should vote "No" on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.  But I continue to see some Christians arguing that we are called to oppose sin, and since they think it's a sin for same-sex couples to engage in, well, same-sex sex, they have decided that same-sex marriage must be opposed.  And they believe this is something Christ would want them to do.  The Catholic Archbishop vocally opposes it, as do other church leaders.

So I thought I would point something out.  Something which these Christians seem to have forgotten.

Jesus, given the opportunity to get involved in politics, elected to stay out of them.  I'll give four examples.   Any Christian who thinks I am "cherry picking" is welcome to reply with counter-examples.

Example 1: Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

The single clearest example of this appears in all three of the synoptic gospels and is familiar to people who, you know, go to church and listen.

Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17 & Luke 20:20-26 each recount the story of some of Jesus' opponents trying to get him into a political argument.  Jesus, of course, recognized that they were trying to trap him -- trying to get him to say something which could get him in trouble with either the political leaders, or the religious leaders, or both.  He turned the tables on them, and according to Luke's account "they became silent."  

Jesus, example to us all, had a chance to insert himself into a political discussion and did not.

Even his opponents became silent. 

Were there other times when politics came up in the Gospels.  Yes, though a little more obliquely.

Example 2: Jesus Walks Away from Kingship

In John's telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (John 6:1-15), at the very end of the story is verse 15:

¹⁵ Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

Jesus, example to us all, had a chance to let the people put him in a political position, and chose not to. 

Example 3: Face-to-Face with the Political Leaders

When Jesus was brought before Pilate, Jesus was given the chance to declare himself King.  (Matthew 27:11-14, Mark 15:1-5, Luke 23:1-3 and John 18:28-40)  In three of these accounts, he simply refused to say he was a king, and in the fourth, made it clear that his kingdom was not a political, earthly kingdom.

Could Jesus, at that point, have gotten himself involved in politics.  Of course.  Did he?  Of course not.  All Christians have heard this story throughout their lives.

Example 4: Never A Political Messiah

This example is something which comes from an understanding of all of the Gospels, and what they say, and what we know or believe about what the Jewish people of the time expected from a Messiah.  Many, perhaps most, of the Jewish people expected the Messiah to be a political King, as David was.  For this reason, the disciples were often confused about what to expect from Jesus.

But Jesus, God-made-flesh, God with us, never intended Himself to be a political figure. 

Could he have been one?  Absolutely.  If you are a believer and you believe in the power of Christ, you'd know: if He had wanted to be political, He would have been.  If those stories are right, the people wanted him to be political, but he chose not to be.

Summary:  There is no evidence that Jesus, the example for our behavior, thought political power was something to be grasped.  And he never gave his disciples any indication that they should strive for it either.  When he was specifically given the chance to influence politics, he chose not to.

I know the history of "evangelical politics" in the past 30 years or so has convinced many people otherwise, but as a Christian, I believe we are not called to impose our beliefs on others.  We are not called to force non-Christians to behave as we believe we should.  I believe that Christ's example in this area is clear.


If you are a Christian, and you favor same-sex marriage, you should vote "No" on the amendment.  But even more importantly, if you are Christian and you oppose same-sex marriage, you should still vote "No" on the amendment.  There is simply no biblical support for the proposition that Jesus would have wanted to get involved in this.

Minnesota Marriage Amendment - Part 1

Today’s blog entry discusses an issue which is both political and moral, and it specifically deals with a proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. 

The question, as stated on the ballot is this:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

- Yes

- No

If enacted, Article XIII of the Minnesota Constitution would be amended to add the following section:

Section 13.

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

By seeing this amendment on the ballot, and after seeing the advertisements promoting this amendment, and after reading some of the letters to the editor and other opinion pieces which have appeared in the state, one might assume the Law in Minnesota currently allows marriage between people of the same sex.  This assumption is incorrect.  In fact, the Law in Minnesota clearly does not.  Here it is, Statute 517.01, MARRIAGE A CIVIL CONTRACT.  Now, that link is taking you to the current law.  So, just in case the law changes at some point in the future, or just in case you decide not to follow the link, here is what the law says, as we Minnesotans prepare to cast our votes:

Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex and only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.

OK, then, so are we all clear?  Marriage between two men, or between two women, is currently not legal in the state of Minnesota.

What purpose, then, would the proposed amendment serve?  I believe there are three answers: functional, religious and political.  I’ll discuss the first two, with a note or two describing why I think these “purposes” should lead us to reject this change to the Constitution.

Functionally, what it does is to make it harder for the people of Minnesota to allow marriage to be a civil contract between people of the same sex at some point in the future.  You see, it is possible that the current law (517.01 above) or other laws which grant rights and privileges to married people could be challenged in court on behalf of same-sex couples.  And, if challenged, it is possible the Supreme Court of Minnesota could find that the current law is unconstitutional.  Some people believe that, if the Constitution is changed as described by the amendment, an interpretation of the amended Constitution would certainly declare 517.01 constitutional.  Another possibility is that the elected members of our Minnesota Legislature might, at some point in the future, want to change 517.01.  Adding this amendment would essentially close the door on that change, until such time as this amendment got repealed.

Discussion: First of all, those who are hoping this amendment would protect the state from being forced to recognize the rights of same-sex couples are wrong.  With the amendment in place, the only right which would be closed to those couples is the right to name their relationship – their civil contract – by the word “marriage.”  However, it is completely possible that a Supreme Court could still regard any law which limits the rights of same-sex couples, or any law which does not recognize the equivalence of a same-sex civil contract with a two-sex civil contract, as unconstitutional. 

So, voting for this amendment has the effect of making future Minnesotans have to go through more work to change what today’s Minnesotans decided was best, and the only truly certain thing is that the word “marriage” is defined a certain way, unless or until the amendment is repealed.

So, let’s look at what purpose defining “marriage” in this way serves.

Religiously, a portion of people who follow Christianity believe, based on their reading of their scriptures, that marriage was instituted by the God of their faith and that God intended it as being created only for a man and a woman.  It is possible that other religious groups feel the same way, but what is certain is that of the major vocal proponents of this bill, those who identify their faith most are Christians.  (Interestingly, though most of the Christians who are in support of this amendment would declare Mormons Non-Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has contributed quite a bit of money to a similar effort in California. I have no data about LDS support of the amendment in Minnesota.)  By adoption this amendment, the definition of “marriage” in the faith of this set of people would be partially codified into the Constitution.

Discussion:  Let’s deal with the subtle – but important – point I just made.  The amendment only partially codifies the definition.  In the Christian faith, marriage is more than just a civil contract.  It is, to some, but not all current interpretations

-          a sacrament – a sacred act

-          a human analog to the relationship between Christ and his church

-          a lifelong commitment of two people to fidelity to one another

-          a lifelong commitment of the two people to the community of believers

-          and so on.  If you are a Christian, I encourage you to study what marriage has been in the past (it was not always as it is in today’s Christian culture) and what it is now, according to the church.

In any case, none of the above parts of the definition are being codified by the amendment.  None.  So, the amendment does not put “God’s Definition” into man’s law.  But let’s suppose it did. 

Can it be any clearer that this is a direct imposition of one religious viewpoint on those who do not share that religious viewpoint? 

A Constitution should not do that!   If the amendment passes, a faith-based statement would be imposed on  people of Minnesota who are not Christian, and on those of us who are Christian, but who disagree.

I’d like to make an analogy.  Analogies are, of course, imperfect, but please allow me some latitude here.

There are laws against Indecent Exposure.  (MN 617.23)  Suppose someone put forward an amendment to the Constitution which stated:

“Lewd exposure includes the uncovered head of a woman.”

Now, clearly, this is not likely to happen.  But imagine that such an amendment was proposed.  Why would it be proposed?  Well, in various religions, depending on how you read the scriptures and interpret them, an uncovered woman’s head is wrong.   In fact, this law could be supported by religious views of Christians, Muslims and Jews.  Not by the religious views of all of the members of those groups, mind you – merely certain subsets of each.  And in each case, the rule against uncovered women’s heads is at least partially due to the effect a woman will have on the sexual attraction of males around her.  Thus, by a very strict and strange (to most of us) interpretation of the word “lewd,” an uncovered woman’s head might be described as “lewd.”

Would it be right for these various religious groups to band together and change the Constitution to enact their definition of “lewd?”  I hope the answer is, obviously, no.

Would it be right for them to put it into Minnesota Law? 

Well, they could try.  That’s the beauty of the Representative Legislative process.  It wouldn’t get enacted, but for a moment, suppose it did.  With the constitution as it exists today, before the silly amendment I suggested above, the Minnesota Supreme Court would declare the law unconstitutional because it imposes religion on the people.

OK – analogy complete.  But I have one more thing to say about this from a religious point of view.

This amendment has absolutely no bearing on what any religious body or institution can, cannot, may or may not permit.  While today a marriage in a church coincides with a marriage in the Law, they are two distinct things.  For historical reasons, the civil contract (“marriage” under the Law) is typically done as part of the events of the wedding ceremony (“marriage” in the church.)  But they are merely co-incident.  If you get “married” in a church and you do not fill out the paperwork for the civil contract, you are not married under the law.  (Unless there is a “common law marriage” in your state, in which case you might have been “married” according to the state even before the ceremony, or you might be “married” several years after the ceremony, depending on the definition of “common law marriage” in your state.)

This is an example of how separate the two definitions of marriage are – marriage according to the Law and marriage according to the Church.  It’s also why the state could not, for example, force a congregation to perform a marriage ceremony for two people who are not allowed to get married according to the marriage definition in that congregation.  There is no legal justification to force a pastor, priest, reverend, rabbi or anyone to "solemnize" (preside over and sign) a marriage civil contract today, and there is no reason to believe such a justification would exist in the future.  And that act only concerns the civil marriage contract.  The state says nothing about the religious service it is typically tied to.

I think I’ll stop there for this post.  My intent here has been to clarify the effects of voting for the amendment, and to try to lay out arguments why it should be defeated.  In doing so, I did not discuss whether I believe those Christians who are opposed to same-sex marriage are in error, or not.  You see, for the purposes of the amendment, that is not germane.  Imposing a religious doctrine via the Constitution is wrong, and I hope that enough Christians, even Christians opposed to same-sex marriage, see that point.

Great Course - History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon

My most recent Great Course was History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon taught by Dr. Bart D Ehrman.

This is the second time I've specifically studied the New Testament with one of the Great Courses -- the first time was a course called New Testament, also by Dr. Ehrman.  I hadn't remembered that the first course was also his, so that explains why I kept feeling like I had learned some of this before.  Ehrman covers the history of Paul's writings, as well as the Gospels, and talks about the themes of many of these books, much as he did in previous courses.  But he also breaks new ground to help us understand how these writings made their way through history to us today.

One of the things we take for granted about books these days is that they are easy to produce.  But clearly, this has only been the case in modern times.  Books of any sort from more than a few hundred years ago only spread -- and often only survived -- if they were reproduced by hand.  Reproducing them required painstaking copying.

This fact was very important in the formation of what Christians now consider the canonical books of the New Testament for a couple of reasons.  First, this copying was error-prone, which means that the surviving copies of the scriptures have many differences from one another because of those errors -- you'd be surprised at the number.  While many of the differences are minor enough not to cause confusion in meaning,  one of the primary tasks of some biblical scholars is to apply study, logic and expertise to attempt to figure out what the original words of the authors were.  Second, because of the effort involved, books were copied if they were deemed important enough.   From this course, we do learn that scholars know that some writings were judged to be anything from fabrications to slightly heretical and thus were removed from the list of books allowed to be used in certain early congregations.  But as far as the idea that there was a body of leaders who got together and voted some scriptures into the New Testament and some out, that did not occur for more than a dozen centuries after the books were first written, and by then the writings which would have been questionable were mostly lost to time, as they just didn't get copied any longer. 

This is one Great Course which makes me want to get some confirmation from other sources.  Over the years, I thought I had learned something about the creation of the canon.  But now I think I heard misconceptions of others and, though I am disappointed by having to admit it, I was probably influenced by fiction such as The Da Vinci Code.  At this point, I am regretting the fact that I opted not to take the New Testament course back at Luther when I was an undergraduate.

In any case, one excellent thing to get out of a course is new knowledge, but another is curiosity to learn a little more.  And I got both from this course.

Truth, Knowledge and Learning; Faith, Reason and Authority

What do you know?  How do you know it?  

Is what you know actually true?  If you are told that something you thought you knew is not true, what will convince you that you were mistaken, so you will then claim to know something else?

Are there things which we cannot truly know, but which we nevertheless believe?  How do we learn these things?  Or is there a better description than learning for acquiring these ideas? How do these things which are believed relate to the things which we know.

Do you feel a responsibility to state the truth?  If you feel a responsibility to tell the truth, do you also feel a responsibility to examine your knowledge to determine if you do, in fact, know the truth?

And, very importantly, how are reason and authority involved in, and related to, what you know and what is true?

In my life, I am continually interested in learning.  If you've been following my blog, you will have read my discussions of the Great Courses series, for example.  But while it is the most frequent means by which I have deliberately gained knowledge over the past couple of years, it is not the only way I learn today, and it is certainly not the only way I have ever learned -- not even close.

Lately, I've been extremely interested in the relationship between several related concepts, and how their interaction -- and the value we place on them -- greatly influences our world.  These concepts are listed in the title of this entry today, and they represent a theme I'd like to explore with a series of essays.  They are:

• Truth
• Knowledge
• Learning
• Faith
• Reason
• Authority

As I sit down to write this introduction, the idea of writing a series of essays has been growing in my mind for many months, and I still don't have what I'd call a "plan" for them.  I have been tempted to wait until they are entirely written before posting even this introduction, but I have convinced myself that this delay will likely mean an unacceptable procrastination.

There are many different fields of knowledge involved in this discussion, and I am not a professional in any of them: philosophy, psychology, theology, history, science, ethics.  Those of you who read this blog for my comments on games, movies and TV shows such as Castle, Survivor and Star Trek will probably just skip the essays -- but I'm happy if I'm proven wrong.  At this point, while I certainly hope someone will read the thoughts I have on these topics, I simply feel a need to write them.

If you would like to follow along, I will be using the label "Knowledge Series" to gather them in the blog.  (I will tweet with #KnowledgeSeries as the hashtag.) And, for the time being at least, I have created a "logo" photo.  When you see that photo, you will know whether to read or avoid the blog that day, depending on your interests.

What I've Been Writing

[Warning to the reader: This is a very strange entry today.  Too many thoughts.  But it's how my Muse was pulling me late last night.]

Slow days in "Snippets and Wisps" lately.


I have written a lot lately.  Just not here.  My material has mostly been:

1. Stuff for work (but I don't blog about work [not here in SnW, anyway].)
2. Discussions, Essays and Devotional material about Christianity and Faith (and you've seen a portion of that here)

... but primarily I've been writing ...

3. The Dungeons and Dragons campaign my groups are playing.

So, the work stuff is right out.  And I can't very well put that DnD stuff in the blog, can I?  I mean, my players don't all read this, but some of them do.  No spoilers here.  [Just a teaser.]

So, if you see a few faith-based entries here in the days to come, just realize that it's about the only thing I've been writing which even remotely fits into this blog.

I can hear some of you now:

"Wait, Steve, does that mean that some of what you publish here has been used somewhere else?  Some of the things I read on 'Snippets and Wisps' were not solely for your 'SnW' audience?"

To which I reply, emphatically:

"Oh.  My.  Yes."

In fact, I try very hard not to write the same thing twice, but I often think the same thing multiple times, so it's not hard to imagine that I might write about the same thing multiple times.  But, if I've written it once, I try to use it again, if the topic needs to be addressed again.  I do it at work:  All.  The.  Time.  [Are we all tired of that rampant idiom yet?  So.  Over.  Used.]   I suppose "SnW' is the writing venue where I do the least re-use of material, but I certainly re-use when it makes sense.

For example, these days when I get into an extended "conversation" with someone on Facebook, I often think "This would make a great blog someday."  So I try to capture it for later re-use here.

The thing is, long discussions on Facebook are most often about religion and/or politics.  So if I re-use my thoughts from fb here, they will almost certainly get into one or both of those topics.  [For example, I would gladly join a group of "Liberal Christians Opposed to Rick Santorum" but according to his 2008 interview, he wouldn't believe we existed.]  And once I get started down that road, this blog could just turn into another politics blog, and there are too many of those around, don't you agree? 

Plus, to be fair, politics doesn't interest me enough to think about it often.  [Games do.]  And my belief in Christianity, while it does interest me quite a bit, is among the least-read topics when I post here.  [But when I mention "Castle" or "X-Men" or put up a great photo of one of the beautiful women in my life, I get more traffic. Go figure!]

So, all this is to explain why there has been a relative dearth of material here lately.  And it might continue.

But hey, it could change!  I am very motivated to make people happy.  I love knowing I have an audience.  I'd be happy to write about specific topics, if requested (and appropriate.)  I've solicited topics from readers before and gotten the proverbial crickets chirping in response.  So, I reissue the offer.  If you really wish I'd write about one of my many topics, drop me a line or write a comment.

And now, just to prove my point [well, one of my many points] I will put in a photo of Stana Katic as Detective Kate Beckett and Nathan Fillion as (the "ruggedly handsome") Richard Castle.  My hit rate will quadruple.

[I am two episodes behind on watching this wonderful TV show, by the way.  Why?  Three consecutive weeks of Dungeons and Dragons.  Fantastic.  Gotta love it.  And thank goodness for "On Demand" viewing so I can catch up.]


So, that's all for today.  Maybe, after seeing "Gone with the Wind" and "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" this past weekend it's about time for another edition of Movie Micro-Reviews.  That's always good for a quick blog.  [Teaser: One of these movies is much, much better than the other.  And we all know which one that is.  So really, it's not much of a teaser, is it?]

Repost - A Time for Reflection

Today because I need it, and because it's appropriate, I will be repeating a post from three years ago.

I think it's particularly appropriate that the "Quote of the Day" on the side of my blog is this:

Quote of the Day
Faith has to do with things that are not seen and hope with things that are not at hand.
Thomas Aquinas

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

A Time for Reflection

It's Ash Wednesday today. Lent begins.

The Ash Wednesday service contains the ritual Application of the Ashes, with the pastor smudging a cross of ash on the worshiper's forehead while saying something like

"From ashes you come; to ashes you will return."

While I'm far more of an "Easter Christian" than a "Lenten Christian" I have grown to appreciate some aspects of Lent, and this year I will count Ash Wednesday among them.

As I've gotten older, I've seen myself getting more convinced of my own views. I've begun believing that I know more and more, and thus I find myself questioning less and less. This attitude may be reassuring, it may be stabilizing, it may even be natural, but it also leads me into thinking I don't need to look for answers anymore.

Lent helps us realize that we don't have all the answers, that we aren't always right, and that we need something greater to help us. This is a message I need to hear.

As always, I will miss the "Alleluias," "This is the Feast," and hymns that aren't in minor keys. When Easter comes, I will be glad of it.

But that's part of the point, right? In the meantime, may God calm my mind, and open my heart.

150 Years at a Time - The Egalitarian Transformation of the Church

I have tried to start this post several times in the past few months.  I kept coming up with "clever" ways to do it, and they just don't quite work.  So, in a complete departure from my normal approach, I write a standard "college style" essay.  With a thesis, even.

Thesis: The Christian Church has moved towards support for egalitarianism, and an examination of Western history in 150-year increments demonstrates that, though non-egalitarian norms were supported by Biblical arguments at the time, those same beliefs are considered clearly in error today.  This leads to interesting speculation about what might result if that trend continues for another 150 years.

Definition:

e·gal·i·tar·i·an

 [ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] 

adjective

1.

asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.

A few months back, there was a story that hit the news about a church in Kentucky that banned interracial couples from attending.  This got me thinking again about how Christians (as a group) are frequently seen as being "behind the curve" in accepting societal changes. To be fair, in this particular case, most Christians  disagreed with this particular congregation's policy, but though it is now an unsupported position, this is a "last bastion" of a position which was once more popularly held.

At the time, I had not yet formed my thesis, but I mentally threw it in the mix along with other social issues in the US today.  Christians are seen as more "conservative" than others.  And, if we talk about "conservative" only in the sense of resisting change and trying to preserve the existing ways, I think we can see how the congregation in question was "conservative."

But, it is clear, also, that The Church -- or perhaps more precisely, the majority of Western Christians -- has changed its attitudes over time.  And since its "attitudes" are supported by doctrine, which is based on reading the Bible, it interesting to look at how biblical reasoning has changed over time.

Our nation was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."  When the interracial news story broke, it somehow occurred to me that 150 years earlier, our nation was "engaged in a great civil war, testing whether this nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

And you know what?  150 years ago, in 1861, there were Christians arguing that slavery was not only OK, but supported by the Bible.  I'm not going to get into that argument, but the point is this:  the verses which were used to support slavery 150 years ago have now largely been reinterpreted so that the Christian church says -- by and large -- that slavery of the form which existed in the United States before the Emancipation Proclamation is not, repeat "not," supported by the Bible.  Of course, there were Christians of that time who disagreed with their pro-slavery Christian opponents. But the "conservative" Christians were being taught, and as many of them truly believed, that the Bible supported slavery.

By examining that single 150-year jump, we can see that the Church has changed its view of scriptural teachings to become more egalitarian.  The church moved from supporting "inequality" in slavery, to "equality."

What about 150 years before that?

In 1711, Kings and Queens ruled Europe.  In Great Britain, Queen Anne ruled.  Louis XIV was monarch in France. Charles III ruled Austria. And though some members of the Christian community did not believe that an inherited ruling class should have such power, the principle of Divine Right was largely accepted and supported by the (mostly national) churches of the time.  According to this doctrine, a monarch had been granted his or her power directly from God, and the people could not question it.  And, as I said, church leaders supported this doctrine from scripture.  Certainly, some of that support would have been a distorted interpretation in order to exert power, but we need to realize that this teaching was being presented to, and accepted by, people without power as the  revealed will of God. Of course, by 150 years later, in the 1861 of our Civil War each of those monarchies had transformed or been overthrown, and Christians believed that God supported our democracy. Today, 300 years later, there are no Christians who are advocating that the monarchy is Right and True, and we must all revert to something so unequal.

No, once again, the march towards equality of individuals did not allow for a nobility with more "God-given" power than the common people.  And the church, eventually, found itself supporting the new democracies with scripture.

In the days 150 years before that -- in 1561 -- the Reformation was in full swing.  Martin Luther had nailed his 95 Theses over 40 years prior, and Calvin had done most of his work, with just a few years remaining of his life.  But again, the new "church" was transforming its understanding of Christianity so that a "more equal" church was being born.  And of course at the time, the Church establishment opposed the idea of the education and interpretation of scriptures being placed in the hands of laity and family, and being removed from the hands of the priests.

Three 150-year periods.  Three advancements of Christianity away from inequality towards the support of an egalitarian social structure.

What I think today's Christians should take from this little history lesson is this:  While none of the core precepts of Christianity changed over those 150-year intervals, the things we Christians were arguing about changed.  And each time, the Church moved from a "less equal" to a "more equal" interpretation of what God put down as Law, and what Christ's teachings were about Gospel.  Further, I contend, we need to realize that opposing similar changes today is very likely to be viewed as incomprehensible -- perhaps even sinful -- by future generations of Christians.

But let me be clear, the people who oppose the change are not "incomprehensible" today.  Today, they are people who are living in their time, who have a deep belief in God, and who want to do His Will.  What all Christians need to understand, I think, is that His Will is not completely clear to us.  Try as we might, we get it wrong sometimes.  We ought to discuss our positions knowing this fact.  Over time, I think God is leading His Church towards a more accurate, and loving, vision of His Will.

And so, if my thesis has any validity -- and if the Church has moved over the past centuries in the direction God wants it to move -- then I believe we ought to err -- if we err -- on the side of equality.