More Misery Synod Madness

The Missouri Synod continues in its relentless quest to give all Lutherans a bad name. This time its target is Doreen Pawelk,  a 92 year old woman who wants to be buried next to her husband. In fact the plot had already been paid for.

News of the elderly woman's treatment went viral after a letter upbraiding Mrs Pawelk for not taking the eucharist at a legalistically-determined frequency was released by family. A huge negative reaction led to a backtracking by Synod leaders and local pastor, LeRoy LaPlant. It was, so they now say, all a big mistake.

What clearly isn't a mistake is the existence of a nasty form letter saturated with a spirit of legalism that would take the breath away from any real Lutheran - or any decent person from whatever religious or non-religious background. Even if this was the 'wrong letter', it has clearly exposed the unpleasant side of the already famously narrow LCMS mindset. Adding insult to injury, this is a form letter that, despite its tone and gravity, can be churned out without the need for the pastor, or any congregational official, to as much as dignify it with a signature.

Of course there's a simple solution. In Minnesota there are a lot of ELCA Lutheran churches. I'd bet the farm that none of them have "self-exclusion policy" like this.

Greg Albrecht and the Imaginary Mark

Greg Albrecht has set out to educate us all about Mark's gospel.

This Gospel was written by John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. He is probably the young man who fled from the soldiers in Gethsemane (Mk 14:51-52)
Greg Albrecht, CWR Bible Survey, Mark, Week 1.

Well, that's fairly straight-forward. Greg, no mean wordsmith, paints a colorful portrait of the first evangelist.

Think about Mark as a boy. He grew up in Jerusalem, the city of the holy Temple, central to Jewish history and religious practice. He probably followed Jesus, Peter and the other disciples through the streets of Jerusalem during the week of the events leading to the crucifixion. He may well have been the young man who escaped the Temple soldiers that fateful day (Mk 14:51-52). 

Youthful experiences of Mark would have included knowledge of the early growth of the church, the gift of land by his cousin Barnabas to the church, the sermon and martyrdom of Stephen, and the conversion of the adversary Paul. He traveled with Paul and Barnabas to Cyprus and Asia Minor, but left to go home to Jerusalem, greatly upsetting Paul (Acts 13:13; 15:37-38). 

Why did he leave? The Bible doesn't say. Perhaps he had family responsibilities, or a fiancee waiting for him. Perhaps he was homesick, traveling through unfamiliar lands far from home. 

Whatever the case, Mark eventually decided to record the most important story ever written.

The problem is that most of this is pure invention. Greg is clearly a talented story-teller, but fiction rather than fact is his forte. We know very little about Mark. We can't be at all sure that he was the 'John Mark' written about elsewhere in the New Testament, and in fact it's fairly certain he wasn't! Here are some quotes from a few of the standard reference works that are readily available.

Like the other Gospels, the text does not identify its author, but early church tradition... attributed it to "Mark," a companion of Peter in Rome (1 Peter 5:13), who is then identified with the "John Mark" of Acts... This attribution is called into question by the apologetic desire to associate a nonapostolic Gospel with the apostle Peter, by the frequency of "Mark" as a name in the Roman Empire, and by the ancient tendency to attribute works to important figures from the past.
John R. Donahue, Mark, HarperCollins Bible Commentary. 

About the author of the gospel we probably know very little. Ancient tradition calls him Mark, almost certainly intending to identify him with the John Mark mentioned elsewhere in the NT... None of this, however, is certain. It seems very unlikely, for example, that the author of the gospel was a Palestinian Jew. He appears to be rather ignorant about local geography (see Mk 5:1; 7:31), as well as about Jewish customs or laws (see Mk 7:3-4; 10:11-12). He may well have been called Mark, but the name was a very common one in the Roman empire and we cannot simply equate all the Marks we know!
C. M. Tuckett, Mark, Oxford Bible Commentary 

Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark (mentioned in Acts 12:12; 15:37), who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as his summary of Peter's preaching (see 1 Pet. 5:13). Modern scholars find little first-century evidence to support this tradition.
Richard Horsley, Introduction to Mark, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 4th edition

It seems those in-the-know know a good deal less about Mark than Greg does. A number of commentators (for example Paul Achtemeier in the Proclamation commentary series) largely ignore the issue of attribution given the dearth of real knowledge on the subject. Obviously Greg is unencumbered by any such reservations, which is okay as long as you bear in mind that he is primarily a spinner of yarns, an apologist more interested in flair than scholarship.

Not even informed by scholarship actually. Maybe he should take some classes...

Keeping It Simple

The design team here at Otagosh - well, that's just me actually - inadvertently put the blog through the washing machine, and out popped this bleached 'no frills' version. The content is unchanged, but the visuals have been toned down a bit. Some (who shall remain nameless) might say it's too bad the prose is still overblown, but then nobody's perfect - except of course for Rod "never committed a serious sin" Meredith. I always thought Pride was one of the Deadly Seven, but I guess Rod never found that one listed in Exodus 20.

But back to overblown prose. Example: In the previous post I was determined to use the word 'empretzeled' after tripping over it in an op-ed piece in Time. You know the principle, 'use it or lose it'. The Time reference was, I believe, to Hillary Clinton ("she empretzeled herself"). Apparently it's been around since at least 2009, but was a revelation to me - not to mention the spell checker. English is like that, a new word hiding around each corner, lying in wait and ready to pounce. I love it.

So does the idea of being empretzeled by proof texts work? Well, I thought it was a colorful analogy at the time...

To return to blog layout. Is simple better? I'm open to persuasion to the contrary, but in any case this iteration will probably remain in place for a while. If you don't favour vanilla, there are certainly no end of Rocky Road alternatives in the COG webiverse.

Now if I could only think of a sentence combining webiverse with empretzeled. To be honest, it shouldn't be too difficult...

Tithing

[This is an expanded version of a post that appeared here in 2013.]

As we all know, good Christians tithe.

And really good Christians tithe on their gross.

Which is interesting, in that tithing was prescribed for an agrarian society where they primarily tithed on animals and crops.

Of course, you had to tithe to the Lord's accredited representatives, which meant the priesthood and the temple.

How all this translates across to cheques, automatic bank deductions, ATMs in church foyers and non-levitical preachers with their manicured hands stretched out to garner the Lord's increase is a bit of a mystery. I mean, where do they get the authority to do that?

And could somebody please explain to me why Jews today - in the absence of a central temple and priesthood - don't tithe?  Oh, hang on, no temple or priesthood... yeah, I get it.

Then, there's also the uncomfortable fact that, even when the Jerusalem temple was standing, Jews in the diaspora didn't tithe. There was no point. How were they supposed to get all that perishable produce back to Jerusalem? Instead there was a custom called the 'temple tax' (based on Exodus 30:13).

Monetary tithing 21st century style? Didn't happen.

Somehow this simple logic seems to have escaped the prosperity preachers who happily get prosperous by laying a non-biblical tithing burden on their credulous flocks. They, naturally, don't want ten percent of the potatoes in your back yard garden.  They want currency!

To be brutally frank, the tithing merchants target vulnerable, often poorly educated people, high on aspiration but low on worldly nous. That's not a put down; after all I once bought into that whole empretzeled proof text method too.

This reality was brought home to me just this Sunday morning as I drove past the local UCKG 'Help Centre' (an incongruous name if ever there was one) as worshipers were leaving. UCKG is a Brazilian-based tithing sect, and the good folk emerging from the building were clearly not at the top end of the socioeconomic demographic. On their website it states: "The tithe is ten percent (10%) of all income, and it belongs to God. This is a very ancient practice followed by God-fearing people everywhere."

Well, actually not.

I have the late Ernest L. Martin to thank for first exploding the tithing myth for me.  Martin was a professor of theology at Ambassador College, Pasadena. He walked from there in the 1970s, setting up his own ministry and publishing, among other things, an influential rebuttal of tithing as a Christian practice. A version of his booklet is still available online.

The problem was that Martin was still at heart an apologist with a pre-critical understanding of the Bible. That was no bad thing when communicating with like-minded folk, like myself, who shared that approach.  But the years have rolled by, and hopefully those of us who were alive and kicking back then have all grown and matured a bit. The old biblicist assumptions no longer hold sway over many of us now, so, what about the tithing question once we've stripped away the fundamentalist mind set?

All of which is a lead-in to a posting by Scott Bailey on his Scotteriology blog. It sets the scene in the province of Yehud in the days Malachi, and of Persian imperial policy.  There's a lengthy background (a bit tedious but necessary) in setting out the political realities of Malachi's time (and that oft quoted verse in Malachi 3:10). If you don't feel up to the detail we can skip all the way to the conclusion:

...these texts come from a certain socio-historical and cultural context. To try and take them and make them normative for today doesn’t just misunderstand the original context and intent of the text, it misuses it for alternative purposes.

Which just about says it all.

James Dobson and the flight from autonomy

I found this graphic on my FB feed. It seems innocuous but it makes me deeply uncomfortable. Cooperative, friendly kids are a joy, but do you really want them to submit to you without question? The word submission implies coercion. Isn't it one of the great rewards of parenting (and later grand-parenting) to see them, as they get older, start to think things through for themselves and reach outward to their own authentic perspective on life?

The graphic clearly draws a heavy line between submission to parents and obedience to a coercive God. The idea being that for kids their parents stand in the place of God until such time as they graduate into adulthood and God takes over the role, a parent-figure writ large; the Sky Father. God is reduced to a projection, a heavenly father figure, complete with demands for unconditional obedience.

The message here then is one of dependence versus autonomy, and dependence is the favored option.

But even in the Bible there are exemplars that run counter to this cravenness. One time we find Abraham ready to cut his son's throat at "divine command", yet at another we find him arguing with God over the fate of Sodom. Which do you think was his finer moment?

People who find this graphic appealing will be, I expect, big fans of authority; God in his heaven and nasty human beings each in their designated place in the great unalterable scheme of things. Independent, creative people are a threat; and how terrible is it when their kids start asserting some independence and initiative that runs counter to their own precious take on life. In the same way higher education is often viewed with suspicion lest their offspring acquire ideas that clash with their parents' beliefs.

James Dobson sees God - if this graphic is anything to go by - in a way that can only be described as 'legalistic'. Is this anything close to good Christian theology? Does God just want dull-eyed obedience and conformity? Yes, the gospels say something about becoming as little children (Matthew 18:3), but that doesn't have to imply bowing submissively to the whims of a capricious deity (or, more likely, the capricious whims of someone who represents themselves as the authorized representative of Deity). But think about it, kids are curious - if they're not there's something wrong. They ask questions. And they have the potential to adapt and move beyond those of us set in our ways. Surely that's a better way of understanding this verse.

Are your views on things like ethnicity, race and sexuality exactly the same as your parents? Have you inherited all of their political views; their religious affiliation? Do you restrict your vision to their horizons? Do you expect your kids to do that? Part of growing up as a healthy individual is to learn to assert yourself and move out from under the parental shadow. Part of growing up spiritually is dealing with the tough questions about belief, not just shutting your eyes and deferring to the apologists.

Growing into maturity necessarily means growing into independence. Any meaningful relationship to the Otherness which we call God involves questioning and challenge, not passivity. If we get in the way when young people reach this stage, no big surprise if we reap the whirlwind. How many damaged kids come from authority-focused homes?

Naturally it'd be surprising if the next generation didn't adopt many of the values they grew up with, and if they do so with their eyes wide open, that's brilliant. And if not? If they've battled their way through to an authentic place where Mum and Dad never ventured? Then surely that's worth celebrating... their folks have obviously done a great job of real parenting!

Answers

Nod of the noggin to Jim West who posted this on his Zwinglius Redivivus blog. Note the position of the bookcase!

Passing of Ron Dart

Ronald Dart's death has been noted in several places, including Gary Leonard's blog. The following message from Ken Swiger was reposted on Pam Dewey's Facebook page.

I learned this morning of the passing of an old friend, a brother in the faith, teacher, preacher, and a man I consider a mentor. 

Mr. Ronald L. Dart passed away peacefully in the early morning hours on this Sabbath day following a multi-year battle against cutaneous T-Cell lymphoma. 

God has richly blessed the Church of God movement to have allowed us to have Ron Dart in our lives for so many years. So many of us can look back at what we have learned from Mr. Dart's ministry and give thanks for this Godly man and his work. Please join me in praying for Mrs. [Allie] Dart... We are saddened by our loss, but we know that our brother Ron has completed his race...

For some of us - and I include myself - Dart was, for a time, a powerful influence in coming to grips with a post-WCG life. Ron Dart was, as has been often noted, a gifted speaker, and one of the few in WCG who encouraged people to actually do some of their own thinking, so pushing us along on our journey. One piece of his advice I remember clearly, and have striven to apply since; we grasp truth with a finger grip. Time will require that we take on board new information, new factors. In the meantime we proclaim the best as we understand it. Truth is not to be clung to with a death grip, for truth is always understood imperfectly. Ron Dart was 82 years of age.