Housekeeping

Marjorie raised the issue of the size of the passage under consideration. The passage about John was small and had little meat to it.

I agree. It seems to me that its presence relates to political issues in the early church -- or at least in John's community. These issues don't relate to us directly. There seems little meat there.

Again. I have been following the paragraph structure of the NRSV. Sometimes we get small chunks that way. It also means we will spend an enormous amount of time working through this gospel. Like the postmoderns I find liminal texts interesting -- prologues and introductions. I consider them worthy of closer looks. But this could get tedious.

More importantly we may be looking at texts outside their wider contexts by doing this.

Solutions (proposed)

1) We all commit to reading the gospel of John in its entirety at some point and we all blog on how the gospel as a whole strikes us. This will give us a working start point for discussion -- for example -- does the closer reading we do as we go along change our general sense of the whole or confirm it. It also allows us to read the passages in their wider context(s).

2) I start posting by pericope instead of paragraph. A pericope is the name for the larger sections usually given a sub-title in most modern translations. It is based upon sounder scholarship than the individual paragraphs -- and so has greater agreement across the translations. It normally conforms to the lectionary readings found in the earliest Christian writings.

Pericopes will be quite a lot larger passages in most cases -- sometimes they are a single paragraph but at others they may be an entire chapter -- like Jesus' priestly prayer (chapter 17). They will provide more meat to chew on (metaphor chosen with apologies to vegetarians present). It also means our responses will likely vary as we respond to different details.

Having said all this. I do think it is useful to notice things that don't speak to us and reflect on why. Appreciating that some obscure point that matters little to us now may have been very important way back when is a useful discipline -- it distances us just enough from the text to make us doubt whether truly understand it.

All this is tentative of course. I'm open to other notions on how to proceed.

Testimony of the Baptist

A man came, sent by God. His name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness to the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He was not the light, he was to bear witness to the light. The Word was the real light that gives light to everyone; he was coming into the world.

John 1:6-9 (New Jerusalem Bible)

John - nothing but questions

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. - NAB

I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't done any bible study stuff and have only read the parts I've read just as narrative stories without much analysis, so bear with me.

The main point of this prologue seems to be that Jesus is, as the intro to the NAB notes, "the preexistent and incarnate Word of God who has revealed the Father to us."

Now come the dumb questions ... Is Jesus the same as the Word? If he has always existed, why was he manifested only at that one particular place, time? What is the darkness? What is the significance of "light" to Quakers? Thanks :-)

Marjorie on John 1:1-5

These verses convey one main thought to me and that is HOPE. Jesus was there from the beginning, there is a plan. I may never know or understand the plan but its okay, Jesus was there from the beginning and not a thing was made that was not made through him.

I prefer the NRSV saying that the darkness did not 'overcome' the light as opposed to simply not understanding or comprehending it. Its important to me that light overcomes darkness, that good triumphs over evil. I've casually read that some religions believe that God is beyond good and evil. Perhaps thats frightening to me because I really can't comprehend it. I would no longer say thats wrong, I simply acknowledge that its not something I can believe in at this point, if ever.

I agree with the thought RW expressed in his post Something We Need to Remember, that the Word is Christ himself and not merely the words in the Bible and that its important to be careful in interpreting scripture especially where such interpretation would seem to contradict the teaching of Christ.

In the Beginning

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:1-4 (NRSV)

Orion Nebula

We are star-stuff

-- Carl Sagan (astronomer)

(commenting on how the heavier elements in our bodies were created in stars and exploeded out from nebulae)

Meredith on John 1:1-5

Main Point: John is declaring with certainty that Jesus is both fully human and fully God.

New Light: In this reference to ‘the Word’, John may be saying many different things with respect to his audience. In Hebrew, the Word was an agent of creation, the source of God's message to his people through the prophets, and God’s law. In Greek philosophy, the Word was the principle of reason that governed the world, or thought still in the mind. So if both are true, John is saying that Jesus was both a human being that he knew well, an agent of God’s creation, and also the ultimate revelation of God, of Holiness, a creator in the same sense that God is a creator.

Truth: “ In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”

Of all the passages I am familiar with, this one speaks to me so clearly. For me, this acknowledges that life of spirit within, within all people. Using the word Light for this life is so perfect, because the spirit does radiate within us, even in darkness, though when we experience darkness we do not always comprehend this light at the time.

Reflection on the Word

If you want orientation re The Gospel of John see my Introduction.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
For many years I just took this for granted; the Word meant Christ. In a recent return to naturalistic theology, I had to question it. Just what does it mean?
The first thing that comes to mind is that it displays a departure from pure Hebraic thought to Greek thought.
You can also see it as an editorialization of Gen. 1., or a supplement.
We're led to believe that John was written late, and that it reflects the situation and circumstances of the community at Ephesus or for whomever John wrote.

Then there's the matter of my mood, my level of consciousness, etc. It tells me I will believe and understand various things at various times.

I try to penetrate all this data to reach a truth. I'm led like the blind man in chapter 9, to conclude that "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.."
So I finally arrive at the need to ask God, what am I supposed to do with and/or about this verse?

Lord, enlighten my mind and spirit.

Christ, are you God? I recall his statement to the young ruler (none good, but God). and his statement: Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say.

And "8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Also "John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. "

My awareness of Word, Christ, God is deeply influenced by what I do-- about him, for him, to him.

High Christology

We say someone has a "high christology" when the divinity of Christ gets more emphasis than the humanity of Christ. With this beginning to the gospel of John, we see a VERY high christology. Although the jury may still be out on the gospel itself. The prologue (1:1-18) is generally seen as a later addition -- possibly written by a disciple of the author.

What speaks to me in this brief excerpt?

I see a claim to the integrity of God and God's speech. When I promise something, even when I do so with the best and most sincere of intentions, my word and my being are separate by the very act and event of my speaking. Circumstances tomorrow could turn my promises of today on their heads. This is why Jesus tells us swearing oaths, or making claims about our future actions are arrogant:

Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

But with God, this is different. God's word, God's self revelation, is itself God. One in essence and one in intention. The spirit who inspired the prophets, the revelation given in word or vision, are all one in perfect integrity. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And it is this same divine self-revelation by God, who was God's instrument in the creation of all that is. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. And that self-same divine and creative self-revelation is the source of all life and truth what has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. And moreover, The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome/understand/comprehend it.

With a beginning like this, we must be prepared for a book that makes a lot of claims. A book that is not shy from discussing arcana and metaphysics. This Word of God makes claims upon us and as this Word is itself God, those claims are themselves infinite.

Scary stuff, eh kiddies?

Beginning of a Hymn to the Creative Word of God

VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj( kai. o` lo,goj h=n pro.j to.n qeo,n( kai. qeo.j h=n o` lo,gojÅ ou-toj h=n evn avrch/| pro.j to.n qeo,nÅ pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto( kai. cwri.j auvtou/ evge,neto ouvde. e[nÅ o] ge,gonen evn auvtw/| zwh. h=n( kai. h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn\ kai. to. fw/j evn th/| skoti,a| fai,nei( kai. h` skoti,a auvto. ouv kate,labenÅ

KATA IOANNHN 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

John 1:1-5 (NRSV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

John 1:1-5 (NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:1-5 (AV1611)

Peace on Earth to Those of Good Will

The wolf will live with the lamb, the panther lie down with the kid, calf, lion and fat-stock beast together, with a little boy to lead them.

Isaiah 11:6

Maranatha.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everyone :-)

Housekeeping

I asked a while ago what folks wanted to do next.

The only clear suggestion is for John -- gospel or letter(s) (there were three letters after all). One suggestion for something from the Hebrew scriptures and one preference for the Christian (sorry -- I've taken on the discipline of avoiding the terms NT and OT -- not an easy discipline).

Meanwhile -- the themes that seem to speak to folks -- that generate the most energy -- are politics -- or rather the political implications of the gospel -- and prayer.

If we want to continue with those themes I think Acts would be a good choice. However -- if we want a fresh take and something different -- the gospel of John could be quite interesting.

I love the letter of James. That's why I chose it. So I posted based upon having read it over and over and over again. With John -- I've read it -- in pieces here and there. I will likely be a whole lot more tentative in my commentaries. Maybe a good thing.

I also suggest that the project begin sometime after that day some call Christmas. Familial obligations are running thicker and thicker as the days count down. Some entail travel.

What say you all?

Second Thoughts on James 5:19-20

I think my off the cuff comment about score brownie points with the Big Guy by finding the Shepherd''s lost lambs for him" model of salvation was actually needlessly unfair to poor James.

Firstly, James is not talking about conversion of outsiders here. That's clearly Paul's work. Paul's good at it. James -- at least here -- is talking about anyone among you wanders from the truth -- in other words -- folks who have been a part of this community of faith -- at least in the past.

It seems to me, after thinking a bit more about it, that James is either talking about members of the community who have -- metaphorically -- wandered form the truth (i.e., still attend meeting/church but are not involved in practices or beliefs that are not consistent with the gospel) or he is talking about folks who have wandered literally -- that is to say -- left.

In other words this is about community discipline.

Imagine a meeting or church, and after that meeting or church takes a hardline stand on something or other -- the war in Iraq, or peace tax initiatives, or same-sex marriages, or some such matter -- a person becomes upset enough to leave. Those who stay can have one of two responses.

Good riddance! Or at least more kindly, well everyone has to choose their path for themselves.

But the other option is to go to the person, hear their concerns, and encourage them to return and add their voice to the assembly again.

Which path would you choose?

Marjorie on James 5:19-20

Two verses and still a lot to say...

"Cover a multitude of sins" -- hmmm...sounds dangerous, like 'saving' others will help us earn our way to heaven. How does one 'save' another anyway? In my enthusiasm for Christ, how can I know that I haven't turned more people away than I've brought? And I am not doing much of anything, anyway. I'm afraid I have a greater talent at alienating people than...than what, exactly? Saving them? Persuading them? Selling them on Jesus?

What am I supposed to be doing anyway?

I'm not a salesman for Jesus -- I tried and failed, miserably. He doesn't need me selling him anyway. What I CAN be is someone who loves God and Jesus and who earnestly seeks after righteousness, to become holy (which will never happen, but its the quest). Sure, some people won't like me. But maybe to others I can be a friend, a comfort, a companion when they feel lonely in their quest. Maybe thats all I can be. Maybe thats exactly what God wants me to be. What a joy, to think I might be who God intends me to be.

In this passage, I definitely don't understand 'cover'ing. I'm a Creedal gal, I believe Christ died that my sins might be forgiven, not covered. What is this covering? One conclusion is that saving others requires seeking righteousness in myself. If I am endeavoring to do this, hopefully, I won't be sinning. But maybe the one whose sins are covered is the one we are leading from error. Whose sins? What covering? I trust that if God has a message for me in this one, he will reveal it. Otherwise, I shrug my shoulders and say 'mystery of faith.' I do that a lot.

And Finally (James 5:19-20)

And a-way we go . . .

My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner's soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.(NRSV)

My brothers, if one of you strays away from the truth, and another brings him back to it, he may be sure that anyone who can bring back a sinner from his erring ways will be saving his soul from death and covering over many a sin. (New Jerusalem)

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (King James version of St James)

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (NIV)

Marjorie's Approach to the Bible

I took Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), which is a large, organized, international Bible study for three years and it followed an inductive model (drawing general principles from the specific passages read). I think this probably influenced the way I read the Bible, I'm always looking for or finding applications to my life. I read the Bible as if it was written for me, because it was. I understand that there is a history behind each part and reasons for what was written and customs and culture that influenced all of it, but to me, it was written by God for me. I'm not an inerrantist, so its probably more descriptive to say I believe its the 'inspired Word of God written by human authors.' Whatever, its still God speaking to me and there are any number of ways the message may get messed up on its way to me, through the author, through interpreters and commentators, and by my self.

I think there are many ways to read the Bible. I believe the events literally happened but my approach is more of a willful suspension of disbelief (why can people do this for the movies but not for the Bible?). I believe the Bible is living and spiritual and that it is life. If you listen, it will speak to you. If you do not hear it, don't worry, you will. Or maybe it not your path, I can't speak for others. I know that when I read the Bible, it plants itself within me and will pop into my head at different times. Is this God within? Could be, could just be the result of ruminating on its stories and lessons. I have read large chunks of the Bible quickly from which I felt I got nothing and other parts that have spoken immensely to me. The Bible builds on itself, some of those large passages are explaining the backdrop and enable other passages to speak -- I have found this very true of the Old Testament.

David said: But I'm not to sure if my suffering is for my faith or for my wavering

To David I say: you do suffer for your faith. If you had no faith, there would be no waivering. Therefore we all suffer for our faith. Of course some have physical suffering to endure even unto death. Praise God that is not our situation, but that does not diminish the fact that we too suffer for our faith. Perhaps thats why we are to find joy in our suffering. Do I suffer for my faith, yes, but only a little. My faith brings me far more joy than suffering and there is joy within the suffering. Praise God.

Reading Strategies

Friend Meredith made an interesting comment:

Taken literally, this passage is difficult because it does not match my experience.

It is interesting to me, as it implies there may be figurative ways of taking this passage, and its hard words (like righteous) that do not pose for her difficulties and which may be true (or at least truer) to her expereince(s).

We all bring reading strategies to the words we read. Taking the text literally is just one such strategy. Advocates of literalism try to privilege literal interpretation -- discounting other approaches. Similarly, the scholarly approach of histoprical critical method(s) tends to discount other approaches as well.

What reading strategies do Friends (and friends) tend to use when they approach a scriptural passage? Or are we even aware of using them when we do?

I tend to use a gamut of strategies often labelled reader response. I ask the question, what can we know about the intended or ideal reader of this passage? And tehn I tend to ask how that affects my how the passage might be read. And whetehr th wisdom in it can properly be applied to me -- if I don't approximate that ideal reader.

For example, James opens by addressing his letter to the Twelve tribes of the Diaspora. In otehr words the People of God Who Suffer for Their Faith. I think of myslef as one of God's people, flawed perhaps, but of their number. I also suffer. But I'm not to sure if my suffering is for my faith or for my wavering. So I have doubts about applying James' teaching to my own life.

Another reader response strategy I tend to use, I borrowed from George Fox. When I read, and I feel resistance welling within me, or any emoptive response. I look to where it originates. I seek to interpret that resistance as much or more as the scriptural text before me.

How do you read the scriptures? What helps you in this work?

Prayers of the Righteous

We're coming into the homestretch: based upon the paragraph structures in the NRSV this will be the second to last passage under consideration. James seems to be ending off with prayer:

Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.

-- James 5:13-18

Some potential queries for thought (don't feel obligated to answer each one here unless you feel so moved):

1. What is the author's main point in this passage? (MAIN POINT)
2. What new light do I find in this particular reading of this passage of the text? (NEW LIGHT)
3. Is this passage true to my experience? (TRUTH)
4. What are the implications of this passage for my life? (IMPLICATIONS)
5. What problems do I have with this passage? (PROBLEMS)

From Friendly Bible Study

"...but what canst thou say?"

"Ye will say Christ said this, and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light and hast thou walked in the Light, and when thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?"

Thank you Larry for bringing this wonderful quote forward. The direct experience of God is a kind of Knowing, which is beyond our cognition, beyond our intellect. When we feel this Light of Christ, or God, or Being within us, we know it, and cannot help but feel a subtle bliss, a warm feeling of love radiating. As Jesus said in John 10.30 "I and the Father are one." This is the experience of those who experience this union of God within. To know Christ, to know God, is to be permeated with the essence of this union. This is knowing God directly, the seed, the purest moment of our spirituality, foremost over any understanding of God through Scripture, doctrines, teachings, or church.

Something We Need To Remember

It dawned on me today that we may have forgotten - in our efforts to explain all our views of what the Bible is telling us - that scripture holds a secondary position of importance next to the Light amongst Friends.

It is a common misconception corrected by the early Friends that "the Word of the Lord" is not scripture - but Jesus.

Fox explained how it works when he wrote that scipture in and of itself does nothing unless read in the Spirit, and his proof was in saying that the Jews had scripture and yet denied the Christ because they did not have the Spirit in it.

Many Christians have - through the ages - called down Quakers for this stance, but we have forever stated that our guide is Jesus and he is present as our priest in meeting as well as (we hope) when we study the Bible on our own.

The idea is that Jesus always takes primacy. This is hard for many *Christians* to see sometimes, but I thought it might need to be said here.

Patient Endurance

James calls us to patience for justice and goodness will blossom like a farmer's crops. The world we long for, is not ours to build. Rather, like a farmer, we plant seeds, tend crops, but the growth is from God and comes in God's time.

James draws on the example of Job's patience. Like Crystal I find that interesting/odd. Job has proverbially been used as an example of patience, here, and in popular Christian culture. But on reading the book he doesn't really come across that way. His words come across as self-vindication. To the extent he shows patience, he does so only relative to the well-meaning comforters who sit around trying to buck him up with empty theologizing.

He also echoes the Jesus of the gospels with:

Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "Yes" be yes and your "No" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

-- James 5:12

"Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.'But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

--Matthew 5:33-37

This passage calls all Christians to the practice which, aside from the peace testimony, most defines Quakers from our wider culture. Some other Christian groups, mostly evangelical, mostly biblical-inerrantist, have adopted this practice, but Quakers won the right to it in the legal courts.

It seems clear to me that James is writing from and to a body of people suffering the trials of this life -- likely including hardships suffered due to faith commitment. The objective is to encourage us to hold fast to that faith -- for the coming of the Lord will soon be upon us.

This raises concerns. People have for ages laid claim to promises and teachings from the scriptures abstracted from their rightful contexts. How legitimate is it to place your faith in promises or to apply the teachings of passages like this, when we ourselves are not suffering for our faith?

Marjorie on James 5:7-12

Be patient, therefore, beloved, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer
waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it
receives the early and the late rains. You also must be patient. Strengthen your
hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Beloved, do not grumble against one
another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors!
As an example of suffering and patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke in
the name of the Lord. Indeed we call blessed those who showed endurance. You
have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord,
how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. Above all, my beloved, do not swear,
either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "Yes" be yes and
your "No" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.
-- James 5:7-12

I don't have much to say about this passage but it was in the Episcopal lectionary for Advent 3 and was packaged with Matthew 11:1-15, the passage where John the Baptist sends messengers to inquire if Jesus is the one or if another is to come. John is in prison at this time and his death is impending (though I don't know if he knew it at the time). John was unpopular with a lot of people for sharing his views about their sinfulness, so the tie-in is that, like John in prison, we must be patient. What is coming is not what we expect and our hearts must be open to read the signs and not be disappointed because they do not say what we wish they might.

As to judgment, I cannot pass on whether and how we will be judged by the Divine. However, its occurred to me recently that one aspect of 'judge not yest ye be judged yourselves' is that those who judge often feel the judgment of others upon them, whether or not others are judging them (how do we know what is in the hearts of others?). To me, the directive means if you don't spend your time judging others, you are less likely to worry about them judging you.

Finally -- let your yes be yes...I love that Quakers don't swear oaths, there is purity and integrity in that practice. In law school, when they taught us about impeaching a witness, they directed us only to point out inconsistencies with prior statements but told us not to ask why the inconsistencies exist. Asking a witness why, now that they are on the stand, they are saying something different than they said is a prior statement allows the witness the opportunity to say, 'well, I'm under oath now.' Oh, so its okay to lie if you haven't sworn an oath? Sick.

Strengthen Your Hearts

Be patient, therefore, beloved, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Beloved, do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors! As an example of suffering and patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Indeed we call blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "Yes" be yes and your "No" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

-- James 5:7-12

Conflicted about making a profit?

I am at a true loss to understand the problem some folks seem to have with having money or resources or wealth or whatever you want to call it. I never considered having money an evil in itself - but I do believe the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. There is a difference.

I believe capitalism and markets of barter and exchange are a natural condition that occurs amongst humans, and I think free and open markets eventually do more good than harm. I will say I truly feel that we should walk carefully to be sure that unfettered capitalism doesn't exploit the unwitting, but I also believe that true free markets take care of that abuse over time.

But I do get a little uneasy about the people who tell me "I DETEST the free market," or "I oppose globalization without reservation," mostly because I don't think these types of folks ever understood the way an open market works, or what the bogeyman of "globalization" has already actually accomplished in the way of raising living standards in poorer countries. All they see is an image of a fat-cat making money and they get to act out their knee-jerk finger-wagging routine where all profit is evil and is the is root of all war and misery all the way back to the cavemen.

I disagree and I believe very strongly that there is another approach and I have been doing it for a long time myself.

Why not marry the forces inherent in the "market" to your worldview? By utilizing the market itself you can direct the market to accomplish the things you deem to be important.

If you reject the function of the marketplace just out-of-hand you simply close a door to one entire avenue that can be used as a means of change. True, the way you are now you get to sulk in window-seats of greasy restaurants and act the misunderstood rebel, which is kind of satisfying in a black-and-white movie kind of way - but this doesn't get anything actually accomplished.

If you read Marx or Proudhon or whoever by candlelight instead of by a lamp just so you can deny the power companies your money - all you get is bad eyesight. Nobody cares. Property isn't theft - property is property. Redistributing my property is theft. Get my view of things? :-D

So I would like to introduce you all to a concept whereby you get to apply your beliefs to the marketplace in a real effort to make a difference.

Here are two investments I am currently holding personally (Please note that this is just a generalized information article. I am not an agent of any company listed here, nor am I reimbursed, nor am I saying these are automatically going to make you lots of money):

PaxWorld Mutual Funds was started up during the Viet Nam era by a group of anti-war ministers who didn't feel right about investing in companies that made napalm. Pretty simple. This was an SRI (Socially Responsible Investments) before the term SRI existed. A Quaker actually runs one of the funds! Well I'll be!! As a matter of fact, this fund has ads in Friends Journal regularly. Go figure! They won't invest in companies that engage child labor internationally, and they will invest in community development banks in our cities.

And speaking of community development banks, check out one of my long-standing favorites, the Chicago Community Loan Fund. This is essentially a loaning institution that offers below-market rates to fledgling "inner city" start-ups that otherwise would not be able to qualify for a loan at the big banks downtown. If you visit this site, you will notice it began with a modest $200,000 in assets just over 12 years ago and is now funded to over $10,000,000 - and I am very proud to say I was there in the early 90s.

But that's right - and no apologies - I intend to make money here. Money is useful. It is ok to have it so long as having it isn't the whole deal. Sorry to have to say this, but we all need money. Gasp! We need money so that - if nothing else - we don't become a burden to our kids when we are old. And my intention is plain. It is just that you can do that and have it work for the right things too. And this, to me, makes more sense than rejecting the realities of the situation in some (what I feel is a) misguided clinging to a principle I'm not exactly sure is really in the Bible to begin with.

Interested in "green" investing? Try these guys. Need a clearinghouse for this kind of information or want to learn more? Go here. Or are you one of those limousine liberals who have money out the ying/yang already and are just a poor little rich boy who is clueless about this stuff but you know you don't like Republicans? If that's you - go see some Quaker friends of mine, and they will help you manage your estate - for cry eye.

Again let me say - I have no vested interest in this, and I am telling you I have some finances in the first two instruments mentioned. This is FYI only. Always read the prospectus and do your "due diligence" before putting Mommy and Daddy's money any place. Ok?

There is an old saying at work here: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him the rest of his life. I say let's invest in people and things that improve conditions, and if we make money at it as well - what's the problem?

Luke 14:16-24

It was 1989 -- still the first year of our marriage -- and I got asked to go to a conference on World Missions and Evangelism by Canadian Yearly Meeting. CYM then was even mre liberally then than now in some ways. I'm sure there were some snakey politics behind sending me -- or anybody.

This was an international conference in San Antonio Texas. We met in bible study groups each morning to read Luke before the main business of the conference. One morning we read:

Then Jesus said to him, "Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come; for everything is ready now.' But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, 'I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my regrets.' Another said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my regrets.' Another said, 'I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come.' So the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.' And the slave said, 'Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.' Then the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner.'"

Luke 14:16-24

We were sitting quietly mulling it over when soemone spoke. He was a black pastor from South Africa. Apartheid was still going strong. Mandella was still in prison. Our pastor friend (Christian Reformed) said, "I sometimes wonder if I'm poor enough, when I read this."

Gasp.

It of course left the rest of us stunned.

Jimbo 5:1-5

One of the things I have learned by hanging with Quakes and other fringeworthy Christians -- is the difference between "power-over" and "power-with".

Wealth is about control. It is buying power. And when we have enough of it we get to buy people too -- literally or figuratively. Power-with is about mutual aid and mutual empowerment.

I start with that comment because I think it has something to do with being a gospel people. This passage from James makes us want to dwell on the spiritual message. So does the story in the gospels about the rich young man Jesus told to give up his wealth. We want to spiritualize it. If we have detachment from our wealth its alright to be wealthy. When the plain sense of these scriptures is that to have wealth is to have a kind of power contrary to the gospel.

On other websites I rail against Bush's foreign policies. I'm sure folks read me as a Republican-hating Democrat. I'm not. I can't even vote in American elections. If we take this passage and others like it seriously, then no President of the United States can be a Christian -- by definition.

The best and most righteous President ever imaginable, must still exercise the power of office of the world's most powerful nation to preserve and protect that power and privilege that belongs to that office and nation. A Christian would be obligated to give that power away to empower those who are yet enemies. And a Christian in the role of Prime Minister of Canada, or Britain, or even of some small, African nation is in no better position.

So what do I do with that?

Well. I waffle.

I have a retirement fund. I've dipped into it during my recent unemployment. And I collect government funds during this unemployment. And when I was working I made decisions that affected other people's lives.

And I know that there were followers of Jesus who did not abandon ALL their wealth but used some of it to support the ministry of Jesus and other travelling prophets.

So now what?

As God Wills, As Way Opens, If Nothing Happens

(By Larry)
Re: James 5:1-5
Many years ago I served a small struggling Methodist church in an industrial suburb of New Orleans. It was peopled primarily by 'rednecks' from the surrounding states, many of them also oil field 'roughnecks'. One family were most faithful: the father would always say "we'll be here next week, if nothing happens".

Years later I learned the family had been prominent Quakers in the East; Quakers generally say 'as way opens' (a queer 'Quakerism', no doubt). Like a great many Quakers who had become Methodists (usually for marrying 'out of unity' - another queer quakerism), his speech had become secularized.

Now, evangelical Christians (including many Quakers) understand that it's exceedingly presumptuous to say something like "I'm going to fly to New York next week." (I may be dead next week). Much better to say "if God wills".

James, and Jesus before him made this abundantly clear. Jesus was pretty harsh:
"Thou fool", he said to the rich man, "This day shall thy soul be required of thee" (or something like that-KJV).

Marjorie on James 5:1-5 (6)

How rich is too rich? I note that verse 4 indicates that these rich are cheats, not paying the wages they owe to others. Is this speaking only to the lawless?

Verse 2 speaks of rotting wealth and moth-eaten clothes because wealth is worth nothing, its transient and has no lasting value.

Verse 3: "you have hoarded wealth" -- ouch -- "in the last days" -- you never know when its too late.

Here's where I get into trouble with kwakersaur (did I mention I have an ancestor who was kicked out of a Quaker community? it might be genetic) by extending the passage, in my Bible verse 6 is the last sentence of the paragraph. "You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you." Ah...these were some bad dudes, different from me, right?

How expansive are we to read 'condemned' and 'murdered'? In a study I took on the Ten Commandments, we were taught that the prohibition on murder could extend to character assassination (gossip) and ill will. Read expansively, condemn might mean judge and murder might be harboring ill will towards others. Guess I'm not safe after all.

Things don't look so great for me so I'll return to my initial question, how rich is rich? A salary of 5 figures or 6 or 7? Is 'rich' solely a monetary description? Might is also refer to other blessings -- a happy childhood, nuturing parents who enable one to be a blessing to others? One who has been given the advantage of a formal education? One whose material needs have been satisfied?

I should note that my Bible provides a heading for 5:1-6, Warning to Rich Oppressors. How am I oppressing others? How can I stop?

Me and James 5: 1-5

I can't help thinking as I read this, that James has some serious personal issues/agendas with the rich ... his words are not just cautionary but angry. I found an interesting online article that talks of the piety/poverty connection in James and it fills in a little about the historical backdrop. I've always been on the edge of poverty (american style) so I tend to agree with James' attitude toward the rich ... but ... I think that to be rich is not to be evil and poverty should not to be envied or romanticized but we should strive to eradicate it. And remember, Jesus loved the rich young man :-)

Meredith on James:1-5

Wow, rich folks are getting a tongue lashing here. James rather fiercely admonishes the wealthy regarding their attitude toward riches, especially when riches are hoarded and laborers are not paid fairly. He suggests that the love of money could be one's downfall "...their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire." Monetary riches are worthless in the eternal kingdom.

In my experience, this attitude toward riches is accurate. Once the treasure in your own heart is found, for wealthy and poor alike, little else in the manner of riches compares. This is the nugget, the jewel, the gift. And once you recognize it within you, you will want only to share it, and share it abundantly with an open and grateful heart.

Meredith

Housekeeping

Two housekeeping issues I want to raise and hear responses on.

1) I've noticed some real problems saving blogs lately. I just changed to a new browser: Firefox. So I don't know if its the browser or the blogger. I have noticed the problem goes away if I save a draft version first and then publish. Anybody else having difficulties here? Mostly I want reassurance I'm not just messing up someplace :0)

2) We begin chapter 5 which puts us into the home stretch. I welcome input for the next scripture study. We can plough through a new book -- but we gotta choose one. For those who celebrate the season of the Guy-in-the-Red-Suit family issues may impinge -- we can deal.

James 5:1-5 A Warning to the Rich Oppressors

That worked well I thought. Here's the next paragraph according to the NRSV:

Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

-- James 5:1-5

In keeping with earlier concerns about using alternate translations:

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. (NIV)

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. (Good King Jimmy)

Well now, you rich! Lament, weep for the miseries that are coming to you. Your wealth is rotting, your clothes are all moth-eaten. All your gold and your silver are corroding away, and the same corrosion will be a witness against you and eat into your body. It is like a fire which you have stored up for the final days. Can you hear crying out against you the wages which you kept back from the labourers mowing your fields? The cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord Sabaoth. On earth you have had a life of comfort and luxury; in the time of slaughter you went on eating to your heart's content. (New Jerusalem)

Re: James 4:13-17

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money." Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.
-- James 4:13-17 (NRSV)


The defining lines in this verse for me are these: "...Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. "

We don't know what the future will bring. Our lives are so temporary. Almost all of us alive today will be gone in 100 years or less. Living as though God exists in us, perhaps a reasonable goal is that we are we able to fully appreciate this very moment. When I consider this very moment, I recognize its perfection, just the way it is, with not one thing needing to be different. To be fully mindful of God's presence, and the rich blessing of this present moment eliminates much fear and suffering.

"What is your life?..." This passage suggests that our life is illusory, and even this illusion will vanish in time. To accept the temporary and illusory nature of this life creates humility, and encourages us to drop any arrogance, and live a manner in which the God in us speaks.

This whole verse seems to teach us that it is not enough to talk about faith, but that we must live it with God in each moment.

Anyone Who Knows (James 4:17)

Well. The experiment seems to have been a success with postings ranging from personal response to outlining the echoes elsewhere in scripture this passage hooks up to.

Personally, the one line in this passage and indeed in the entire letter, that resonates most for me is this:

Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.

-- James 4:13-17 (NRSV)

I have mentioned fear before.

When I do a survey of my sins or my failures my weaknesses my challenges: I do not see the bad things that I do. I see the good things I left undone.

I see a woman rushing for the bus from the my seat warm inside and say nothing to the bus driver. I do not put the laundry on or do the dishes piling in the sink. I forget to tell my wife I love her. I vote with my ballot but not my wallet nor with my volunteer labour. I do not express my feelings, thoughts, hopes, needs, and then, I resent others for not living up to my expectations.

I do not create. I dabble. I dream of writing that great book, that amazing article, a poem, a short story. I write it but do not send it out. Or start it without finishing.

I will be remembered --

if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only as the hollow men

-- T.S. Elliot

But with God all things are possible. I need only stop reserving the right to say, No Thank-you, when I call of Christ's Spirit for guidance and direction.

Marjorie on James 4:13-17

Foreward: I see that Crystal and RW have already posted on this and I have not read their posts yet so that my own will be unaffected by what they've written. This may be a mistake that I correct in the future. My response is based only on my personal reaction and is limited by that. I'm sure I'll learn more about the background of this passage from other posts.

Taken simply, this passage says to me that one should always realize God's supremacy. It is not by our planning that we accomplish anything but by God's grace. I've never been much of a long-term planner, so I love this idea. I know many people who have far reaching plans and visions as to what their future should hold. I don't (I've never known what I'd be when I grow up and still don't), I've oftened wondered if this was a shortcoming on my part (perhaps I'm an underachiever) but I realize that my way has its advantages as well. I am trying to live in the moment and enjoy it fully for we can never know what tomorrow or even the next moment will bring. Also, what happens when life deviates from our plan? It seems an invitation to disappointment. Painting myself positively as I am wont to do, I also think that by not planning I'm practicing a sort of humility, I cannot predict the future, I do not know where I am going but I am happy to go where the Lord leads me (Psalm 23 now running through my head). Of course, I'm sure that those who enjoy planning are equally as able to recognize and respect God's supremacy.

It seems to me that there is a disconnect with the last sentence -- anyone, then, who knows the right thing and fails to do it commits sin. Though I suppose it might make sense with regard to those who plan, that they should have flexibility in their plans to allow them to do the right thing, even when that deviates from their plan.

This passage reminds me of the announcement of my brother's ordination. It began "God willing" and continued with the time and place of the ordination. My husband (who is no great admirer of the Church) snickered at this, but its clearly in keeping with this passage.

4th of James 13-17

James is reminding the reader of the old lessons already learned in Proverbs.

Go to now, ye that say,
Today or tomorrow we will go
into such a city, and continue
there a year, and buy and sell,
and get gain.

Whereas ye know not
what shall be on the morrow.
For what is your life? It is even
a vapour, that appeareth for a
little time, and then vanisheth
away

For that ye ought to say,
If the Lord will, we shall live,
and do this, or that.

This is one complete thought. The "ye" of "ye that say" merely forgot to consider the idea of "God Willing."

James is admonishing them for forgetting the right order and reminding them of the Proverb 27:1 "Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth."

"God willing, we shall succeed" is simply gospel order. They forgot that.

But now ye rejoice in
your boastings: all such rejoicing
is evil.

Therefore to him that
knoweth to do good, and
doeth it not, to him it is sin.

(This is why when football players dance in the end-zone they are being foolish).

Continue the comparison of this to the following as Proverbs 27:2 continues: "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips."

Again, after the manner in which I've been reading James, the writer is reminding people to be humble about their business, remember that successes and comforts and gain are mercies to you. Be thankful of them and recognize your life could be a thousand times worse; Therefore worship God and quit taking your life for granted.

In other, harsher words - especially if you have been a success - you need to get your butt into meeting on Sunday and shut up.

I have always felt that we men, especially, need the discipline of meeting. The way society is, we are for some reason given all this status and power by virtue of our gender. It's totally stupid but there it is. And if you look at some of us, especially the successful fellows, we emit self-sufficient power.

But we are not self-sufficient. We are full of hubris and self-worship. I think this is everyone, but from my experience in business - especially we men. We need to humble ourselves. And a few of us need to be humiliated, too.

My take on James 4:13-17

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we shall go into such and such a town,
spend a year there doing business, and make a profit" -
you have no idea what your life will be like tomorrow. You are a puff of smoke that
appears briefly and then disappears.
Instead you should say, "If the Lord wills it, we shall live to do this or that."
But now you are boasting in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.

Well, I don't know at all what I'm doing, but here goes ...

The first thing that comes to mind is that expression - "Men plan, God laughes" :-). Probably it's a good thing to keep in mind our ephemerality and our truly utter lack of control over live's situations.

Another questtion is about ... "if the Lord wills it". Is everything that happens God's will? What is "providence"? Where's free will in this?

Finally, the idea that one who knows the right thing to do and doesn't do it is sinful is interesting. Socrates said that if a person knows the right thing, he WILL do it. But in real life, I often don't do what I think is the right thing ... sometimes, I don't even floss! Maybe I am sinful, if sinful means flawed.

James 4:13-17

My usual practice with this study has been to post the passage from the Letter of James and then comment upon it in my blog. Then all you folks who have been taking part comment on my comments. All very hyper-texty and post-modern.

I'm going to suggest another procedure today. We'll try it. If folks like it we'll stick with it for a spell. If not we can always go back.

Below is the text in the NRSV. I suggest we each write a blog here responding to some aspect of this passage. And then we can each comment on each other's responses. I'm not going to post my response immediately. I want to step back and see what develops. Besides, it frees me from the role of learned lecturer into which I seem to have fallen like some prehistoric wasp set in amber. This time I get to create the space and then step back and see what fills it.

Have fun!

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money." Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.

-- James 4:13-17 (NRSV)

Thank you for your invitation

Looks to me as if I have already introduced myself to some of you before, but by way of formal introduction on this invitation (thank you Mr kwakersaur), let me just say that I am a Christ-centered Friend. My meeting is in Downers Grove IL and we are a great mixture of all kinds of Quakers from all tracks.

I am a fairly conservative person in my personal life, and am decidedly not a socialist. In point of fact I think I am here by our host's invitation to explain my view on that score.

Let me simply begin by framing a question:

New members as well as new meetings for worship always prosper best when they have the input of "seasoned" Friends to help in small ways of guidance and care.

To my mind, what better and more "seasoned" a Friend could there be than William Penn?

Relative to his view of "property" and the like, he wrote in his book "No Cross, No Crown"

"The lawful self which we are to deny is that conveniency, ease, enjoyment, and plenty, which in themselves are so far from evil, that they are the bounty and blessings of God to us, as husband, wife, child, house, land, reputation, liberty, and life itself; these are God's favors which we may enjoy with lawful pleasure and justly improve as our honest interest. But when God requires them, at what time soever the lender calls for them as is pleased to try our affections by our parting with them; I say, when they are brought in competition with Him, they must not be preferred, they must be denied."

For me the operative phrases are "...which in themselves are so far from evil." And "...these are God's favors which we may enjoy with lawful pleasure and justly improve as our honest interest" (Please note PROPERTY is listed). And finally "when they are brought in competition with Him... they must be denied."

This sums up perfectly my feelings as well. So I guess I'll be on Penn's side (insert non-aggressive smiley).

Do Not Speak Evil Against One Another

James now puts into his own words that injunction of Jesus not to judge others:

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?

-- James 4:11-12 (NRSV)

Jesus' version -- or rather the gospel according to Matthew's take on Jesus' injunction is:

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

(Matthew 7:1-2)

It has been pointed out to me in a private email, that this injunction is a kind of corrective to the socialist interpretation I (and a few other social gospel types) tend to give this letter thus far.

James has accused rich folks of persecution. He has told us that God favours the poor and that his agenda is a radical redistribution of wealth and resources. In this he follows the Jesus of the gospels and also the prophetic voices of the Hebrew scriptures.

How do we reconcile these two voices?

Multiple options. One is to not bother. James is speaking from his context (which is fuzzy to us at best). Apply the preferential option for the poor in circumstances where wisdom and faith warrant and apply the do not judge injunctions in places appropriate to that.

How do we choose between them?

James is clear. The reason we do not judge is that judgment belongs to God alone. But still, faith, for people of wealth, is to look forward with hope to a day when they are no longer rich in the ways in which this world understands rich. James has already said to us:

Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up, and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field.

(James 1:9-10)

However we reconcile these, or whether we do, leaving James in his 2000 year old context and muddling through on our own, what speaks to us (me) here is this: if you think the Christian gospel is about warm fuzzy feelings about God, or is about saving your soul (some metaphysical entity). Think again. The gospel is also political. It is about the kind of community (polis) we are to live together in.

And when we pray we pray this vision of a new and just and better world into this old and tired one.

Peace be with you Friends.

Draw Near to God

Those conflicts and disputes among you, where do they come from? Do they not come from your cravings that are at war within you? You want something and do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures. Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, "God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"? But he gives all the more grace; therefore it says,

"God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble."

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

-- James 4:1-10 (NRSV)

History note: George Fox (the Quaker not the country-western singer) sites the doctrine of James in his original statement on the Peace Testimony. So Fox at least saw this as relevant. I believe this passage is what Fox had in mind when he said that Christ takes away the occasion of war.

We also see here more stuff on prayer. We ask for stuff so we can spend it on our pleasures so God doesn't answer the prayer. That makes two reasons given thus far for unanswered prayer, a wavering mind, and selfishness of intention.

It echoes the Jesus of the gospels,

NRSV But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

NJB Set your hearts on his kingdom first, and on God's saving justice, and all these other things will be given you as well.(Matthew 6:33)

KJV But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.(Matthew 6:33)

NIV But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.(Matthew 6:33)

So the context of prayer is God's will, God's reign on earth, God's righteousness, God's saving-justice. Our prayers are measured against that standard. They are judged and found wanting.

Peace be with you all.

Marjorie's Hypocrisy

This is the second time I'm writing this. I wrote one account and as I was proof-reading it we lost power. Its so awful to see something that was hard to write and with which I was pleased to vanish. Of course, I imagine that my neighbors cooking Thanksgiving dinner weren't too pleased to lose their power either.

I put a teaser for this post in a comment a while back and feel its time to put up and shut up. This post isn't as exciting as it might seem. My hypocrisy is that I've been spiritually arrogant, I've turned into part of what made me hate and fear the church to begin with -- the smug, self-righteous individuals who judge who is and is not spiritual. My parents were judged as not having a Christian marriage because they were not interested in taking group Bible studies or in going on marriage encounters or taking part in other church activities (though they were active in the church in other ways). If I understand correctly, Larry has described such thinking as tribalism, you're one of us or you're not and consequently not worthy.

So, one aspect of my hypocrisy is turning into the sort of person whom I blamed for making church what it is -- controversial, unwelcoming, judgmental.

Another aspect of my hypocrisy is my pride of having studied the Bible. Before I started taking Bible study three years ago I was a Biblical illiterate. I had been embarrassed about this for years before I finally took a Bible study or even tried reading the Bible. However, this did not stop me from judging those who don't study the Bible. I didn't grant them the patience I granted myself.

I took part in a small discussion group through my church last year. This was a mistake and I think the only thing I contributed was negative energy. I joined the group at the request of a priest who was looking for people to join it. I thought maybe I could help him and also learn something myself. What I learned about myself I didn't like. I was smug and judging and dissatisfied because most of the other women had more money than I did, different priorities than mine and thought differently from me. The only one I felt really connected to had been taking a similar Bible study for years.

The nadir of my group experience came from one discussion we had about the difficulty of knowing what was the right thing to do in a certain situation -- I can't remember any of the details. One woman said, "well, didn't Jesus say 'what is truth?'" I was flabbergasted (I don't have a poker face). I said, "that was Pontius Pilate." Of course, in addition to my shock, I felt very self-righteous that I was able to spot this error. The irony is that a little more than a year before this conversation I would have shrugged off the comment and not known the answer. I was either feeling relieved and superior or perhaps unconsciously afraid that I was capable of such a perversion. I haven't even read all the gospels and I'm feeling superior? Upon reflection, I really think my overreaction is my awareness of how little I know and that I will likely make (or have already made) similar mistakes. Perhaps recognizing my hypocrisy and the true feelings that underlie it will teach me humility and meekness.

I've given up taking this particular Bible study. I had a niggling (David's term) that it wasn't good for me and this was crystallized when I met Larry on-line. This is not to lay any responsibility for my decision at Larry's feet (he actually discouraged me from quitting the study), but to thank him for his part in opening my mind. You see, based on the theology underlying that Bible study, I would have to shut out Larry for his low Christology view which would be deemed blasphemy. How can a man who loves Jesus so much that he posts an on-line Bible and commentary be seen this way? It doesn't make sense to me and it was the sign that I couldn't move forward with this Bible study. Since then, I've met wonderful people on-line and my heart has opened to those I meet in person at my church.

Funny thing about the effect that Bible study had on me -- while it taught me so much about the Bible and Jesus and God it also closed me off to those who believed differently than I. I am now coming to the understanding that we are all on our paths and that others are as deserving of respect as I am -- before I felt that the path had to be the certain, prescribed journey approved by a particular dogma.

I am very thankful to the wonderful friends I have here and especially thankful to kwakersaur, David, for bringing us together on this blog to discuss the Bible and spiritual matters. You have filled a void for me. Finally, after months of avoiding it, I've had the desire to start reading the Bible again, I didn't know if the desire would return. It has, though in a different way. I don't study the Bible to know more than the many who don't (which was probably an unconscious motivator before), I read it because it is Life. I'd love to be able to inspire others to read it, but I can accept that it might not be part of their path, now or ever.

Blessings to you all.

Happy Thanksgiving Folks

I'm a Canuck so I've already had my Thanksgiving turkey a month ago. So now its the Uh-murican's turn. Chow down on the turkey and the green bean casserole.

For those of you who want to get reflective about the world and the ways it could be better, here's a link to an article on consumerism at Thanksgiving and through the Christmas season.

Click here.

A Harvest of Righteousness Sown in Peace

Well I've stumbled back from a conference for employment counsellor's -- I'm still not sure I've fully recovered. And I find you folks have clammed right up without me.

So here goes:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.

-- James 3:13-18 (NRSV)

Many spiritual writers speak of the two wisdoms. Earthly prudence and spiritual discernment. Here we see the distinction made and the fruits of them compared. And then comes the last line: And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.

Does that sentence jar you? It doesn't seem to follow from the rest. At least immediately so. I can in my own mind make them follow. But it does seem a jump. Let's look at it in multiple translations. Maybe we have a translation issue:

New Jerusalem. James 3:18 The peace sown by peacemakers brings a harvest of justice.

King Jimmy. James 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

New International. James 3:18 Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Doesn't solve me trouble.

What if, for James, peacemaking is that list he gives: pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy? Does that work?

Well first off, that doesn't sound much like the peace keeping troops our governments send to places like Iraq or Somalia or Bosnia or Viet Nam or Korea. But hey, I'm a Quaker, you didn't really think I'd be on the side of dropping bombs on people to show them how much we love them.

But then again, this doesn't sound much like the placard waving peaceniks who go on marches and protest government actions in those same countries either. pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.

So just what would scriptural peacemaking look like then? What canst thou say?

No One Can Tame the Tongue

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue-- a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.

-- James 3:5b-12
(NRSV)

In a way its kind of consoling to know that all the church politics, the gossip, the pettiness, the stupid vicious cruel things that go on in churches and Quaker meetings today were also happening in the earliest days of the Christian faith.

Its also sad we haven't changed much in 2000 years. But at least its evidence we haven't fallen too far from the tree. Yep, we're still Christian: we crucify our ministers. And we are all ministers.

Can we place ourselves in the sandals of those who bless the Lord and Father, and curse those who are made in the likeness of God? Notice James uses the first person plural: we. He includes himself in that injunction.

What is the payoff for blessing the creator and cursing the creation? Power. Control over the community, its direction, the interpretive agenda. Its the old self-will, the me and the mine, in guise of guidance and wisdom.

We do this. We are this. Its we who love our church congregations, love our Quaker meetings, want it to be all it can become, want it to look a lot like us. We want to shape it in our own image. The biblical word for that is idolatry, by the way.

No Free Speech in the Church?

Without wanting to disrupt the ongoing sharing of our faith stories, I also felt the structure of on-going scripture study has been helpful to this discussion. So I'm returning to James. Others can freely post on other matters of course.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!

-- James 3:1-5 (NRSV)

I'm not sure what I can say about this passage. Its sense is so transparent that the words speak for themselves.

The notes to the NRSV look at how James speaks of teachers. He implies he is one of them. He also seems to imply that the office of teacher is a voluntary one. That is to say, it neither appointed nor required. Any are free to do it. But most should choose not to.

James wants teachers to have matured sufficiently to be living blameless lives before they set out to teach. That suggests to me that there were troubles in the Christian faith with teachers living less than blameless lives. And maybe teachers who got themselves into trouble by being too quick to speak.

This seems in accord with early Quaker practice. There is a lovely little book by an early (second generation -- I think) Friend named Samuel Bownas. The book is called A Description of the Qualifications Necessary to a Gospel Minister It provides much good advice.

It is also contrary to the spirit of most Quaker Meetings I'm familiar with. The freedom of the meeting seems to dominate modern Quaker culture. We place ourselves at the mercy of folks who want to talk about their cat, or the colour of rain on autumn leaves. We do so as we trust that sometimes one Friend's cat or the colour of rain on autumn leaves may speak to the condition of the meeting. We also do so as we believe earlier generations were too quick to silence divergent voices.

Somewhere I think there is a middle ground. And for those who take the work of speaking in the gathered assemblies of the faithful, the advices and considerations of both Samuel Bownas and James the Just may offer much help.

Books of the Head and Heart

In reviewing the books I listed I've found it difficult to distinguish. Many or all of them seemed to speak equally to both organs; let's say the intellect and the spirit.

The first and preeminent one for me must be the door to spiritual life-- N.V.Peale; it was simplistic, but a little child doesn't have a highly developed intellect or critical faculty.

In midlife I think George MacDonald: he had an incisive intellect, but what does most for me is the spiritual nurture- the manna that sustains me through the journey.

In later years there was C.G.Jung: he had special gifts for the many professional religionists who had lost much of the theological underpining for their vocation.
He continually spoke of God as a psychic fact, which no one can really deny. His Memories, Dreams, and Reflections, published posthumously, confirmed my suspicion that he was one of the few outstanding prophets of our age; he looked at religion in the way scientists do, open to whatever truth unfolds.

But much bigger than Jung was William Blake (Frye was my door to him). Blake's art is fraught with spiritual truth with a depth that perhaps no one else has achieved in our age. He is still waiting on us reaching a level of consciousness when we can comprehend. Just read The Little Black Boy, and tell me if that doesn't tug at your heart strings. Or the Monk of Charlemayne, or the "Quaker sacrament", where Blake speaks of his relationship to God:
Throughout Eternity I forgive you,
You forgive me.
As the dear Redeemer said,
This the wine and this the bread.

My (un)Faith Walk

When I was a child a picture hung on my wall. A young black boy and his pet cocker-spaniel kneeling at the foot of his bed praying. The caption read Lead Us.

I hated that picture. Mostly I hated it because it was cute. But increasingly I hated it because my connections to religion as an organized human construct was coming a part at the seams.

I remember somewhere around the age 8 or 9 saying if God was real he's show up in my room to prove it. I would then hide under the covers just in case. Slowly I would realize the Big Kahuna was not going to take me up on the challenge.

Two of us filled out our application forms for Boy Scouts. Under "religion" one of us put Druid and the other put Atheist. I can't for the life of me recall which was which. But I do recall getting a dressing down from the scout leader. Scouting is a Christian organization. Could have fooled me. One the lousiest bullies in my grade was in the troop. And since then my old neighbourhood has formed a Raja Cub Pack for Hindi boy scouts.

Somewhere around the same time -- or maybe a tad later I made a pact with God. This Christianity thing wasn't doing it for me. I wasn't even certain God existed -- in fact I was getting increasingly convinced he didn't. So I was going to try and figure things out for myself. Only thing I asked, was that if I got it wrong, then when the time of judgment came -- show me what I did wrong. Show me what I missed.

I read a lot of occult, philosophy and religious stuff through my teen years and into my 20s. If there had been a Goth movement I likely would have been a part of it. But there wasn't so I wore blue jeans and T-shirts like everyone else in the 70s/80s. And I was alone with my searchings.

November 10th of 1982. Matters came to a head. I was suddenly weighed down with the realization I could not live up to my own ideals and principles. The issue was harboring anger towards someone who had disappointed me. Add to this mix that I had recently been to my first Quaker meeting and felt like God has spoken to me -- so I was also wrestling with my metaphysics. I turned my life over to God.

You have to appreciate that the Quaker Meeting I was attending was not one to encourage born-again religion. My wrestling was not going to stop nor was it going to get easier. It was just going to move in a slightly new direction.

From this you will see that the gonna-go-to-heaven notion of salvation wasn't on my agenda. The salvation I sought and continue to seek was the wisdom to know the morally right path and the empowerment to walk it. That's all I have really ever wanted from God and faith. Sometimes I pray for other stuff -- like an end to a migraine or healing of cancer for a friend or a new job (yes God!). But at its heart -- my faith is about right action -- knowing what to do and then doing it.

I often mess up.

My faith history

Hi. I hope nobody minds if I take a leaf from Marjorie's book and post this - I already did a couple of days ago, but deleted it ... if you've already read it, please ignore this :-)

I wasn't raised in any religion, didn't go to church as a child except for a couple of visits.

In high school my sister and I got interested in eastern religions, took yoga classes. She still really likes the Dalai Lama and Tich Nat Han (sp?).

In college, I majored in art and later added philosophy - Socrates and the existentialists were my favorites. I thought religion was for those rationally challenged :-)

Things in my life started going badly - was diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease, got married and then divorced just a couple of years later. Money problems. I joined the Catholic church, not because I believed in God, but because I was lonely and hoped to make friends. Spent 3 years there and learned a lot about church but nothing really about Jesus/God.

Took up writing. When writing a story with a Jesuit character, I did research and met a Jesuit priest online. His website had his posted homilies and they were amazing to me - showed a possibility of relationship with Jesus/God I had never imagined. He was reluctant to talk to me about this stuff so I decided to take the online retreat at Creighton U. and asked him to help me. He agreed and the rest is history :-)

Sorry this was so long.

Marjorie's Faith

This is hard for me to write and I don't know why -- perhaps its because I feel I don't have anything important or interesting to say about my faith.

I'm a lifelong Episcopalian. Both my parents are lifelong Episcopalians and my mother's father was an Episcopal priest. So being an Episcopalian is part of my upbringing and my family.

My faith is simple. I believe what is stated in the Nicence and Apostle's Creeds -- God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus as the incarnate God, crucified as a substitutionary atonement for our sins and his resurrection. I view the Bible as mostly literal, wholly metaphorical and God's inspired Word. I don't know whether the Word is inerrant but I know man is not, so I'm not an inerrantist. Even if the Bible is without error, I imagine we humans have gotten the message jumbled here and there again and again. As to anything that doesn't make sense or seems improbable, I simply shrug my shoulders and say "mystery of faith" and I'm satisfied with that. Perhaps I don't view my faith critically enough, but I'll spin that to be that I have the faith of a child.

I have had a negative view of the church since childhood as a result of attending a church that was caught up in the charismatic movement, of which my family was not part. I don't have much to say about the substance of the charismatic movement (e.g. I don't believe or disbelieve in the gift of tongues, I don't know anything about it). What I do know is that my parents were treated cruelly by friends of theirs who judged them because they weren't interested in being charasmatic. They were even told at one point that they didn't have a Christian marriage because they weren't interested in attending some couples Bible Study. My view of the church was that it was filled with cruel hypocrites and that church was a dangerous place. I was pulled out of Sunday School at an early age because the teacher (a former Baptist) was focussing a bit too much on resisting the devil and it was scaring the hell out of me (pun intended). Thus, I always felt I had missed out on some important religious guidance. Confirmation was a joke, we were made to buy some insipid book written by the power hungry rector -- I only read the part on sex, don't do it if you're not married to the person. I did learn the Nicene Creed, which is handy and I think we might have looked at the 10 Commandments. My mother couldn't believe we didn't cover the catechism (and its pretty short).

Basically, I wasn't interested in church. I always believed in God and Jesus and the whole shebang, but not church. I always felt one could find God more easily during a walk in the woods than in a pew. Interestingly, I had a boyfriend in college (Baptist) who made an off-hand remark that always stuck with me. He said that when you move to a new town, the best way to establish community contacts was to go to church.

I was never involved with the church while I was in school, but after I got married and moved to a new town, I joined the local Episcopal church. This was probably partly because I wanted to establish community contacts and partly because I married a lapsed Catholic and was hoping to have priority on church should he revive. We moved after a couple of years and lived in an apartment in D.C. -- during the year we lived there, we did not join a church. After we bought a house and moved again, we joined a local Episcopal church. Both my children were baptized as infants and I am an active member of the church (I'm lay reader and on the Altar Guild).

The turning point for me to pay attention to my faith were the September 11, 2001 attacks. I was scared -- the attacks were very salient to me because I worked in the World Trade Center for a year and I live near the Pentagon now. I feared future terrorist attacks. I was concerned that I would start having panic attacks if I didn't do something. Interestingly, a week earlier, a friend invited me to a Bible study, which I had declined. After the attacks, I took her up on the offer and began Bible study.

I took the Bible study for 3 years and really enjoyed it. The reason I gave up this class is because its a bit conservative and fundamentalist. As a result of my interest in homeschooling, specifically unschooling, my philosophy of life was becoming more liberal. I knew I was in for an inevitable clash if I continued with the Bible study class.

Where am I now? I am still interested in Bible study, though I no longer take that particular class. I am still an Episcopalian and am comforable enough at my church. While I recognize that I may need to move on at some point, its such a part of my background that I don't want to move on unless I have a clearer view of where I'm going. Also, I'd be taking my husband and children with me and thats no light matter to me. My husband is satisfied with our church and my daughter's do well with the childcare and Sunday School.

[This is a long post; I don't know if this blog has established the ability to truncate posts, but if and when it does, this should be truncated]

Even the Demons Believe -- and Shudder

But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-- and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

--James 2:18-26 (NRSV)

Note that the NIV comes pretty close to the NRSV here but instead of works reads deeds. I actually think the word deeds comes closer to the sense of this passage. But by keeping works we retain the echoes of Paul. James I feel is railing against an overly simplified interpretation of Paul and keeping that active in our minds as we read can be helpful. The NIV readership, like my IVCF friend, is committed to justification by faith not works, even as they turn belief into another work. So NIV's deeds helps make the lesson go down better for them.

Paul I think was a mixed blessing for our faith. He certainly was successful in his missionary activities. But the so-called catholic epistles are a bit testy about him. There's James here. Then there's 2 Peter:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

-- II Peter 3:15a-17(NRSV)

So we're stuck with the faith/works things again. Crystal's link is helpful here. Just remember that even Paul agrees, the only thing that counts is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).

Peace be with you, Friends.