Promise & Poison

1. What characteristics did Jesus have that made him able to successfully collect disciples? (p.105)

He would’ve had to have been very charismatic and intelligent, but I like to think that his most rewarding characteristics were his compassion, kindness, and genuine love for others – particularly those within the culture during that time who’d been ostracized by the larger community.  So, couple this with a fervent heart for equality and a fiery passion for social justice, it’s very likely that he would’ve had many more followers than were ever written about – much like the impacts made by Mahatma Gandhi or The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

2.  Do you think Jesus actually thought and said that he would return soon, or is that just wishful thinking by Gospel writers? (p.105)

There’s no way of our really knowing whether or not Jesus actually adopted that apocalyptic roll of the long-waited-for Jewish Messiah, but I think not.  His charisma just outgrew reality.  If it wasn’t “wishful thinking” on the part of these story-tellers, it does sound very much like that’s who they wanted him to be.  The cult-like heroes of our collective human history almost always seem to take on characteristics that are larger than life.  It’s part of our nature to begin to think of them as super-humans when they were not. 

3.  How is the incident in the Nazarene's Synagogue a synecdoche for the whole Gospel? Can you make sense of this? (p.107)     [Note:  sunekdoche (συνεκδοχή) is the Greek root of that same word “synecdoche”which refers to a “simultaneous meaning” – like “boots on the ground” referring to “soldiers on the battlefield” or using the phrase “hired hands” for “workers.”]  

So, was this incident in the synagogue, in fact, a specific part being used to refer to the whole thing, or the other way around?  Since so much of Luke’s story is not at all historical, I think that he’s using his story of Jesus being rejected by the people of his own hometown more like a kind of foreshadowing of what’s to come – viz., that the Jews are not worthy of their birthright as God’s chosen people.  So, Jesus is going to take his message somewhere else, specifically, to the gentiles (that word in Greek, by the way, is ἔθνος or ethnos, which could also be translated “the nations” – i.e., as opposed to Israel).  In a sense, then, Luke is claiming that since his own people rejected him, Jesus’s message now will be taken to all of the nations of the world.  As we’ve seen ever since then, tragically, this claim alone has led to centuries of virulent anti-Jewish sentiment – even from both leaders and members of the Christian Church.

 4.  At this point, our author has described the four canonical Gospels’ stories of the development of Christianity.  How have these stories developed and diverged? (p.108)

That’s what happens to stories about memorable events – all too often, people will  remember them differently.  It’s just human nature.  For instance, this is why bank employees are instructed not to talk to each other after they’ve all experienced the trauma of a robbery at their branch.  The investigating authorities can only accept as truth where each separate story of the experience seems to agree; the rest is always conjecture and often completely wrong or at odds with the other viewpoints.  So, did these gospel stories get it right?  Yes and no.  The conundrum for us is that we don’t really know how, when, where or why they developed and diverged.  But they did.  That’s how myths and legends come to be.

5.  How important was the Book of Acts in helping Christian development? (p.113)

As I’ve just pointed out, above, it’s conclusion was more poisonous (to use our author’s imagery) or harmful than it was helpful to Christianity’s “development” – more of a curse than a blessing.  It did, however, provide a basis for orthodoxy to take hold which, regrettably, then caused prejudice, animosity and bigotry to become hallmarks of Christianity – something that would’ve had the real Jesus “turning over in his grave” (wherever that is).

6.  How does the first paragraph on pg. 117 match current events?

There are those, certainly, who are using a “totalitarian’s strategy” to not only get what they want, but then say “to hell with everybody else” – especially those who get in the way of these tyrants who are always maneuvering for such self-centered power and influence.

7.  What political structure does Ignatius seem to be following? (p.121)

I think Van Hagen says it very succinctly (and correctly) here:  “Ignatius claims the power of the Spirit for himself.”  And, later, for Ignatius to declare himself Theophoros (literally, “God bearer) he’s saying that, in the absence of Jesus, he has become the voice of God on earth.  He, now, is at the head of the parade to everlasting life.  If anyone disagrees with him, they’re out.  Sounds like a dictator to me; what do you think?

 8.  Find and read a letter from Ignatius.  (Try earlychristianwritings.com)  What do you think? (p.121)

In his letter to Polycarp, I think that he sums up his theology in this statement:  “The prize is incorruption and life eternal, concerning which thou also art persuaded.”  With that, everything else is secondary for Ignatius – or simply not worth pursuing.

9.  Why don’t you act and think like Ignatius in the quote footnoted on p.104? (p.123)

Is it helpful for me to simply say, “Because I know better.”...?  This material world is every bit as much a gift to us as is a spirit-filled one, so to turn away from one for the sake of the other is a great loss – for anyone who does.

10.  Compare Ignatius with the Fundamentalists of the late 19th century. (p.124)

Anyone who would suppress dissent, for the sake of unanimity, doesn’t understand the true gift of diversity within the human community.  This has been a mistake that we’ve repeated and perpetuated throughout history.  It’s a curse.  It still haunts us.

11.  Do you have any experience with people buying church influence?  Comments? (p.128)

Some might say so.  Without mentioning the church, or the year, I did have a major financial supporter confront me in my office a couple of times, expressing his discomfort at my theological positions.  He made a few veiled threats that if I kept upsetting him, he might have to remove his financial support for the church.  I tried to explain to him that we could have our differences, but still support the community that we both were serving.  He didn’t see it that way.  He took his money (and his wife) and left.  I think he did find a church home where he was happy.  And I was just happy to see him go.  We still made our budget and continued to welcome new members into the fellowship -- that he left -- in the years afterward.  I moved on.

1. What’s the difference between following Moses and following Jesus? (p.78)

Moses set the tone for Judaism by coming up (or down) with the Ten Commandments that became the basis for Jewish law.  Jesus just wanted to reform it, calling people into better relationships with each other in their everyday lives as the fullest expression of the “Kingdom of God.”  I think Jesus was right.  Moses was not.

2.  Can anyone fast for 40 days? (p.78)

I don’t think so.  But you’d have to be pretty healthy to begin with to be able to do so.  Even then, you’d have to at least drink some water during that time just to stay alive, otherwise you’d face complete dehydration.

Besides, this number 40, here, is just symbolic.  It’s found in many ancient religious traditions – Islamic, Middle Eastern, as well as Jewish and Christian.  In our own Bible, the rain that, supposedly, caused the Great Flood that led Noah to build an ark, went on for “40 days and 40 nights” (Genesis 7: 4-23).  Then it was Moses, again supposedly, who stayed up on top of a mountain for that same amount of time (Exodus 24: 18).  Jesus was just in good company.

See if you can find them all, but that number shows up at least 145 times in our Bible.  In the final analysis, the number 40 just represents a long time – similar to the ways in which we might use the number “umpteen.”

3.  In what way does your teaching “qualify believers (your students) for heaven.”? (p.79)

My ancestry is Celtic and the Celts always referred to profoundly spiritual experiences as happening at “thin” places –  moments when you would feel especially close to God.  Such moments can happen anytime and anywhere; the only “qualification” would be paying close enough attention to whatever’s happening in or around you at the time.  For me, that’s as close to an experience of “heaven” as there is. 

4.  ...“people will only come to their senses once they experience calamity and destruction.” Does this fit you?   Comments? (p.82)

No, it does not fit me.  However, the philosopher George Santayana reminded us that if we fail to learn through the lessons of our failures throughout history, we will be condemned to repeat them.  We don’t have to continue to “experience calamity and destruction.”  But we do.

5.  Why was Peter the block head selected as the leader of the new church?  (instead of Mary the tower)?  How do you think Christianity would be different if Mary had been the leader? (p.83)

When we speak of someone being a “rock,” it means that they give us a strong foundation.  A blockhead is a stupid person, and Peter wasn’t stupid – far from it.  Matthew’s Jesus offered him up as a good example.  Peter was one who, Jesus seemed to believe, could show the members of that community “the correct way to live (orthopraxis) and not a catechism listing correct beliefs (orthodoxy).”  Whether or not that was true, it’s too bad that Christianity never really went that way.

Mary Magdalene, of the gnostic tradition, would’ve had very little influence in the greater community of that era, regrettably, simply because she was a woman.

6.  Why do you think that even though Jesus taught practice and said (almost?) nothing about belief, that when Constantine took over the church, it was all about belief (and nothing about practice)? (p.84)

For Emperor Constantine, and all of the other men who shaped the institutional Church, it was primarily about establishing their own power and influence – who had it and who didn’t.  When the emperor and his cronies had it, there was no way that they would work for a truly just and egalitarian society – as Jesus had envisioned.  They considered themselves above all of that.  Tragically, the early Church then made belief more important than justice or compassion.

7.  Strict laws promote hypocrisy.  Comments? (p.88)

It’s usually not any law that promotes hypocrisy; that happens whenever somebody believes that they shouldn’t be held to the same standards as others because they claim to know better.  Consider Donald J. Trump.

8.  Have you ever heard of the three editors (authors) of John? (p.92)

It never came up when I was in seminary (but that was over forty years ago).  However, the skills of biblical scholarship and source criticism have increased exponentially since then.  Initially, the early church was convinced that the author of this Gospel was none other than John, the son of Zebedee, and one of the three disciples in Jesus's inner circle of trust. Without this label, it’s doubtful that the Gospel of John ever would’ve shared the biblical history that it has alongside Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

On the other hand, the majority of biblical scholars, today, believe that John’s gospel, as well as 1stJohn, were written by different members of that same, co-called, "Johannine Community".  Most critical scholars, then, have concluded that John, the Apostle, wrote none of this stuff.  What’s more, most reputable New Testament scholars have rightly concluded that John's Gospel could never be considered as reliable history.

9.  “The spirit...bestows...complete knowledge of God”.  Comments?  Ramifications? (p.94)

No one has “complete knowledge of God” no matter what or who they give as their source for making such a claim.  Those who have claimed such a unique insight have either created havoc within the Church or rightly been dismissed as charlatans. 

10.  What similarities do you see between modern day cults and any of the (three) editions of John? (p.96)

As far as I know, what constitutes a cult is that it’s dangerous because it manipulates and causes nothing but harm to its members.  The members of the Johannine communities probably did give far too much authority to their charismatic leaders, but I don’t think those leaders were intentionally manipulative or meant to cause harm.  They were just lost to history.  The institutional Church took their place.  Are we better off because of that?  You tell me.

11.  Read John, Chapter 6 and see if you can make any sense of what our author says.  I could not.  Comments. (p.97)

The issue of that chapter is that people wanted to keep Jesus around to serve as some kind of a Magical Baker King who would just keep the loaves coming.  That’s about the sense of it.  And, no, I didn’t just make that up; but I can’t tell you who did.

12.  As a scientist, the Gospel of John seems no different from fairy tales and impossible for me to understand.  What do you think (and how do you feel) about it? (p.99)

You’re not far off.  The point of its author(s) wasn’t to really care for the physical needs of the members of the community but, supposedly, offer them spiritual salvation and draw them closer to God.  I think that they failed on both counts.  That far, far too many present day Christians have taken this fable literally is an ongoing tragedy of immense proportions.

1. Before you read this chapter, what do you think is (are) the primary difference(s) between Paul and Mark? (p.51)

Most people assume that Mark was a contemporary of Jesus – someone who actually knew the man – whereas Paul never met him, but “came to him” in a vision.  Both assumptions are, more than likely, just as inaccurate as were the stories that they created about him.

2.  What would you use as evidence (if any!) that Paul and Mark knew Jesus? (p.53)

There is none – at least there is no scientific, archeological, or any other substantive evidence that either of them intimately knew exactly who Jesus was.

3.  Would Paul be successful today?  Why do you think he was successful back then? (p.53)

He would probably only be successful in communities that based their belief in the supernatural or who are simply religiously gullible enough to be attracted to such charismatic individuals.  The same was just as true “back then” as, unfortunately, it is now.

4.  What do you think of the author’s footnote system? (p.58)

They’re more evidentiary than they are explanatory, so I paid little or no attention to them at all.  On the other hand, I found his index system (pp.173-175) to be far more helpful and informative.

5.  If neither Paul nor Mark provided a good ending to Jesus’ story, how did Christianity become so successful and what kind of ending was provided? (p.59)

Unfortunately the “ending,” as it’s still being promulgated, hasn’t been a “good” one.  Early on it was shaped by “Constantine’s sword” as Christianity became a state-controlled religion fed by powerful men who wanted to found an orthodoxy that no one could argue against – or, if anyone did, they were either ostracized or simply, but decisively, eliminated.

6.  As you read the Didache, note how often it says “Believe this…” and how often it says “Do (or Don’t do)…” this. (p.62)

If you read it carefully, it’s almost exclusively instructing its followers what to do or not to do.  What to believe is always secondary – even if it’s only implied.

7.  Why is the group size 150? (p.63)

On the one hand, it’s just a nice round number.  However, I also discovered that 150 is called “the Dunbar number” – it’s what the evolutionary anthropologist, Robert Dunbar, considered to be the number of people with whom humans are capable of maintaining meaningful relationships.  It seems as if the Didache community discovered this long before it ever became a topic of conversation among sociologists or evolutionary anthropologists.

8.  Find a church (not ours) web page with a list of “What we believe…” and compare it to the Didache.  What do you notice? (p.65)

In this regard (as some of you may know), I’ve been very impressed by and attracted to the core statements of the Unitarian Universalist Church (and, yes, I do think of it as a church; others – especially Christian fundamentalists – do not, because the UUs are open to the insights of other religions, and not just the teachings of Jesus):

“Unitarian Universalism is a way of being religious rather than embracing a specific religious doctrine. For us, religion is an ongoing search for meaning, purpose, value and spiritual depth in one’s life. We believe that individuals are entitled to make their own search, and that not all persons are going to share the same beliefs. We believe there is wisdom and value in most all religions, but that no one religion has all the answers. We believe in an inner harmony that will lead to ethical action.

“Unitarian Universalists believe in individual responsibility to search for and form their own beliefs and as a result many of them may believe different things. What holds Unitarian Universalists together is not common belief, but common experience and a common approach to life.

“Unitarian Universalists believe in the Golden Rule, loving our neighbors as ourselves, working for a better world, searching for truth with an open mind, using reason to help us explore religious ideas, and granting everyone the right to choose their own beliefs.

"The Seven Unitarian Universalist Principles:  We are among more than 2,000 congregations that as members of the Unitarian Universalist Association have agreed to abide by the following principles in how we go about our work as a religious movement. We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”

What do you notice throughout all of this?  What I see is that “being religious” is far more important to the Didache community than belief in any religious doctrine. As it’s pointed out, it is “inner harmony” that will lead us to “ethical action” – I still think those two go hand-in-hand. 

9.  What issues are involved in “monitoring the behavior of its members.”?  Comments?   (p.66)

It’s more than any single or group of issues.  The key is spelled out there on that same page in this statement:  “the ability to make decisions that protect the traditional identity of the community while adapting to evolutionary demands.”  In that way they were able to distinguish between what was actually “helpful” from what was “harmful.”          

10.  “The community has taken the place of Jesus:”  Comments? (p.68)

It doesn’t say that the community replaces Jesus – their loyalty to him remains very strong, as is their desire to follow his teachings and emulate his witness.  That’s the way I choose to understand this statement.  So, I too like the idea, as Van Hagen says, “that the community itself is the locus for God’s actions on earth.”  They are to show what it means to live out the presence of God in their midst.  So should we. Never mind that most of us reject the expectation of God’s intervention in some kind of an apocalyptic event as the Didache community did.  How should we live in the here-and-now?  It’s a good question, one that we, too, ought to ponder – never mind that we may not believe in their 1st century expectation of a savior messiah who will bring about the End Time.  In the final analysis, our salvation is up to us.

1. What do you think Paul and Jesus meant by “eternal life”? (p.21)

As an orthodox Jew, Paul probably meant that life after death meant some kind of profound connection to the presence of YHWH – a view shared by all classical rabbinic scholars.  The first explicit biblical formulation of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead to “everlasting life” can be found in the Book of Daniel (12: 2) but then also in Isaiah (26: 19) and Ezekiel (37: 1-14) where in a “valley of dry bones” they all come back to life in a new Israel.

I think that any such doctrine may not have been shared by Jesus but, in their reconstruction of his life and teachings, Paul and the authors of the gospel stories had his character assume such a belief – that of an orthodox Jew.

However, I think that Jesus might have, indeed, felt abandoned by God at his crucifixion and in that one line, Mark’s memory would be correct when Jesus cried out in Aramaic, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  He may have said it this way:  “My God, my God, why?  Have you forsaken me?”  In the end, just what did the actual historic Jesus believe?  We’ve really no way of knowing with absolute certainty – one way or the other. 

2.  Do you think grafting a new branch onto the already existing tree of (a) religion can work?  Comments? (p.23)

Why not?  It’s worked before – they’ve been called “reformations.”  Some have been more radical than others, but they’ve been going on since the very beginning.  New branches of Judaism began growing and spreading when those earliest followers of Jesus began to speculate just who he was, what his life and teachings meant, and why he had died – especially when there was little change to the harsh realities of their own lives.  They must have begun to wonder among themselves, if he wasn’t actually the Messiah that they had expected and longed for, then who was he?

With the End Time myth of Judaism as the backdrop, then, legends just took off from there.

3,  Do you think Jesus was trying to model his life after Isaiah’s “suffering servant”?  Comments? (p.25)

I doubt it, but between Paul and Mark they did connect his life to that Jewish story in Isaiah 53 and, unfortunately, it stuck – becoming the heart of orthodox Christianity.

4.  Do you see today’s church working for “altruism and service in a culture that worship[s] privilege [and] power”? Comments? (p.31)

Many do.  Unfortunately, however, many more do not, because they seem to be more interested in self-preservation instead of self-sacrifice.

5.  Pg.32 talks of “self-deluding and inappropriate use of ecstatic experience”.  Is there a different, appropriate use of ecstatic experience?  How or what?

As I understand the term, ecstasy, while it is often a sudden, intense, and overpowering emotion, it can also mean simply being filled with joy.  So, it can very well be appropriate – in other words, you don’t have to be crazy or on drugs to experience it.  When I’ve been in the presence of beauty, love, awe or wonder, I have been in ecstasy – from many experiences of music, outside in the midst of nature, while contemplating the cosmos, or being present at the birth of our first grandchild.  It even can happen during communal worship during moments of deep devotion.

6.  Why do[es] Mark [and the other Gospel writers] use “good news” so freely while we, 2000 years later, have such a hard time figuring out exactly what it means? (p.37)

It should mean just exactly what it says – not as it’s been corrupted by the evangelical right.  In other words, if it delivers love, compassion, wholeness, health, happiness or peace, it’s good news.  Much of the life and teachings of Jesus did just that.  Tragically, from its earliest beginnings, the institutional Church has corrupted the message to mean something else.

We can bring back the good news in the face of so much bad news.  Why not?  The institutional Church, however, would have to undergo a profound and thoroughgoing transformation – a reformation that, at long last, left centuries of orthodoxy far behind us.

7.  Why do you think Jesus was unsuccessful in his hometown of Nazareth? (p.41)

Many just remembered him as the son of a carpenter named Joseph and, more than likely, thought that he wasn’t that remarkable as a child.  So, what’s changed, really?

8.  How does changing “believe” to “trust” change the meaning of Mark 9:24? (p.42)

The word in Greek is πίστις (pistis) and could, just as well, be translated as “faithfulness,” “loyalty,” “honesty,” “reliability” or “confidence.”  So, as always, every translation is an interpretation – whether it creates trust or belief.

Try this translation on for this text:  “I do have confidence in you; help me with my doubts.”  Take your pick.  And if the interchange occurred in Aramaic (as it more than likely did), there could have been several more possibilities – not to mention what additional effects the culture of that era had on their interpretation.

9.  One story of a woman anointing Jesus is included.  What do you think of the idea that Jesus was better understood by women in his culture because of the rigid patriarchy in which they lived? (p.46)

We’ve no way of knowing whether or not women had a greater insight into the nature and sayings of Jesus.  That Jesus may have accepted them as equals, though, surely would have had a more profound effect on them than on the men around him.  Indeed, the men might have been much more skeptical – without pistis, faith or trust – of Jesus because he seemed to be breaking down far too many barriers within the society and religious culture of Judaism.  His male companions might even have been jealous of the women in the group and deeply suspicious of Jesus for his open acceptance of them.

10.  What other themes, besides continual reversals, have you used to understand Mark’s gospel? (p.50)

I assume that the “reversals” to which this question is referring are not only how our author presents Paul feeling the need “to turn a glaring negative into a shining positive” (pp.24-25), but how the author addresses this issue within his overarching paradigm of “promise” vs. “poison” or “help” vs. “harm”(pp.17-19).

My approach to Mark has been just as Van Hagen outlines it:  “...the earliest followers of Jesus searched the Jewish scriptures to find help in understanding their desperate situation” --  whether it was Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah or the Book of Daniel.  Mark was trying to build upon Jewish tradition by presenting Jesus as the messiah (“anointed one”) who was to lead them through this cataclysmic reversal.  That this was the wrong approach is a tragedy that we’ve had to continue to live with in the institutional Church.

1. What do you think are the beginning, middle and end of our book study community? (p.IX)

Like most book study groups that have their beginnings in a religious community, it begins with somebody (like Peter) wanting to know more about what they’re hearing and experiencing in church.  So it begins with a question, maybe like one of these:  “What does this mean?” or “Is there another way of interpreting this?” or “Who came up with this and why?” or “What am I supposed to do with this?” or reactive statements like “This doesn’t make sense to me.” or “I don’t believe this.” or “I wonder what other people are thinking about this” – and, lo and behold, a book study comes into being! 

The middle of a book study community, like ours, is filled with exploring all of these questions (and more) in books that the group continues to find interesting, compelling, and worth discussing with others in the community.

The end will either happen when members of the community move away or lose interest.  Or, maybe it will come to an end because the majority find that the books being offered either no longer answer their questions or they simply don’t find them to be worth their time reading and discussing.  A final reason might be that the convenor or organizers just quit – but you’re not allowed to do that, Peter!  Hopefully, the end will not happen to us anytime soon – even though some of us may come-and-go in the months and years ahead.

2.  What do you think of Sheehan’s view of time and history? (p.XII)

It’s all flippantly tongue in cheek, of course; that’s clearly why he puts quotes around Christianity’s purported “history.”  He’s lifting up the blatant fallacies of such a story. It’s by way of an introduction to show that he’s in agreement with Van Hagen’s conclusion in the very next paragraph:  

                        “Christianity should officially and publicly swear off the mythical story 

                        that it calls ‘salvation history’...  The point would be to surrender once 

                        and for all the dehumanizing notion [of some kind] of cosmic history 

                        eternally foreseen by God...”(pp.XII-XIII).

3.  Comment on “the lack of a common narrative that supports a unified approach to global problems.” (p.XVI)

We human beings are, all too often, both self-centered and selfish.  We want what we want when we want it and aren’t moved enough to help others who are far worse off than we are.  As a species, we consistently fall back into ancient ways of “survival of the fittest” without much concern for the well-being or needs of our neighbors – or, indeed, without concern for the health of the world itself.

4.  What do you think are “the circumstances that enabled some forms to survive and caused others to disappear.”? (p.XVII)

It’s much like the process of evolution itself:  those who fail to develop and diversify will not survive (Darwin called it “natural selection.”).  In the last several millennia – just as nature itself has been manipulated by those who’ve had the power to do so – the largely male-dominated institutional Church, at the expense of so many others, has done very much the same thing.

5.  How do you, personally, decide on what is helpful and harmful in religion? (p.XIX)

For me, if any religion does not meet humanity’s basic needs for love, well-being, justice, equality and peace, then it is harmful.  Long before Jesus, some of the Hebrew prophets had it right; compare just these two:

                        “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have 

                        set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life 

                        so that you and your descendants may live” [Deuteronomy 30: 19].

And then...

                        “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord 

                        require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk 

                        humbly with your God?” [Micah 6: 8]

6.  What, today, would correspond to “the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”? (p.4)

Consider Vladimir Putin’s incursion into Ukraine, as well as the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Haiti and the many countries in the world who continue to suffer the most from hunger – by some count, over 350 million people are the most at risk in eight countries across Africa alone.  Armed conflict, the climate crisis, and the ever rising costs of goods and services are all to blame – which means that when the cartoonist, Walt Kelly, had his character, Pogo, say in 1970, “We have met the enemy and he is us,” he got it right.

7.  In what way do you “believe that the crucified Jesus [i]s alive.”? (p.9)

As long as the spirit of Jesus and his teachings are alive in us, he is still with us.  The moment that we forget, he is as dead to us as his bones – buried as they are somewhere in the ancient land of Palestine.

8.  How well do you understand the rewritten story that turned Jesus’ crucifixion into a saving story? (p.14)

I understand it very well.  It was invented by a broken, defeated, and desperate Jewish community looking for a way to make sense of their ancient prophets’ predictions of Immanuel – their “anointed one” – who would finally vindicate YHWH’s plan for “His” chosen people.  The tragic irony of it all has only led to one “devastation” (שׁ֙וֹעַ֙ Hebrew “shoah” or ὁλοκαύτωμα Greek root of the word “holocaust” which actually means a “burnt offering”) after another.

9.  Which is it, a call to radical altruism or a promise of admission to heaven that caused the success of Christianity? (p.16)

It always should be the former, of course, never the latter.  But, then, far too many who created and supported the institutional Church were led to think only of themselves and their own “fast track” to heaven.

10.  Which do you think will win in the future, help or harm? (p.19)

If we don’t, finally, learn to live together well, we will inevitably extinguish ourselves as a species.  If help is not (as we EMTs might say) “on the way,” then all of humanity will continue to be conflicted and will forever be “in harm’s way.”