Today is Good Friday. This morning’s New York Times (NYT) correctly identified the day as “part of the holiest week in the Christian calendar.”
It also recalled President Trump’s campaign promise to “bring back Christianity.” According to him and his first lady that means following “the living Son of God who conquered death, freed us from sin, and unlocked the gates of Heaven for all of humanity.” The pair wants this to be “one of the great Easters ever.”
The article went on to recall how Mr. Trump’s aspirations were following and expanding the lead of George W. Bush who established the first White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives in the early 2000s.
Mr. Trump’s “personal pastor,” Paula White-Cain who heads the Office affirms its ability “to weigh in on any issue it deems appropriate.” Chief among them, she said, were the desire to “eradicate anti-Christian bias” including deviation from the position that there are two sexes, male and female. Such concerns have afforded the Faith Office “unprecedented access” for faith leaders to “officials in intelligence, domestic policy and national security.”
Accordingly, Mr. Trump has often met with pastors from states like Colorado and Pennsylvania. On returning home, those reverends have shared photos taken with the president sometimes with heads bowed in prayer, imposing hands of blessing on the president’s head, or with Mr. Trump joining them in singing hymns.
All of this led the NYT article and accompanying video to identify the White House as “one of the safest places in the world to be a Christian.” In fact, one of the Christian pastors interviewed for the piece said that “he doesn’t see any rails on the limits of the faith office.”
Good Friday Perspective
As a Jesus scholar and theologian, I found all this quite ironic, false, and heretical. In my view it is reminiscent of Germany of the 1930s, when Christian pastors and Catholic bishops routinely endorsed the leader of the Third Reich, who also affirmed allegiance to the Jesus reflected in Mr. and Ms. Trump’s profession of faith.
The reality was, however, that Hitler’s Germany and the policies supported by Trump’s MAGA crowd reveal an actual hatred for Jesus mourned and celebrated this Good Friday. After all he was the son of an impoverished unwed teenage mother who was houseless at birth. He was an immigrant in Egypt. He was an unemployed construction worker. He was a harsh critic of the Jewish political and religious establishment, of the Roman Empire, and of the rich in general. He said that the future belonged to the poor, the non-violent, and those persecuted for justice sake. He ended his life as a victim of imperial torture and capital punishment.
Conclusion
So, if there are no rails, no limits, on Mr. Trump’s faith office how about lowering them for pastors like Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde? (Remember how she infuriated Donald Trump and JD Vance at Trump’s inaugural prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington. She did so merely by pleading with Mr. Trump to “have mercy” on LGBTQ people and immigrants targeted by his policies.)
If there are no rails, how about lowering them for rabbis, ministers, priests, and faithful demanding that Mr. Trump stop the Hitlerian genocide he’s committing in Zionist Israel?
If there are no rails, how about implementing policies that recognize and honor Jesus in the children of poor unwed teenage mothers, in the houseless, in immigrants, in the working class, in opponents of the rich and powerful, in those protesting the hypocrisy of Jewish Zionists, in U.S.-supported torture facilities, and on death row.
Only changes like those can convince followers of the historical Jesus that the White House is “one of the safest places in the world to be a Christian.” Only changes like those can make this “one of the great Easters ever.”
Readings for the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Jeremiah 19:5-8; Psalm 1:1-6; 1 Corinthians 15: 12, 16-20; Luke 6: 17, 20-26
This Sunday’s readings reject the anti-DEI, anti-Wokeness memes of what Marianne Williamson calls the Trump/Musk power couple.
The selected texts remind us that the natural order is one of diversity, universal love, and complete inclusion (DEI) that prioritizes the needs of women, children, immigrants, and former slaves. As we’ll see, the tradition is outspokenly anti-rich and demands reparations.
The readings also suggest the truth recognized in all major faith traditions that awakening to such reality (rather than remaining asleep) is the whole point of the human project aimed at transcending childish egocentrism and ethnocentrism. The point is what our black brothers and sisters call being “woke.” Even more, it’s to achieve world centrism and ultimately cosmic centrism that understand and respect the unity of all creation.
By contrast, putting oneself first, putting one’s country first, idolizing wealth and the power it brings are all condemned in the teachings of Yeshua.
In other words, the Judeo-Christian tradition represented in today’s readings roundly rejects the villainizing of DEI and wokeness. Even more, they call Yeshua’s followers to a class consciousness and a fundamental option for the world’s poor and oppressed against the rich whom Yeshua condemns in no uncertain terms.
Let me show you what I mean in terms of class consciousness and the warfare of the rich against the poor.
Class Warfare
Whereas in the past it might have been possible to argue that we live in a classless society, that is no longer the case. The accession of Donald Trump to the office of president has rendered such argument moot. The man has declared war on the poor.
Think about the brazenness of it all.
I mean, after the display at Trump’s inauguration, it is now impossible for anyone to deny that Elon Musk and other billionaires play powerful roles in calling the shots. The shot callers include Donald Trump himself, Musk, Mark Zukerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook of Apple, and Sundar Pichai of Google. All of them were there occupying prominent seats the day that Trump took office. At times it even appears that Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, rather than Mr. Trump is our country’s president. Our system is undeniably plutocratic.
And what is the basic argument of these people? Simply put, it is that THE RICH DON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, WHILE THE UNDESERVING POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY.
They’re convinced that the world’s and our country’s problems are caused by the poorest people on the planet. Accordingly, we’re expected to believe that:
In a country of 320 million people, 12 to 15 million impoverished, undocumented, hardworking, tax-paying refugees are “invaders” and bringing us all down.
The U.S. with 4.5% of the world’s population (along with its European fellow colonialists) has a God-given right to control the entire planet.
Those formerly colonized in Latin America, Africa, and Asia should be sanctioned for uniting (e,g,, in BRICS+) to seek non-violent rectification of the colonial system that has impoverished them for more than 500 years.
The wealthy South African cohorts of their erstwhile countryman, Elon Musk, are now victims of black South Africans who must be sanctioned for treating them unfairly.
Uniformity, inequity, and exclusion are American and Christian values as opposed to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
It’s ludicrous to awaken (become woke) to the absurdity of it all.
Let me say that again: All of this (and so much more) provides unmistakable evidence of the wealthy’s conviction that THE RICH DON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, WHILE THE POOR HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY.
Think about it a bit further. To increase their money supply, the billionaires want lower taxes, less government regulation of their businesses, and continued subsidies to their corporations maintained or increased. Correspondingly, they want “wasteful” programs like those funding Medicaid, HeadStart, food stamps, and public schooling curtailed or eliminated. Even Social Security is questioned. For the rich, minimum wages are an abomination as are unions and the so-called “right” to collective bargaining. The rich see all such government programs and organizing as wasteful, i.e., as excessively enriching the lives of the undeserving poor.
Yes: For the upper class, THE RICH DON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, WHILE THE POOR HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY. That’s what they believe! It can’t be said often enough.
It’s all a declaration of class warfare.
Today’s Readings
Today’s readings contradict all that. Look at my “translations” and summaries immediately below. Compare them with the originals here to see if I got them right.
Jeremiah 17:5-8: In the early 6th century BCE, the great prophet Jeremiah foretold the defeat of his people by the Babylonians (modern day Iraq) because of Judah’s social injustices and moral decay. Of course, his message of doom brought him death threats and cancellation. In today’s reading he says: We who pretend to be God’s People are cursed because we’ve prioritized the wisdom of the world (flesh) over the insights of the heart. Our failure to recognize the rhythms of history makes us like a dried-up bush in a parched desert. Only our hearts’ return to the Divine Mother-Father and to the Mosaic Covenant (that prioritizes the needs of the poor, widows, orphans, and immigrants) will restore our identity as a mighty tree planted near clear running water.
Psalm 1: 1-6: Yes, God’s law commands care for the poor, the widows, the orphans and immigrants. These are God’s “Chosen People” just as Israel once was when it too was poor and enslaved in Egypt. Then their hope was in the Great I Am rather than in the wisdom of Egyptian slavers with their wicked, sinful, and insolent oppression of Yahweh’s chosen. Never forget that. Such mindfulness will insure prosperity for all. Be encouraged too by the fact that the rich and powerful oppressors will inevitably be blown away like chaff in the wind. Blessed be the hope of the poor!
1 Corinthians 15: 12, 16-20: Yeshua’s return from the realm of the dead cannot be denied without destroying the faith and hope of the poor. He is the quintessential avatar of the poor and oppressed brought back to life from “death” that is no more than a temporary slumber. Alleluia!!
Luke 6: 17, 20-26: In the Gospel of Luke, Matthew’s “Sermon on the Mount” is delivered “on a stretch level ground.” Also, Matthew’s “Blessed are the poor in spirit” becomes a more down-to-earth “Blessed are you who are poor.” In both cases however, the penniless Yeshua promised ultimate political triumph, abundant food, joy, and heaven on earth to the poor, the hungry, the tearful, despised, excluded, insulted, and demonized. (He promises reparations!) Moreover, he cursed the overfed, apparently joyful rich and famous. In Yeshua’s Great Reversal, the rich are destined to be hungry, disconsolate, in tears, and disgraced. (Take that Messrs. Pilate, Herod, and Revs. Anas and Caiaphas! Take that Messrs. Musk and Trump and Rev. Huckabee!)
Conclusion
In an interview with NPR, Evangelical Christian leader Russell Moore said that several pastors had told him disturbing stories about their congregants being upset when the ministers read from the “Sermon on the Mount ” where as we’ve just seen (in Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain”) Yeshua favors the poor over the rich.
“Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount – [and] to have someone come up after to say, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
Moore added: “And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ, the response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.”
But here are Yeshua’s words:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.”
Readings for the Third Sunday in Ordinary Time:Nehemiah 8:2-4a, 5-6, 8-10; Psalm 19: 8,9, 10, 15; I Corinthians 12: 12-14, 27; Luke 1: 1-4, 4: 14-21
Last Tuesday Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde infuriated Donald Trump and JD Vance at Trump’s inaugural prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington. She did so by echoing in her sermon the Spirit of Yeshua of Nazareth whom this Sunday’s Gospel reading depicts as delivering his own inaugural address to his former neighbors in his hometown of Nazareth.
Bishop Budde’s words asked Mr. Trump “in the name of our God” to “have mercy” on LGBTQ people and immigrants targeted by his policies. Her words chimed with those of her Master who in his programmatic words proclaimed his work as directed towards outsiders – the poor, the blind, the imprisoned, oppressed, and indebted.
Evidently, Messrs. Trump and Vance prefer their version of God and a Jesus who puts America first. They seem to consider Americans (and Zionists) as somehow “chosen” by a God who joins them in despising those with non-binary sexual orientations. Instead of welcoming strangers (as Bishop Budde put it in tune with oft-repeated biblical injunctions) their God would build walls and evict them from our midst.
Ironically, the Trump/Vance position is not far from that articulated by Ezra, Israel’s 6th century BCE priest and scribe who invented the concept of a genocidal Israel as God’s chosen one. (You can read a summary of Ezra’s words immediately below.)
So, predictably, Mr. Trump and his followers (like Yeshua’s contemporaries rejecting him) wasted no time in vilifying Bishop Budde.
Instead, she deserves our admiration and imitation as a woman of vast integrity and courage. Let me show you what I mean.
Today’s Readings
Nehemiah 8:2-4a, 5-6, 8-10
Following the Jews’ return from the Babylonian exile (586-538), the Jewish priest and scribe, Ezra rewrote the Hebrew’s largely oral traditions that eventually became their Bible. He unified those narratives about mysterious beings called “Elohim.” These were human or perhaps extraterrestrial “Powerful Ones,” some good-willed, some malevolent, who had never been universally considered divine. In Hebrew oral tradition, they had variously been called by names such as “Elohim,” “El,” “El Shaddai,” “Ruach,” Baal, and Yahweh. Ezra unified and rewrote those traditions as if all of them were about Israel’s now “divine” Powerful One (Yahweh). The tales included divinely authorized genocides of Palestinians (identified in biblical texts as Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Geshurites, Maacaathites, and Philistines). All of them had lived in the “Holy Land” long before the arrival of the ex-slave invaders from Egypt who ruthlessly decimated their numbers in the name of their Powerful One. In Nehemiah chapter 8, Ezra is depicted as spending half a day reading his conflated narrative [now called “The Law” (Torah)] to Israel’s “men, women, and those children old enough to understand.” The new narrative brings everyone to tears as a nationalistic and exclusive consciousness dawns that Yahweh-God had chosen them as his special people.
Psalm 19: 8,9, 10, 15
Despite the genocides, the people praised Yahweh’s words as simple, perfect, refreshing, trustworthy, wise, illuminating, pure, eternal, true, and completely just. They identified Ezra’s words as Spirit and Life.
I Corinthians 12: 12-14, 27
Yeshua, however, never called his Heavenly Father “Yahweh.” Instead, he (and his principal prophet Paul) understood God as a Divine Parent, the Creator of all things, the “One in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Yeshua (and Paul) rejected the idea of “Special People” in favor of all humanity as comprising One Human Body. For both men, no part of that Body (even the least presentable) was better or more important than any other. For Paul and Yeshua, Jews and non-Jews were the same. So were slaves and free persons. In fact, for Yeshua’s followers, those the world considers less honorable should be treated “with greater propriety.”
Luke 1: 1-4, 4: 14-21
In the first sermon of his public life, Yeshua addressed his former neighbors. He was asked to read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah (a contemporary of Ezra) who dissented from genocides and mistreatment of captives. Here’s what Yeshua read:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.“ Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, “Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”
When his neighbors heard his words, they wanted to kill him. Who did he think he was?! Everyone knows God favors the rich, not the poor. Just look at the Great Ones’ gaudy lifestyles and possessions. And those people in prison deserved to be there. Once freed, they’d threaten us all. And besides, the blind were sightless because of some sin they or their parents had committed. They deserved their lot in life. As for “the oppressed . . . There are no “victims.” Everyone knows that. Victimology is a hoax. Who did this Yeshua think he was?! Let’s kill him.
Conclusion
Yes, Yeshua, like Bishop Budde confronted his contemporaries to champion the One in whom we live and move and have our being.” For Yeshua that Divine One considers all humankind a single indivisible body. For him this meant incorporating those his world wanted to amputate as outsiders, invaders, criminals, and as official enemies like Samaritans, tax collectors, street walkers, the poor, imprisoned, the sightless, oppressed and indebted.
In Yeshua’s spirit, Bishop Budde urges incorporation of immigrants, LGBT outcasts, and official enemies such as the Palestinians, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, Sudanese, Libyans, etc. etc. None of them is our enemy. All of them, she says with Yeshua and Paul, are closer to us than our brothers and sisters. They are parts of our own bodies. None can be amputated.
Such universalism, such wakefulness always infuriates those who would divide and rule over us. It angers as well ordinary people (like Yeshua’s neighbors) who have been brainwashed into accepting prevailing nationalistic understandings of the Bible’s often genocidal “God.”
Today’s readings call us to wake up! Bishop Budde’s got it right. Trump and Vance are heretics.
It’s Christmas again. And Jesus is still under the rubble In Gaza (Just like last year).
He’s on an operating table There Having his infant arms and legs Sawed off Without anesthesia. Screaming for his Already dismembered mother Who’s been blown away By the U.S. and Israel. He’ll never kiss her again Or feel her warm embrace.
All but forgotten By holiday revelers With mindless “Merry Christmases!!”
Meanwhile Zionists weaponize the Bible So the slaughter might continue. Christians do the same Singing maudlin carols They don’t understand And buying silly trinkets In Wal-Mart. As if God were Santa Claus, A billionaire, Or a racist killer.
Worse still: As if God were A genocidal Amerikan!
It’s as if Yeshua were not Piss poor And homeless at birth Considered by imperialists As no more than an “animal” Among stable asses and oxen, The son of a disgraced Unwed teenage mother, An underpaid construction worker, A drunken friend of prostitutes Houseless as an adult The sworn enemy Of the Jewish power establishment And the rich That wanted that child From nowheresville Slaughtered.
(Good Christians don't like people like that)
As if Yeshua were just another Palestinian street rat, And not An unwelcome refugee in Egypt, A terrorist in Roman eyes, Their inmate on death row, A victim of torture And capital punishment.
“Good riddance,” The Romans said Just like us.
And the whole world Wasn’t watching then either. Few noticed Or cared.
But should we open our eyes We’d see a Yeshua So much more Than that.
He came to serve the poor. He said. God’s kingdom would be theirs So would the entire earth. Not Elon’s or Gates’ (Luke 6:24) Or Amerika’s Who’s blindness and arrogance Deserves eternal damnation Rather than the accolades The world bestows on Such fools Along with Herod and Pilate Anas and Caiaphas.
______
The pastor of Bethlehem’s Christmas Church said Something like that In his own Christmas sermon This year Just like the one Few noticed When he said it Last year.
Here’s his Xmas creche
Here’s Pope Francis with his Jesus In a keffiyeh-lined crib:
This year Listen To these holy men And to Yeshua’s silenced voice In the Sacred Land Of Palestine.
Once again, The real Christmas Story Is unfolding There Before our very eyes.
Well, it’s happened. My practice of Tarot reading has converted me into a satanist.
On the one hand Tarot has caused me to recognize that the God I was raised to worship (and to preach as a priest) is more like the devil depicted in Tarot’s 15th Major arcana card.
And on the other hand, the cards have helped me see that the devil represents a suppressed aspect of my dark side that (in the understanding of Carl Jung) contains a kind of gold I’m being called to mine. In some sense, Satan is my friend.
All of this has led me to reject the God of my youth (and to some extent of my priesthood) while embracing as a quasi-friend Satan himself.
Let me explain.
I
The Devil Card
To begin with, here’s the Devil as depicted in the Rider, Waite, Smith (RWS) Tarot Deck.
What do you see here?
Straight away, I notice that its number 15 stands for a trifecta of strife (3 X 5 – with 5 being the Tarot’s number of conflict). The card depicts conflict with (1) the world, (2) the flesh, and (3) the devil himself.
Next, I see that black is the card’s dominant color – representing one’s dark side, death, destruction, and negativity.
The main figure in the card is a satyric monster half man and half beast. His face is fear-inspiring with monstrous horns jutting from his head. His right hand is raised in a mudra which says, “what you see is what you get.”
An inverted pentagram (which in upright form represents virtue and good) forms the monster’s “halo,” but in its inverted form is just the opposite.
In the card’s depiction, the monster reigns over a naked man and an unclothed woman. The heads of both are horned – a clear connection to the horned devil’s mind. The female figure’s tail is tipped with grapes, a vineyard sign of pleasure and intoxication. The tail of her gender opposite is inflamed directly from the torch the devil holds inverted in his left hand. The man’s passions are on fire in the presence of the disrobed woman.
Both the man and the woman are chained by their necks to the pillar from which the monster presides. The chains are loose and could easily be removed. But evidently, the humans either don’t perceive this or don’t want to escape their bondage.
In summary, the card portrays the human body and sexuality as somehow problematic. Both are intimately connected with the Spirit of Evil, with enslavement, and ambiguity about the whole affair.
II
God As Enemy
Personally, the more I contemplate the card, the more I see Christianity’s traditional God rather than the devil. That God was presented as creator, lawgiver, judge, condemner, and punisher.
He was fear-inspiring, wasn’t he? After all, his principal concern was understood as connected with the “sins of the flesh.” And he made us all feel guilty (or at least uncomfortable) with sexual thoughts, words, and deeds.
All of that flew in the face of common-sense recognition of sex and propagation of the species as humanity’s second most powerful drive (after self-preservation).
It was as if devilish priests and theologians had transformed an unparalleled good into an unparalled evil to keep penitents under their control, coming to confession, and paying for the indulgences that Martin Luther and others found so odious.
III
Satan As Friend
Don’t be turned off by the idea of Satan as friend. It’s quite biblical. For instance, in the book of Job, Satan is portrayed as God’s counsellor. He’s a realist who for instance (in the Book of Job) bets the Divine One that if Job comes on extremely hard times, he will abandon his virtue and show his true colors as just another fair-weather saint.
For his part, Carl Jung saw the devil as representing aspects of God. The former as well as the latter is part of the Life Force. As a psychological phenomenon the devil embodies suppressed dark forces that are part of every human personality. In Jung’s sense, he’s the “Left Hand of God.”
Think of what we’ve been taught about the “Seven Deadly Sins.” Tradition has it that they’re pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, sloth, and gluttony. None of us wants to acknowledge that such forces are inevitable parts of our personalities. So, we spend a great deal of time pretending they belong to others but not to us. We spend our life force suppressing their influence on us. Inevitably though they bubble to the surface and express themselves periodically.
Jung calls us not only to face our inner destructive forces, but to embrace them. There’s gold in our dark side, he teaches.
What did he mean by that? Yes, he acknowledges that in the extreme any one of the Seven Deadly Sins can destroy our lives. But under conscious control, they can also enrich us with the gold they contain. For instance, properly acknowledged, accepted, and controlled
Pride can be a source of self-esteem that preventing one from acquiescing to abuse by the disrespectful.
Greed under control can cause workers to organize in pursuit of higher wages and safer working conditions.
A productive amount of Envy can drive us to imitate the Christ, and saintly figures like Gandhi, King, Malcolm, Dorothy Day, Rosa Parks, and Mother Theresa.
Justified Anger can lead us to demonstrate against the genocide now perpetrated by Zionists and the United States in Palestine.
Lust can help us appreciate the gift of sex and the pleasure it brings.
Holy Sloth can keep us from endorsing our culture’s worship of “productivity,” the rat race, and overwork. It can drive workers to organize for more time off, longer vacations, and family leave for new parents.
Gluttony can help us become slow food cooks and appreciators of wines and spirits. It can turn us against fast food saturated with sugar and salt.
IV
Conclusion
So, the next time the devil card turns up in your Tarot reading, don’t be frightened. It can serve as a reminder that God is not primarily creator, lawgiver, judge, condemner, and punisher. All of that is diabolical. Instead, the Divine One is the total of all the energy in the universe and in the universe of universes. That includes the energy of consciousness even to the extent that She is aware of each one of us and can be addressed as Thou. She wants only the fullness of life for each of us.
On the other hand (God’s Left Hand?) Satan is in some sense our brother and friend. True, he is never satisfied with temperance, harmony, and balance (Tarot’s 14th major arcana card). However, there is gold in his Seven Deadly Sins. With controlled expression, they can drive us towards healthy self-esteem, just recompense for our work, the idealism of imitating the Christ, unwillingness to endorse genocide, an appreciation of sexual pleasure, the joy of doing nothing, and appreciation of the gifts of food and drink.
Apologies for not attending to my blog for so long.
I’ve been busy getting ready for this two-month trip as well as rehabbing from my knee operations and another unexpected surgery. I’ve also been preoccupied with Tarot readings for an increasing number of clients – not to mention readings for my immediate family.
All six of us (including my son-in-law) have birthdays in the span of a single month – from September 6th to October 5th. And this year I’ve decided to give each family member a 10-card Tarot reading. It’s been a lot of fun, but has taken time, since each reading (including visual representations of each card) runs to about a dozen pages.
With that behind me, I can now return to blogging.
So, again, greetings from the Eternal City.
Peggy and I are here visiting our son Brendan, his wife Erin, and their three children, Genevieve (4), Madeleine (2), and Sophie (8 months). We want to get to know those kids.
You may recall that Brendan works for the State Department. He operates out of the embassy in Rome and is doing quite well following previous postings in Mexico, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
You might also realize that in a sense, this visit represents my “return to the scene of the crime.” I mean, as a newly ordained priest, my first assignment was to get my doctorate in moral theology here in Rome. So, between the years 1967 and 1972, I obtained my licentiate in systematic theology at the Atheneum Anselmianum and that doctorate at the Academia Alfonsiana.
Those five years changed my life.
Having educated me for 12 years (from a callow high school freshman in Silver Creek, New York to an ordained priest in Milton, Massachusetts) the intent of the Society of St. Columban (my sponsoring organization) was for me to return from Rome and teach moral theology in its major seminary.
However, studying post-Vatican II theology and living abroad for five years radically changed my world vision and understandings of God, Jesus, church, priesthood, politics, etc. Consequently, without my knowing it, the rector of our Rome house eventually wrote to the Columbans’ Superior General that I was “too dangerous” to teach in the organization’s major seminary.
So much for that.
In any case, I’ve written about all that elsewhere in these pages behind the “personal” button in my blog’s table of contents.
I won’t bore you with repetition.
So let me do so instead by simply noting that:
We’re here.
We’ve been generously received by our hosts.
The grandkids are a lot of fun.
I’ve forgotten most of my Italian (confusing it with similar languages I’ve learned in the meantime, viz., Portuguese and Spanish).
At this very moment, Peggy and I find ourselves aboard a high-speed train heading from Rome to Turin, where we’ll attend a conference on the world’s food system.
Afterwards, we’ll spend three nights in Venice.
Then we’ll return to Rome and the adventures that await us there and elsewhere in the country.
And oh (by the way) around Thanksgiving and our planned trip home, the two of us will return to Spain’s Granada for a week. That’s where we spent about a year in 2022-23. It will be great to reconnect with friends there.
Readings for 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Wisdom 1:13-16, 2:23-24; Ps. 30:2, 4-6, 11-13; 2Cor. 8:7, 9, 13-16; Mk. 5:21-43
Last month my brilliant 15-year-old granddaughter shocked students in her high school freshman class by giving a speech about menstruation. Yes, menstruation! She called her talk “Bleeding in Silence: The Hidden Epidemic of Period Poverty.” (For those interested, I’ve pasted Eva’s words to the bottom of this posting.)
Eva’s speech was about how the patriarchal system fundamentally misunderstands how women’s bodies function. And in our man’s world, it’s women who pay the price for such ignorance. For instance, it influences the cost of “feminine hygiene products” and their availability while imposing unspoken prohibitions about even mentioning menstrual periods much less openly discussing and coping with them.
Eva’s presentation began with a video of interviews of male family members during a party over her school’s Easter break. On camera, she simply asked us “What do you understand by the word ‘menstruation?” It was surprising how quickly inarticulate, seemingly embarrassed, and (let’s face it) ignorant our responses were, even by those who (like me) should know better.
A principal conclusion of Eva’s speech was that lamentably, men know very little about how female bodies work. Women, of course know much more. Moreover, this disparity has major social repercussions when overwhelmingly male state administrators in a completely patriarchal system impose legislation about what they barely understand. e.g., about abortion, contraception sex education, and easy and cheap access to those hygiene products.
For instance, relative to abortion, the legislation ignores the fact that 70-75% of fertilized eggs end up aborting spontaneously. They’re unceremoniously flushed down toilets across the world in the menstrual period immediately following fertilization. Yet, a recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court holds that all those unknown and unrecognized embryos are somehow “children.” At least that’s the implication of the court’s determination that frozen embryos are babies. How offensive to common sense is that? How contrary to what every woman implicitly knows.
I bring all of that up on this Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time because today’s selection from the Gospel of Mark centralizes a woman with a menstrual problem. It implies criticism of ignorant patriarchal laws regulating it, while strongly affirming a particular woman’s courageous decision to transgress those restrictions in favor of her own faith and common sense.
Jesus & Menstruation
In short, today’s reading uses the issue of menstruation to show how Jesus favored women who spoke for themselves and courageously exercised their own initiative even in the face of specific patriarchal legislation forbidding such agency. It has him even curing and praising a woman who disobeys precisely misogynistic laws. He ends up prioritizing her needs over those of a young female who was a passive captive to the religious patriarchy.
To make those points, Mark the evangelist creates what might be termed a “literary sandwich” – a “story within a story.” The device focuses on two kinds of females within the Jewish faith of Jesus’ day. In fact, Mark’s gospel is liberally sprinkled with doublets like the one just described. When they appear, both stories are meant to play off one another and illuminate each other.
In today’s doublet, we find two women. One is just entering puberty at the age of 12; the other has had a menstrual problem for the entire life span of the adolescent girl. (Today we’d call her condition a kind of menorrhagia.)
So, to begin with the number 12 is centralized. It’s a literary “marker” suggesting that the narrative has something to do with the twelve tribes of Israel – and in the early church, with the apostolic leadership of “the twelve.” The connection with Israel is confirmed by the fact that the 12-year-old in the story is the daughter of a synagogue official. As a man in a patriarchal culture, he can approach Jesus directly and speak for his daughter.
The other woman in the doublet has no man to speak for her; she must approach Jesus covertly and on her own. She comes from the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum from the 12-year- old daughter of the synagogue leader.
The older woman is without honor. She is poor and penniless. Her menstrual problem has rendered her sterile, and so she’s considered technically dead by her faith community. Her condition has also excluded her from the synagogue. In the eyes of community leaders like Jairus (the petitioning father in the story) she is “unclean.” (Remember that according to Jewish law, all women were considered unclean during their monthly period. So, the woman in today’s drama is exceedingly unclean. She and all menstruating women were not to be touched.)
All that means that Jairus as a synagogue leader is in effect the oppressor of the second woman. On top of that the older woman in the story has been humiliated and exploited by the male medical profession which has been ineffective in addressing her condition. In other words, the second woman is the victim of a misogynist religious system which saw the sacrificial blood of animals as valuable and pleasing in God’s eyes, but the blood of women as repulsively unclean.
Nonetheless, it is the bleeding woman who turns out to be the hero of the story. Her confidence in Jesus is so strong that she believes a mere touch of his garment will suffice to restore her to health, and that her action won’t even be noticed.
So, she reaches out and touches the Master. Doing so was extremely bold and highly disobedient to Jewish law, since her touch would have rendered Jesus himself unclean. She refuses to believe that.
So instead of being made unclean by the woman’s touch, Jesus’ being responds by exuding healing power, apparently without his even being aware. The woman is cured. Jesus asks, “Who touched me?” The disciples object, “What do you mean? Everybody’s touching you,” they say.
Finally, the unclean woman is identified. Jesus praises her faith and (significantly!) calls her “daughter.” So, what we end up finding in this literary doublet are two Jewish “daughters” – yet another point of comparison.
While Jesus is attending to the bleeding woman, the first daughter in the story apparently dies. Jesus insists on seeing her anyhow. When he observes that she is merely asleep, the bystanders laugh him to scorn. But Jesus is right. When he speaks to her in Aramaic, the girl awakens and is hungry. Everyone is astonished, and Jesus must remind them to feed her.
Mark’s Message for Us
What does all the comparison mean? The doublet represented in today’s Gospel addresses issues that couldn’t be more female – more feminist. The message here is that bold and active women unafraid of disobeying the religious or civil patriarchy in matters that women understand better than men. “Prioritize and act like the bleeding woman” is the message of today’s Gospel.
Could today’s gospel be telling us that bold and specifically feminist faith that sides with the poor and oppressed (like the hero of today’s Gospel) will be the salvation of us all who are moribund? Are women precisely as women today’s real faith leaders, rather than the elderly, white, out-of-touch men who overwhelmingly claim to lead in every sphere even those where women know far more.
Conclusion
Today’s Gospel suggests that it’s time for men to stop telling women how to be women – to stop pronouncing on issues of female sexuality whether it be menstruation, abortion, contraception, same-sex attractions, or whether women are called by God to the priesthood. Correspondingly, it’s time for women to disobey such male pronouncements, and to exercise leadership in accord with their common sense – in accord with women’s ways of knowing. Only that will save our national community which is currently sick unto death.
_______
Bleeding in Silence: The Hidden Epidemic of Period Poverty
By Eva Lehnerd Reilly
Whether they know the term or not, all women are necessarily aware of the realities of “Period Poverty.” Nonetheless, the concept remains completely foreign and even incomprehensible to most men. As a result, little is done to eliminate the problems the phrase represents. The phrase “Period Poverty” is defined as the lack of access to safe and hygienic menstrual products during monthly periods and accessibility to basic sanitation services or facilities as well as menstrual hygiene education.
Additionally, period poverty has social dimensions that include the stigmas surrounding this natural female process. To explain the problem, what follows will explore international dimensions of this issue, connect the phrase with patriarchy, misogyny and human rights and make recommendations for its elimination. This essay is arguing “Period Poverty” is a world health issue thus by refusing to acknowledge it we are proving that we still live in a society that is patriarchal, misogynist, and locked in an aggressive denial of the rights of women.
An International Problem
This issue affects billions of people worldwide in ways including stigma, dependence on transnational companies producing the necessary hygienic products, and the lack of understanding and acknowledgement of the problem. Stigma is one of the largest problems surrounding period poverty. Many countries and people believe wildly untrue period-related information. According to the Korean Journal of Family Medicine, Nepal “continues to believe in dangerous, incorrect ideas, for example, using tampons causes women to lose their virginity, or handling food while menstruating causes it to spoil the food.
Social stigma on menstruation remains even in more advanced nations: in the United States, 58% of women are ashamed of having a period, and 51% of men believe that it is improper to discuss periods at work.” (Jaafar, Hafiz, et al., 2023). The fact that stigma is so present in all different circles around the world shows how grand an issue this is and how many people are affected by it.
This is also an economic issue because women are dependent on transnational companies. Global Research and Consulting Group Insights explains that: “Multiple countries in the world impose the ‘tampon tax’ on menstrual products, frequently targeted as ‘luxury goods.’ This categorization enhances the chances that economic disparities, limit access to period products, and perpetuates the view that they are not a ‘necessity.’”(Ricardo da Costa, 2023). This tax is implemented often in particularly lower-income, less developed countries but it is far from unique to developing countries. In fact, GRC found that the elimination of the “tampon tax” in California would likely reduce government revenue by 55 million dollars. This shows how women’s reliance on companies to provide basic hygiene products is problematic because the government is trying to make financial gains by providing resources that should never be charged for in the first place.
Probably the largest problem of them all is the lack of awareness and understanding surrounding period poverty and the menstrual cycle in general. A Plan International study found that one in five boys and young men think that periods should be kept a secret. Furthermore, they associate this term with words like ‘messy,’ ‘gross,’ and ‘embarrassing.’ This tells us that the taboos set in place by society are greatly affecting young people and discouraging them from learning and understanding this issue. This is leading to the rise of a new wave of sexism.
Periods and Patriarchy
The term “patriarchy” refers to social conditions ruled by fathers–or more generally by men. In
The Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner determines that this comes from lessons taught in childhood. She says that the “absolute authority of a father over his children provided men with a conceptual dominance of dependency, due to the helplessness of youth.” (Lerner, 90). Relative to period poverty, this fundamental condition has led some women to joke that if male biology included menstruation, they would likely be excused from work days before and during the entire menses process, plus they would be given a week off to recover. Additionally, menstrual hygiene products would be low or no cost, not subject to taxation, and as available as toilet paper and paper hand towels in every washroom.
In our patriarchal society no such accommodations are available for more than half our nation’s population. That’s period poverty. However, this goes farther than just the patriarchy. The issue is also affected greatly by misogyny, a term meaning hatred of women. This is revealed in attitudes surrounding mood swings, jokes about periods and even dates back to religious texts calling women ‘unclean’ during this time.
Particularly, in the third Book of the Pentateuch or Torah, known as Leviticus, it states that a woman undergoing menstruation is perceived as unclean for seven days and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:19). This is simply outrageous and goes to show how our society is so deeply rooted in these feelings of hatred towards women and disgust towards natural occurrences.
Finally, access to period products is a human right. A human right is what belongs to human beings simply because of being human; it does not have to be earned, it is an entitlement. All women, simply because of being women, have menstrual periods. They therefore have rights connected with their inevitable circumstances. These include rights to free or very low-cost feminine hygiene products, widespread availability of such products and freedom from blame, ridicule, or penalty for time off for personal care during their periods. Now that we have established this, how can we fix this?
Practical Recommendations
The Journal of Global Health Reports found that 500 million people lack access to menstrual products and hygiene facilities and since half the population is female and over half of university students are female, this issue can no longer be ignored. Men need to be part of the solution. We need to all work together to ensure a positive and supportive environment that allows menstruating people to participate in all aspects of life (e.g., going to school/work, and sport). In a Plan International study of over 300 men, 49% said their education on periods was poor or non-existent and just under one third (32%) said that talking about periods made them feel uncomfortable, increasing to 53% in the youngest respondents aged 16-18 years. This shows that many people (men in particular) are not receiving adequate education leading to misinformation and increased stigma associated with menstruation.
The takeaway is that we are in desperate need of a far greater and earlier education about periods in schools. There are three things to note surrounding this being a world health issue: 1) Poor menstrual hygiene often causes physical health risks, 2) globally, 1.7 billion people live without basic sanitation services, 3) girls with disabilities disproportionately do not have access to the facilities and resources they need for proper menstrual hygiene. The former Chief of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene at UNICEF said it best: “Meeting the hygiene needs of all adolescent girls is a fundamental issue of human rights, dignity, and public health.” (Rodriguez, Global Citizen). With all that in mind, allow me to conclude my argument.
Readings for Palm Sunday: John 12: 12-16; Isaiah 50: 4-7; Psalm 22: 17-24; Philippians 2: 6-11; Mark 14: 15-47
Today is Palm Sunday. For Christians, it begins “Holy Week” which recalls Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday), his Last Supper (Holy Thursday), his torture and execution (Good Friday), and his resurrection from the dead as the culmination of a long history that began with the liberation of Hebrew slaves from Egypt (Holy Saturday).
As just noted, the saga begins today by recalling what the Christian Testament remembers as the day when Jesus was greeted by chanting throngs as he entered the city seated on a donkey while the crowds waved palm branches and shouted “Hosanna.” They spread their cloaks before the animal that bore him to the temple precincts where he famously evicted money changers and vendors of sacrificial animals.
The event is full of political significance for those of us whose government has proudly inherited the mantle of the Roman Empire. That’s because the supposed events of Palm Sunday were probably part of a much larger general demonstration of faithful Jews including Jesus against the oppression that is part and parcel of all imperial systems including our own. As such, today’s narrative calls us to resistance of U.S. Empire as Rome’s contemporary successor.
To understand what I mean, consider (1) the significance of the Jerusalem demonstration itself and the role that palms played in its unfolding, (2) the demonstration’s chant “Hosanna, Son of David” and (3) the meaning of all this for our own lives.
Jerusalem Direct Action
For starters, think about what actually happened in Jerusalem during that first Demonstration of Palms.
Note at the outset that if the event wasn’t a whole-cloth invention of the early church, it’s highly unlikely that Jesus would have entered Jerusalem as a universally acclaimed figure. That’s because the gospels make it clear that all during his “public life,” Jesus confined his activities of healing and speaking to small villages where his audiences were poor illiterate peasants.
Given their small numbers, poverty and the expenses of travel and lodging, their massive presence in Jerusalem would have been highly unlikely. This meant that Jesus’ profile would have remained exceedingly low in larger cities and nearly non-existent in his nation’s capital city, Jerusalem. He would have been largely unknown there.
Again, if the event happened at all, it is more likely that the part Jesus and his disciples played in it was marginal and supportive of a larger parade and demonstration supported by well-organized revolutionaries such as Judah’s Zealot cadres whose raison d’etre was the expulsion of the occupying forces from Rome.
This also means that the demonstration’s climax with its “cleansing of the temple” would probably have represented a much larger assault on the sacred precincts where only large numbers of protestors would have stood any hope of impact rather than an individual construction worker supported by 12 fishermen.
(Remember, the residence of the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, was actually attached to the temple itself. So were the barracks of Jerusalem’s occupying force. The annex was called the Fortress Antonia. During the Passover holidays, everyone there would have been on high alert rendering any small demonstration – and probably any large one — virtually impossible. If the temple itself were not crawling with Roman soldiers, they would have been surveilling the whole scene.)
But even if Jesus were welcomed by the frantic crowds as depicted in the gospels, the event would have been precisely intended to be seen by the Romans as highly political and perhaps even decisive in defeating their hated occupation and bringing on in its place what Jesus described as the Kingdom of God.
(Jesus’ high hopes surrounding the incidents of this final week in his life are suggested by the words Mark records at the Last Supper in today’s gospel reading: “I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” In other words, Jesus evidently thought that the events of this first “holy week” would signify a political turning point for Jews in their struggle against Rome. Their uprising would finally bring in God’s kingdom.)
Jesus’ Anti-Imperialism
In any case and whatever its historical merits, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is presented as anti-imperial. The waving of palms, the chanting of the crowd, and Jesus’ mount all tell us that. In Jesus’ time, the waving palms on patriotic occasions (like Passover) was like waving a national or revolutionary flag. That had been the case ever since the successful rebellion led by the Jewish revolutionary Maccabee family against the Seleucid tyranny of Antiochus IV Epiphanes 150 years earlier.
So, crowds greeting Jesus with palms raised high while chanting “Hosanna, Son of David” (save us!) would have meant “Hail to the Son of David, who will lead us to regain our freedom from the Romans, the way the Maccabees led the revolution against the Seleucid tyrant!” Jesus’ choice of a traditionally royal donkey as his mount would only have underscored that message. Only kings rode donkeys in processions.
All of this means that the story of “Palm Sunday” as presented in today’s reading depicts an overt threat to the imperial system of Rome supported by Jerusalem’s Temple establishment.
Anti-Imperialism Today
So, what’s my point in emphasizing the political dimensions of Palm Sunday? Simply put, it’s to call attention to the fact that followers of Jesus must be anti-imperial too.
That’s because imperialism as such runs contrary to the Hebrew covenant that protected the poor and oppressed, the widows, orphans, and resident non-Jews from the depredations of local elites and outside military powers.
And that’s what empire represents in every case. It’s a system of robbery by which militarily powerful nations victimize the less powerful for purposes of resource transfer from the poor to the already wealthy.
Such upward redistribution of wealth runs absolutely contrary to the profound social reform promised in Jesus’ notion of the Kingdom of God. There, everything would be reversed downward. The first would be last; the last would be first (Matthew 20:16). The hungry would be fed and the rich would suffer famine (Luke 1: 53). The rich would become poor, and the poor would be rich. The joyful would be saddened and those in tears would laugh (Luke 6: 24-25).
Contradicting those grassroots aspirations is the very purpose of U.S. empire today with its endless wars, nuclear arms, bloated Pentagon budgets, and glorification of the military. All of that is about supporting the status quo and preventing Jesus’ Great Reversal.
That’s why American armed forces maintain more than 800 military bases throughout the world. All of them are engines of stability in a world of huge inequalities. (Btw, do you know how many foreign bases China maintains? One!!) Maintaining stability in a world crying out for change is why the U.S. is currently fighting seven wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Niger – and who knows where else) with no end in sight. (Today’s designated enemy, China, is fond of pointing out that it hasn’t dropped a single bomb on foreign soil for 40 years.)
Conclusion
Recently, a conservative church friend of mine told me that his primary identity is as a follower of Jesus. I found that wonderfully inspiring.
On second thought however, I wondered which Jesus he was referring to. Was it to the revolutionary Jesus of Palm Sunday? Or did his Jesus support U.S. empire? Did he promise individualized prosperity as the result of following him? Was his Jesus politically involved? Or did he simply ignore politics in favor of internal peace and a promised heaven after death?
The questions are crucial. There are so many Jesuses of faith. And, of course, we’re all free to choose our favorite. By the same token however, we have to explain how an “other-worldly” Jesus would have appealed to his impoverished audiences like those depicted in today’s gospel. My guess is that an other-worldly guru would have had zero appeal to them.
Why would such a Jesus have been seen as threatening to Rome? Again, he would not have been.
Yes, there are many Jesuses of faith. However, there was only one historical Jesus. And it seems logical to me that the historical Jesus must be the criterion for judging which Jesus of faith we accept — if any.
Today’s recollection of the parade down Jerusalem’s main street, with crowds waving revolutionary symbols, and its assault on the sacred temple precincts (including Roman barracks) remind us that the historical Jesus stood against empire. Like every good Jew of his time, Jesus not only hoped for empire’s overthrow, but worked to that end with its promised Great Reversal.
No wonder Jesus was so popular with his poor and oppressed neighbors. No wonder Rome executed him as an insurgent. No wonder that particular Jesus seems so foreign to us who now live in the belly of empire’s beast. No wonder he remains so despicable to our religious and political mainstream.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza at the hands of Apartheid Israel has brought the question of biblical interpretation from the margins to the center.
The impetus to do so has come from Benjamin Netanyahu. Think of his pronouncements about his Amalek strategy justifying his attacks in Gaza. Couple that with his IOF (Israel Occupation Force) song and dance celebrating the same. It has all raised the perennial question of the very nature of the God of the Jewish Testament.
And the question is simple. It was articulated by the ancient fathers of the Christian community – men like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and the hereticated Marcion of Sinope. All of them wondered how anyone with a drop of humanity or possessed of the most elementary moral compass could believe in a God who commanded complete genocides directed specifically against women, children, infants, cattle, and sheep?
Of course, similar questions might be addressed today to Bibi Netanyahu or Genocide Joe Biden. Where’s your humanity? Have you completely lost your moral compass? What kind of God would justify your crimes?
So, let’s examine the question of Apartheid Israel’s genocidal God. Let’s think about divinity bereft of moral compass. Start with facing the fact that the Hebrew Bible might not be about God at all. Next look at the powerful beings who are presented there. And finally, consider Jesus’ attitude towards the so-called God of Israel.
No God in the Hebrew Bible
On this first and second points, I’m following the direction of scholars like the Australian Paul Wallis and the Italian biblical scholar Mauro Biglino. They question entirely the traditional interpretations of the biblical God.
According to Biglino and Wallis, the Hebrew Bible’s genocidal God is no God at all. In fact, the Hebrew Testament itself is not about God. Instead, close examination reveals that it is about “Elohim,” i.e., “Powerful Ones.”
These were Beings from Beyond who in the ancient world vied for control of our planet. Stories of such paleo-contacts with extraterrestrials (ETs) are found throughout revered texts across the planet from China to Egypt, and Babylon; from the Philippines to the Mayan Popol Vu. In fact, every ancient civilization holds that we came from above – from the sons of the stars.
Most often these foreign entities appear in reptilian forms or as fire-breathing dragons, Sometimes they possess wings. At others, the Powerful Ones appear in human form and are recognized as giants, witches, magicians, governors, lawgivers, as “Sons of God” or simply as kings whose specific names were forgotten, but who were remembered as divine. Still elsewhere the Powerful Ones take the form of “angels,” (messengers from beyond) or demons. Invariably, they possess super-human powers.
In biblical texts these “Powerful Ones” had names such as El, El Shaddai, Elion, Baal, Ruach, Ashera, and Yahweh. Together they comprised a family that included 70 sons of El. Among them Yahweh was an inferior subordinate of his father who apportioned to his offspring control of various geographical regions. Yahweh’s assignment was to protect the nation of Israel. (Note El’s name in the term Yisra-El itself.)
Only at the beginning of the first millennium BCE was El replaced by Yahweh as the supreme and only God. That is, Jewish polytheism and henotheism morphed into monotheism for the first time around 530 BCE – after the Babylonian exile. It was then that Judah’s elite in the persons of Ezra, Josiah (640-609 BCE), and Nehemiah reformulated the nation’s longstanding traditions. Their patriarchal work removed, downplayed, and/or reinterpreted all references acknowledging the existence and power of Gods from above other than Yahweh, Judah’s national deity.
Put otherwise, the Jewish biblical tradition was rewritten with the name Yahweh pasted over references to the Elohim as if Israel had always been monotheistic. This is how Yahweh became responsible for the genocides of El Shaddai and other “divinities” who lacked human feeling or moral compass.
The reformers took special pains to erase references to goddess worship. Against great resistance, Israel’s beloved goddess Ashera was consigned to the biblical memory hole.
Not God for Yeshua
The impoverished and imperialized prophet, Yeshua of Nazareth, had little to do with the Yahweh pasted over the traditions of the Elohim. Nowhere does he even refer to God using that name.
On the contrary, the prophet was highly critical of and even rejected any understandings of an exclusively national God, much less as one who commanded the slaughter of enemies.
Instead, Yeshua spoke of God as a Universal Father and as the One his disciple Paul of Tarsus described as the Source of the universe and everything in it – as the One in whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28).
For Yeshua and his disciples, God was international, universal, and unconcerned with Temple worship and sacrifice. This eventually led Yeshua’s followers to reject not only Judaism’s limited understandings of God, but Judaism and its law in general.
Still, the Christian tradition continued to embrace the Jewish Testament as part of the Holy Bible as though Jesus was a worshipper of Yahweh. It did so because Christians understood Jesus as fulfilling Jewish testament prophecies.
The resulting process of distortion was straight forward. Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism that followed the teachings of the Jewish prophet, Yeshua. After his execution around 30 CE, his followers inspired by his international and universal vision had grown geographically and numerically far beyond the Jewish community. Their movement had spread to all parts of the Roman Empire to become a largely gentile association that for various reasons even came to despise its Jewish origins.
These international characteristics led to the Bible’s becoming a world book by the 4th century CE. For it was then that the Roman Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan legalized Yeshua’s Jewish movement now called “The Way.”
The change was necessary because the Roman Empire’s unifying religion (also for various reasons associated with the increasing cultural diversity of its subjects) had lost credibility across its ever-expanding territories. It needed an international unifying religious ideology that would uphold the belief that the Emperor was supported by divine authority.
So, in the early 4th century and after long years of persecuting “Christians,” the Empire’s Office for Religious Affairs (under Constantine) decided to legalize the sect that had become more universal than what the Roman pantheon had come to represent. Eventually, by 380 CE Christianity became Rome’s official religion (under Theodosius).
Afterwards, widely diverse beliefs about the identity of Yeshua of Nazareth (and about the Bible and its tales) were streamlined into official doctrines, while alternative understandings were condemned and punished as heresies.
Thus Jesus became understood as a worshipper of the Elohim-become-Yahweh with all their contradictions, instead of as a prophet who rejected all but the Mosaic tradition as championed by Israel’s prophets and as universal father and spirit in whom we live and move and have our being.
Conclusion
To summarize: the Bible is not a world book written for humankind in general. Instead, it is a memoir of a small marginal and relatively insignificant group in the ancient Mideast called “Hebrews.” It was written for them, not for Christians.
Neither is the Bible about a universal “God.” Rather, it is about various kings and generals and Powerful Ones from the world above. In their various ancient pre-literate oral traditions Hebrews called them “Elohim,” “El,” “El Shaddai,” “Ruach,” “Baal,” “Ashera,” and “Yahweh.” The Powerful Ones included generals and kings who were often gradually elevated to divine status, just as happened with kings in other Mideastern cultures. Many of these Elohim were cruel and violent colonizers interested only in accumulating herds, gold, and virgin girls to improve their DNA.
“Yahweh” was the member of the Elohim to whose protection the Hebrew people were assigned, while (according to pre-literate traditions) other peoples were assigned other protectors drawn from the supra-human “Powerful Ones” who might even have been extra-terrestrials referenced in their own ways by virtually all ancient traditions across the planet.
In the 6th century BCE under Josiah, the Hebrew religion was streamlined and was rendered monotheistic. Biblical texts were rewritten as though Yahweh had always been the only God recognized by Israel.
In effect, what’s recorded in the Jewish Testament is a “Battle of the Gods,” i.e., contradictory, and incompatible understandings of powerful entities presented side-by-side with the inconsistencies ignored.
Today’s Palestinians in Gaza are the latest victims of the cruelest of the biblical Elohim.
Black History Month has me rereading the late James Cone’s seminal work, The Cross and the Lynching Tree. Cone, of course, is the father of black liberation theology. I’m finding his work especially relevant to the ongoing genocide of Gazans at the hands of white supremacist Zionist Jews.
A central theme of Cone’s writing, public lectures, and teaching focuses on the difference between white versions of Christianity and their black counterpart. He puts that difference succinctly by alleging that whites have used the Bible to oppress blacks and others, while the latter have used that same Bible as a powerful tool to resist that oppression.
The ongoing slaughter in Gaza coupled with the statements of genocidal intent expressed by Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have led me to conclude that something similar might be said of Zionists both in Israel and in the U.S. Recently they have used the Bible to ground their genocide of Palestinian children and their mothers. Meanwhile, Islamic Gazans use the Bible along with their Holy Koran to justify their (sometimes violent) resistance.
Who’s right? And what does Cone – what does liberation theology – say about such controversy?
Let’s see.
Consider first how Zionists are using the Bible. Next think about the approach of theologians like James Cone, and how the contrast between the two approaches applies to the Hamas attack of October 7th and Israel’s genocidal response in Gaza. Finally compare the oppressive violence that Zionists have used against Gazans with the violence of Hamas against their overlords. Theologians like Cone as well as his heroes Malcolm X and Martin King find the latter more justifiable than the former.
Zionist Use of the Bible
Consider the Zionists’ use of the Bible first.
Early on, Mr. Netanyahu invoked the biblical account of their ancient leaders claiming divine authority to carry out genocide against Israel’s archenemy, the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:1-9). The Gazans are the contemporary equivalent of Israel’s ancient foe, he said. They deserve the same fate of absolute obliteration – i.e. genocide.
The Prime Minister’s words were turned into a war anthem adopted by the IOF (Israeli Occupation Force). They shocked the world in a video showing them singing and dancing to the words of that anthem calling for the slaughter of Gazans, today’s Amalekites.
Both Netanyahu’s words and the video of the soldiers’ rally were used recently by South African prosecutors in their presentations before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). There the prosecutors alleged that both Netanyahu’s words and the soldiers’ behavior provided convincing evidence of Israel’s intentional violations of the Genocide Convention.
On the one hand, the presentation of such evidence led the ICJ to conclude that the South African charges merit further court deliberation about Israel’s possible conviction for military actions that provide prima facie evidence of being genocidal.
On the other hand, the evidence in question (Netanyahu’s words and the IOC anthem) offers proof positive that (according to Cone’s allegations) white colonial Europeans continue to use the Bible to justify horrendous oppression of their victims.
But what about the Gazans and their use of the Bible? What does liberation theology say about that?
Liberation Theologians & The Bible
For liberation theologians like James Cone, all human beings are loved by the biblical God about whose nature there is evident difference of opinion and controversy throughout sacred scripture. That is, the Bible contains many contradictory understandings of God. In effect, it presents readers with a “battle of the gods.”
For instance, some texts present him (sic) as petty and jealous. Still other texts show him as the national God of the Jews. In that capacity, he is often a God of war like the one demanding the slaughter of the Amalekites.
The Hebrew prophetic tradition presents a very different God. He’s one who in today’s Zionist parlance might be accused of anti-Semitism. That’s because he is often highly critical and fiercely condemnatory of Israel. He frequently punishes them. On at least two occasions he allows their enemies to cart them off for generations-long exiles in Assyria (722-652) and Babylon (586-516).
Again, the prophetic tradition seconds the divine “anti-Semitic” tradition just mentioned. It’s that tradition in which Jesus appears. The Gospel narratives about him along with his preaching and parables sometimes even centralize Jewish enemies (such as “The Good Samaritan”) as heroes while condemning Jewish priests, scribes, Pharisees, and kings. With that in mind, contemporary Zionists would no doubt characterize Jesus as a “self-hating Jew.”
For Jesus, ethnic identity even became entirely immaterial. One thing alone is important, for him, love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40). Connections to Abraham, Jesus says, are no more significant than connections to a stone (Matthew 3: 9-10).
In fact, for the prophets in general (and for liberation theologians like James Cone), what is overwhelmingly central to morality is treatment of widows, orphans, and resident aliens. The prophets constantly remind their fellow religionists that all of them were once slaves in Egypt. They should never forget that. Accordingly, favorable treatment of slaves, aliens, widows, and orphans is the very touchstone of Israel’s identity. In fact, the prophet Jesus makes treatment of “the least of the brethren” the sole criterion of judgment about the final worth of one’s life (Matthew 25: 31-46).
Liberation theologians summarize all of this by asserting that God has made a “preferential option for the poor.” That is, when push comes to shove, and while God loves everyone, the Divine One sides with the poor and oppressed in their struggles against the rich and powerful.
For followers of the Jewish Jesus, that divine preference is evident in the fact that he chose to fully reveal himself not as a king, prince, or rich person, but in the poorest of the poor. He surfaced in the working class as a construction worker from the nowheresville called Nazareth. He was conceived by an unwed teenage mother. In his youth, he lived as an immigrant in Egypt (Matthew 2: 13-15). He was accused of being a drunkard and a friend of prostitutes (Matthew 11:19). His family thought he was insane (Mark 3:21). He finished disgraced and a victim of torture and capital punishment.
And very significantly for James Cone, forensic archeologists point out that Jesus was probably black and unimposing. He was probably about 5’1” in height and weighed just over 100 pounds. Probably, they say, looked like the figure (below) on the left, not the familiar one on the right. To repeat, it is quite probable that Jesus was literally black. Cone affirms that he was at least figuratively or poetically black. He came from and sided with the poor and oppressed.
Liberation Theology & Violence
Furthermore, it isn’t all that clear that Jesus was a pacifist and non-violent. For instance, all Gospel lists of his apostles identify one of them as “Simon the Zealot.” “Zealot” was the name of patriots in Jesus’ Palestine who resisted Roman occupation by killing Jewish collaborators with Roman occupation. How could “Jesus meek and mild” have associated himself with murderers like that?
On top of that, all four Gospel traditions record that at least one of Jesus’ closest disciples was armed when Jesus was arrested (John 18:10-11). Jesus must have known that. Moreover, the friend in question knew how to use his weapon; he swung it at one of those who came to arrest Jesus and cut off the man’s ear.
Elsewhere, Jesus is remembered as saying, “Don’t think that I have come to bring peace, but the sword” (Matthew 10: 34-36). In another place, he says “Let the man who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). And finally, as I said, Jesus was evidently perceived by the Romans as a revolutionary. In any case, they executed him by crucifixion, the means of capital punishment they reserved for violent insurrectionists. He was crucified between two other insurrectionists (not “thieves”}. Jesus must have done something(s) that gave the occupiers the impression that he was in insurrectionist too.
And that brings us back to Gaza, Hamas, and its use of violence on October 7, 2023. Would the revolutionary Jesus have supported such mayhem?
Here’s where distinctions made by liberation theologians {and by James Cone’s primary black hero, Malcolm X} come in. Malcolm was all for peace – but not in response to the oppressor’s aggression. “If someone hits you in the face,” Malcolm would say, “hit him back.” Black people have the right to defend themselves, he was fond of saying, “by any means necessary.”
Liberation theologians like Cone agree. And they go further. They teach that all forms of violence are not the same. At least one form is justifiable; others are not. So, before one can determine possible justification, one must identify its type. Four of them must be considered in any given analysis. Consider them in the context of Israel’s war against Gaza.
The first type of violence is structural and is indefensible. It takes the form of elements such as laws and customs, restrictions, and prohibitions that adversely affect a given population such as inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. European colonialists’ gift of Palestine to white European Jews in 1948 was violent. It resulted in the forced displacement of Palestinians by the hundreds of thousands. Their houses were stolen or destroyed by the Jewish invaders from Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and even from the United States. Palestinians who resisted were often simply murdered by the invaders. Moreover, apartheid laws later imposed on Palestinians by Israel’s settler colonists are also violent. Most of the world hasn’t even recognized this structural form of violence as the “original sin” it represents. However, liberation theologians like James Cone do. This form of violence by the powerful against the powerless is never acceptable.
The second type of violence is the truly justifiable violence of self-defense. This is what Malcolm referred to when he spoke of hitting back. It’s a form of violence that the UN recognizes as legitimate in Article 51 of its Charter. Accordingly, people living under occupation have the right to defend themselves against occupying forces. The latter, however, have no right to self-defense. They are robbers, thieves, and murderers. These are the convictions behind the Hamas attacks of October 7th, 2003. Liberation theologians like James Cone agree. This second form of violence is legitimate. However, its adoption is rarely wise. It can be suicidal because it leads to a third type of violence which is always overwhelming.
The third type of violence is reactionary. It is the overwhelming police and military response of those imposing the first type of violence. This third type is on display at this very moment in Gaza. There cowardly Israeli occupation forces have killed more than 27,000 Gazans – more than half of them children and their mothers – in response to Hamas’ employment of the second type of violence. In this case, the response is so overwhelming that according to the ICJ, it provides prima facie evidence of genocide. Obviously, this type of violence cannot be truly justified since it represents restoration of the “order” imposed by violence’s first level. Nonetheless, in most cases such police and military violence is accepted by most as somehow normal.
The fourth type of violence is terroristic. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. Nation states such as Israel and the United States routinely define uprisings against their illegal occupations as “terrorism.” According to them, Hamas is terrorist while Israel and the United States stand for law and order. However, theologians like James Cone maintain that the world’s principal terrorists are states like those just mentioned. They are the ones who impose structural violence and respond with reactionary violence. Their routine murders of those defending their families, homes, and cultures against colonialism’s “legal” crimes are the primary forms of terrorism afflicting our world. By comparison, the violence of groups like Hamas (or even the perpetrators of 9/11) is minor. In other words, though terrorism is never justified, its main perpetrators are those who impose the colonialism of white supremacy in all its forms, not those who resist them.
Conclusion
Yes, the Bible’s Battle of the Gods continues to our day. All of us are involved whether we’re believers or not. But believers especially are called to make up their minds about the nature of the God they believe in and about the nature of the violence they find themselves supporting.
All of this means critical evaluation of Netanyahu’s attempts to biblically justify Zionists’ ongoing genocidal attacks in Gaza and the West Bank. Liberation theologians like James Cone contend that the Prime Minister’s invocation of a genocidal God is a typically white supremacist interpretation. As such it runs completely contrary to Israel’s prophetic tradition and its concerns for the impoverished, widows, and orphans. It runs completely contrary to the words of the Jewish prophet from Nazareth, “Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me.”
One thing we do know, in the biblical portrayal of its battle of the Gods, the God of the Jewish prophets and the Jewish Jesus is emphatically not the god of I Samuel 15:1-9.
Instead, the divine one is the God of the construction worker from Nazareth, living in a country occupied by invading Europeans, and who gave the invaders reason to believe he supported the Resistance the Romans feared and hated.
In fact, the white European occupiers hated the second level of violence so much that in the year 70 CE, they acted just like Netanyahu and his genocidal army. They reduced Jerusalem and its environs to the same condition we see in Gaza today.
About Things That Matter 