Another Voice

As I get into a new season for Another Voice, I would like to review what we mean by the historical-critical method. I find it especially appropriate today as we are confronted with facts and deliberately fabricated “phoney facts” and misinterpretations.

The historical-critical method, also known as higher criticism, investigates the origins and nature of ancient texts in order to understand the world behind the text. While often discussed in terms of Hebrew and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism has also been applied to other religious writings from various parts of the world and various periods of history.

Being an historical-critical observer applies to secular documents as well of course. In these days especially to political documents, where AI generated texts and phoney documents promote ignorance, hatred, and racism. Abuses are rampant. But my point today is not about politics but theology.

The primary goal of the historical-critical method is to discover a text’s original meaning in its original historical context. The next stage is to explore the text’s contemporary meaning.

Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (1940 – 2014), who served as professor of New Testament and chair of the Biblical Studies department at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, formerly known as Weston Jesuit School of Theology, helpfully defined biblical historical criticism as “the effort at using scientific criteria, historical and literary, and human reason to understand and explain, as objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the biblical writers.”

All biblical texts contain a variety of literary forms such as history, symbolism, folklore, and presumed or imagined historical scenarios. The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke are good examples. They are certainly not fairytales. But they are not strictly historical either. The Infancy Narratives do not attempt to give us a precise historical account of Jesus’ birth, but rather to answer the theological question about Jesus’ identity as Son of God and Son of Humanity.

One legacy of biblical criticism in U.S. American culture was the fundamentalist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Fundamentalism in the USA began, at least partly, as a response to the biblical criticism of the nineteenth century. Some fundamentalists believed that historical-critical believers had invented an entirely new religion “completely at odds with the Christian faith.” There were also conservative Protestants who accepted biblical criticism. This too is part of biblical criticism’s legacy.

In terms of my own Roman Catholic Christian tradition, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Roman Catholic theology avoided biblical criticism because of its reliance on rationalism, preferring instead to engage in traditional exegesis which was based on the narrow-focused works of the “Church Fathers.” The Catholic Church then showed strong opposition to biblical criticism during that period. Frequent political revolutions, bitter opposition to new perspectives in the Church, and the expulsion of religious orders from France and Germany, made the Catholic Church suspicious of any new intellectual currents.

The Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (“Son of God”), approved by the First Vatican Council in 1871, in fact, rejected biblical criticism. It stressed that the Bible was written by God and that it was inerrant. But that began to change in the final decades of the nineteenth century when, for example, the French Dominican Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938) established a school in Jerusalem called the École prátique d’études biblique, which became the École Biblique, to encourage study of the Bible using the historical-critical method.

At the same time, my alma mater the Catholic University of Leuven was exploring the historical-critical methodology that would become its hallmark. A major step was taken in 1889 with the creation of a Leuven course entitled “Critical History of the Old Testament” by Albin Van Hoonacker (1857 – 1933). This course was an early attempt to apply the historical-critical method to biblical texts. At a time when the historical-critical exploration of the Bible among Catholics was still highly controversial, Van Hoonacker became the first professor to teach an historical-critical understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

On 18 November 1893, Pope Leo XIII, pope from 1878 to 1903, promulgated the encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (“The most provident God”). That letter gave the first formal authorization for the use of historical-critical methods in biblical scholarship.

The Catholic biblical situation changed greatly, however, after Pope Leo’s death and the election of Pope Pius X in 1903. A very staunch traditionalist, Pius X, who was pope from 1903 to 1914, saw biblical criticism as part of what he saw as a growing and destructive “modernist” tendency in the Church.

Pius X, therefore, became a strong promoter of medieval Thomistc theology. (He also issued a papal directive, a motu proprio, that banned women from singing in church choirs.) The École Biblique was shut down and Lagrange was called back to France.

But fortunately, in 1943, the Catholic intellectual lights came back on. Pope Pius XII, pope from 1939 to 1958, issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (“Inspired by the Holy Spirit”) in September 1943. It sanctioned historical criticism and opened a new epoch in Catholic critical biblical scholarship.

Twenty-two years later, the dogmatic constitution Dei verbum (“Word of God”), approved by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965 further promoted biblical criticism. Pope Paul VI was pope from 1963 to 1968.

Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1920 -2016), and Roland E. Murphy (1917 – 2002) were the most famous U.S. Catholic scholars to apply biblical criticism and the historical-critical method in analyzing the Bible. Together, they authored The Jerome Biblical Commentary in 1968 and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary in 1990.The latest version, The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century was published in 2022, edited by John J. Collins, Gina Hens-Piazza, Barbara Reid OP, and Donald Senior CP (1940 – 2022).

Being critical observers and critical researchers we move ahead. We respect the past but understand it better.

We observe, we judge, and we act today. We move forward toward tomorrow.

• Jack

Thinking about the Fourth of July, in just a couple of days, I re-read the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Adopted on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, who later became the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. Interestingly, Jefferson, born in 1743, died on July 4, 1826, as did the second U.S. president, John Adams, born in 1735. The prominent U.S. lawyer Daniel Webster (1782-1852) delivered a two-hour eulogy for Jefferson and Adams on August 2, 1826  in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, insisting that the fact both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the nation’s 50th birthday was “proof” from on high that the country, and its benefactors, are under the care of Divine Providence.

The Declaration of Independence stresses the principles on which the U.S. Government and American identity are based. The sixteenth U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” The July 4^th Declaration proclaims that all people are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and that the people have the right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of these ends.

The Declaration of Independence, is not an explicitly Christian document but it does reflect a belief in God, the “Creator,” and natural rights, influenced by Enlightenment thought. The document’s emphasis on natural rights, derived from the Creator, played a crucial role in shaping the American understanding of religious freedom, and the separation of church and state. Right from the beginning, the United States had a variety of religious traditions: Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and indigenous religious traditions, which emphasized a connection to the spirit world

A couple of days ago, after re-reading my notes about religious practice at the time of the Declaration of Independence, my thoughts turned to contemporary religion in the United States. The non-partisan Pew Research Center, in Washington DC, reports that the Christian share of the U.S. population, after years of decline, has been relatively stable since 2019. And the religiously unaffiliated population, after rising rapidly for decades, has leveled off – at least temporarily.

 At present, 62% of U.S. adults describe themselves as Christians: 40% are Protestant, 19% are Catholic, and 3% are other Christians. But 29% are religiously unaffiliated: 5% are atheist, 6% are agnostic, and 19% identify religiously as “nothing in particular.” Additionally, 7% belong to religions other than Christianity: 2% are Jewish, and 1% each are Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.

As many readers of my blog know, my professional area of research for many years has been “Religion and Values in American Society.” I remain an American observer and researcher. Right now, my observation and that of many colleagues is that there are strong indications that we may see, very soon, significant declines in the religiousness of the American public. Young U.S. adults, even those who once had a highly religious upbringing, are far less religious than older adults. In general, Americans consider religion important but are divided about its role in society. Less than half of all adults now say religion is important in their lives, down from majorities who felt that way in earlier studies. Just 44% in a new poll say they pray daily, also down from majorities in prior polls. While most contemporary Americans continue to say they believe in a God or a universal spirit, the share who say they are certain one exists has dropped from 71% in 2007 to 54% now.

While the overall change in religious views has happened in similar ways across key demographic groups, there are differences in how it is being played out in people’s socio-cultural orientation. Among people who call themselves “liberal,” just 37% now identify as Christian, down from 62% in 2007. But 54% of today’s liberals are more likely to say they have no religion than to consider themselves Christian. Among “conservatives,” by contrast, the share who are Christian has declined just 7 points to 82%.

Americans’ degree of religious engagement is also closely tied to their political identity. The most religiously engaged people are more likely to consider themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while those with little religious engagement are more likely to be Democrats or Democratic-leaning. As has long been the case, White voters are much more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to associate with the Republican Party. Black voters continue to associate with the Democratic Party, although the extent of the Democratic advantage among this group has fallen off over the last few years. About six-in-ten Latino voters (61%) are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party. The relationship between partisanship and voters’ religious affiliation continues to be strong – especially when it comes to whether they belong to any organized religion at all. Protestants mostly align with the Republican Party.

The GOP, however, now has a modest advantage among Catholics. About half of Catholic voters identify as Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party, compared with 44% who identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. In the 2024 presidential election, Catholic voters split 56% to 41% in favor of the Republican candidate. Today, among U.S. Catholics to the left of the ideological center, there is optimism that Pope Leo XIV will carry on Pope Francis’ outreach to poor and marginalized people, including migrants, and provide a counterweight to policies of the current presidential administration, which they find distressing. U.S. Catholics on the right, however, hope Pope Leo, like his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI, will strongly uphold traditional Catholic doctrine, by which they mean opposition to abortion, opposition to same-sex marriage, and opposition to women’s ordination.

It is especially noteworthy that today’s incumbent U.S. president is building a new far-right religious movement. The old religious right is gone. Members of the U.S. religious right in the 1980s and 1990s were political because of their theology. Members of the current new religious right are working in the opposite direction. They are constructing a new “theology” that fits their far-right politics. Take, for example, the defense by contemporary far-right evangelical leaders of the incumbent president’s sexual transgressions. They say his transgressions are excusable because he is a messianic figure, sent not to save souls but to save America. Their viewpoint makes no coherent religious sense but clearly fits their political sense. Some U.S. Catholic leaders appear to support this perspective as well. In December 2024, for example, the then Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said the soon to be back in the White House president-elect “takes his Christian faith seriously.” Cardinal Dolan has been one of the U.S. President’s supporters for a long time and maintains a friendly relationship with him in his private life.

On May 1, 2025, the incumbent U.S. president announced that he was setting up a presidential commission on religious liberty: “The Religious Liberty Commission.” I find it noteworty that five of the members are conservative Catholic bishops: Cardinal Timothy Dolan; Bishop Robert E. Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota; Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco; Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois; and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort-Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. According to Melissa Deckman, a political scientist and CEO of Washington DC’s Public Religion Research Institute, the Religious Liberty Commission caters to Christian nationalist groups who “see their loss of dominance as persecution.”

The Religious Liberty Commission also says that the separation of church and state concept is a legal error. What the new U.S. religious right is building in fact has more in common with the ancient pagan religion of the Roman Imperial Cult than the evangelical revivals of an earlier America. The Roman Imperial Cult stressed that emperors and some members of their families held divinely sanctioned authority. Their focus was on imperial power. Today’s MAGA supporters have declared a religious war, not just against secularism or progressive forms of religion, but against traditional religion that refuses to serve their radical nationalistic power goal to “Make America Great.” They are not advocating a new theocracy, but a new religion of nationalism and national identity disguised in the trappings of a religious movement, that stresses strong loyalty, shared beliefs, and a sense of superior white supremacy based on a judgmental “us vs. them” perspective. How well I remember, by way of example, the current president’s speech to Americans on June 21, 2025, about the U.S. bombing of sites in Iran. He said: “And I want to just thank everybody and in particular, God, I want to just say we love you, God…”

Happy Fourth of July! The key socio-political issues we need to think about and promote in the coming months are indeed: Honesty, Historical Truthfulness, and Humanity.

• Jack

Another Voice is back. I look forward to traveling with you again. And I suspect it will be quite a year in many ways.

This summer, relaxing close to the Belgian North Sea coast, my wife and I have been enjoying some peaceful days to rest and reflect. And…This week we celebrate out fifty-sixth wedding anniversary.

While on vacation, I have also been reflecting about my personal evolution as a Catholic “historical theologian.” I have now been teaching about religion, ethics, and historical theology for more than fifty-seven years. Getting older, I was thinking this week about what Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) allegedly wrote to a friend in 1942: “People like you and I do not grow old no matter how long we live. We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we were born.”

I remember growing up as a pious Catholic kid in southern Michigan, who was very much afraid of the God of threat and punishment, the God who watches me and judges, the God who takes sides and causes victories and defeats, and the God who responds to appeasement and sacrificial offerings. I believed and feared that I would suffer eternal punishment in hell for missing Mass on a single Sunday or eating meat on a day of abstinence, or my great fear: committing an adolescent sexual sin. I was encouraged to “go to confession” every week, because God was the Supreme Judge who demands that everything in our lives be in good order. There were so many things I had to avoid “under pain of mortal sin.”

Gradually I began to grow up. Fortunately, I had healthy guidance from some very good high school teachers and college professors at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. (I was never ordained a priest but became what they called back then “a lay theolgian.”) I began to realize that God does not exist in some far-off place, watching, and judging me. God is in the here and now. I began to understand God as the empowering energy of everything and as philosopher Paul Tillich (1888 – 1965) said the “ground of being.” I began to understand that God is love and when we love we are actively living in God. There we find salvation.

As one grows up, he or she realizes that perspective is important. Scientists have determined that the universe came into being 13.8 billion years ago. We humans are a very recent development; and it was only a moment ago that Jesus lived on Earth. But Jesus still lives and shows us how to be human. My perspective on Jesus changed thanks especially to Professor Gustave Thils (1909 – 2000) at the Catholic University of Leuven and Professor Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009) at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, today’s Radboud University. Both men encouraged me and strongly supported my wish to become an historical theologian.

More growth: I remember when Richard McBrien (1936 – 2015), longtime professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, wrote that it seems more difficult to say something original about Jesus’ resurrection. Edward Schillebeeckx in his book Jesus: An experiment in Christology (Dutch ed. 1974), had argued that we should not imagine that the belief of the disciples that Jesus had risen was caused by an empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. He proposed instead that a belief in the resurrection was grounded in “the new orientation of living which this Jesus has brought about in their lives and was not rendered meaningless by his death – quite the opposite.”

Frankly, considering what one reads in the New Testament, it is often difficult to distinguish between what should be taken word for word and what is to be understood as metaphor in the post-resurrection accounts. As Christians we accept Jesus as the ultimate life-giver, the very Word of God, realizing that we are called not only to believe, but to imitate. In John’s Gospel, chapter 12, we read “Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in the one who sent me. And whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness.” Indeed, but for many people today belief is easier than imitation.

As a Catholic historical theologian, one of my concerns over the years has been a correct portrayal of the mother of Jesus. It is not that easy. When person or an event seems larger than life, people turn to poetry, creative imagination, symbolism, and figurative speech. That has certainly been the case with Mary. And so we have the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception thanks to Bishop Augustine of Hippo’s (354 -430) concept of Original Sin, the notion that all human beings are born in a sinful condition inherited from Adam and Eve and passed on through sexual intercourse. But Mary, because she was the Mother of Jesus, the church taught, had to be exempted from Original Sin. Mary therefore had a no-original-sin Immaculate Conception.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception, one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, was debated by medieval theologians. It was not defined as a dogma until 1854 by Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.

Today of course we realize that the story of Adam and Eve is ancient biblical mythology. There were no historic people called Adam and Eve, no Garden of Eden, no tempting snake, and no angry and punishing God. And no Augustinian Original Sin.

So what do we do with Mary’s Immaculate Conception? One could also ask the same question about Mary’s Assumption up above the clouds into heaven. Catholic dogma states that at the end of her earthly life, the Virgin Mary was taken body and soul into heavenly glory. Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) officially declared this an infallible truth of the faith in 1950.

 And of course there is Mary’s perpetual virginity. The brothers of Jesus are named in the New Testament as James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. The Greek word translated as “brothers” is adelphoí, which literally means “from the same womb.” Jesus’ unnamed sisters are mentioned as well in Mark and Matthew. The church doctrine about Mary’s perpetual virginity, however, was first officially proclaimed at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE which proclaimed her “ever virgin.” Then at the Lateran Synod of 649 CE Pope Martin I (c. 590 – 655) emphasized the threefold character of her perpetual virginity: before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

Anchored in our Christian tradition we can and we should continue to grow in our knowledge and understandings about past people and events. Mary was probably about thirteen years old when she and her husband, traditionally called “Joseph,” gave birth to Jesus. She deserves great respect and veneration for being a loving, wise, and supportive mother throughout Jesus’ life from birth to his crucifixion and death on the cross. Her son James was leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem. About her other children we know nothing. Over the centuries, Christians have certainly found the Mother of Jesus a supportive Lady of Sorrows, Lady of Consolation, and Mother of Perpetual Help. Her faith in the loving and powerful presence of God was her strength, her wisdom, and her lifeline. It is our faith as well.

I recommend the recent book, CONTROVERSIAL: And What Do You Think of Original Sin? The author is my friend William G. Joseph. Drawing on his extensive background in ministry, theology, philosophy, and modern biology, his work explores the intersection of faith and the theory of evolution. 

And so we go on, people of faith, knowing that life brings sun and cool breezes as well as occasional storms but confident that the creative and life-giving Spirit is with us every step of the way.

Jack

A few years ago, on the evening before Pentecost, my wife and I attended a concert of sacred music in a small local church. The church was packed, with about two hundred people. The concert was marvelous and deeply moving.

When the concert finished, no one applauded. No one moved. People sat there in deep reflection for a good ten or more minutes. I whispered to my wife: “This is amazing – a deeply meditative group experience.” A few minutes later, the somewhat agitated pastor stood up, looked at his watch, and then spoke to the congregation: “Ok everybody. The concert is over. It is getting late. Time for you to go home. I need to get some sleep. Big Pentecost Mass tomorrow!”

Slowly we all got up in silence and peacefully walked out.

The next morning, I attended the Pentecost High Mass at which the pastor presided. He was a good man but lived in his own small clerical world. For Pentecost there were about twenty people present for Mass. Many showed little enthusiasm, especially when the pastor – never looking at the congregation — read his long homily from a printed leaflet. After Mass, the pastor was at the church door wishing everyone a “Blessed Pentecost.” As I walked out, I went up to him wished him a Happy Pentecost and remarked with a chuckle that he had had a full house for the Saturday evening concert. He smiled but then rather seriously said: “All the heathens came here last night.” I smiled back and said in a friendly way: “I don’t think so. They had a prayerful spiritual experience.” Hearing that he shrugged, grumbled something, and turned to greet the next person….

I think many people today are hungry for a taste of the Divine, a genuine spiritual experience, even when they may not know how to express that hunger. Their hunger is real.

This year on Easter, I was thinking about the post-resurrection experience of Cleopas and the disciple, who was probably his wife Mary, on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus in Luke 24. They had an encounter with Jesus that touched them deeply but they did not at first recognize him.

Luke writes that they met a fellow traveller who talked with them about the events in Jerusalem but then acted as if he were going farther. “But they urged him strongly, ‘Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.’ So, he went in to stay with them. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’”

A healthy church gives people living bread, feeding not only their minds but warming their hearts as well: providing profound experiences in which they feel connected intimately to Someone larger than themselves. We call that the Sacred, the Divine, the Ground of Being or God. I suspect many people today feel like uncertain travellers looking for a map and a faithful spiritual guide.

Christian leaders with meaningful words, symbols, and rituals can indeed give direction and secure guidance. They can enable people to enter into a deeper dimension of life, an experience of the Divine, inspired by the great Christian leader, who said: “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

Happy Pentecost!

• Jack

PS In keeping with my summer vacation tradition, I will be away from Another Voice until late June. A bit of time for reflection, research, and R&R.

Staring into the sky on a clear spring night, my thoughts turned first to the complex immensity of the universe. What a delight to look at the moon and stars after far too many cloudy days and nights.

Almost all of the stars we can see are close to Earth in galactic terms. Most within a hundred light-years or so. A “light-year” is the term used to express astronomical distances, because light is the fastest-moving visible radiation in our universe, and travels at 186,000 miles per second. So, a light-year – the distance that light travels in 365 days – is 5.88 trillion miles. Some stars are visible from 1,000 light-years away. But even then, that is only 1% of the distance across our galaxy which we call “The Milky Way,” a slowly rotating cluster of more than 200 billion stars!

Our Milky Way galaxy is one of many galaxies, and galaxies like the Milky Way have about 17 billion Earth size planets. Just a few years ago, researchers estimated that there were between 100 and 200 billion galaxies in our observable universe. Today, however, astronomers suggests that the total size of the universe is unknown and could very well be infinite, implying there could be an infinite number of galaxies, because the universe is still expanding.

Looking up at the stars, I thought about Psalm 19: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” I thought as well, with fascination and amazement, that with such an immense and expanding universe we probably need to expand our perspectives on God the Creator.

Despite our contemporary scientific and technological progress, much of our official God imagery, and our images of Ascension Thursday, are rather dated and still influenced by the ancient Hebrew cosmology dating from around 1200 BCE.

The ancient Hebrew cosmology viewed the universe as a three-tiered structure: a flat disk-shaped Earth set on a foundation of pillars. Above the Earth was the “firmament” a dome on which the stars, planets, sun, and moon revolve. Heaven, the realm of God, was understood as a set of chambers just above the firmament. A special passage, like a tunnel through the clouds, led from Earth up to Heaven. The firmament dome surrounded the Earth, with its edge meeting at the horizon. See, for example, Genesis 1:7: “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” The firmament was supported by “pillars” or “foundations,” thought to be the tops of mountains, whose peaks appeared to touch the sky. The heavens had doors and windows through which God could send rain and let waters above flow down on Earth. And also control waters from below. See, for example, Genesis 7:11: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.”

The Underworld, the realm of the dead was located under the Earth. The most frequent term for this place was Sheol. The graves dug by humans represented gateways to the Underworld. Below the Earth and the Underworld were the lower seas or “the Great Deep.”

The ancient Hebrew understanding of the universe had a long-lasting impact on the Christian understanding of the universe. The final version of the Apostles Creed, written between 700 and 750 CE, says that, after his death, Jesus “descended into the Underworld.” Most people, however, know only the very faulty English translation of the Apostles Creed which says that Jesus “descended into hell.” Very unfortunate. Good and correct translations are so important.

The Ascension of Jesus, according to Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:1-9, was a journey in a cloud up to Heaven. In their Hebraic universe understanding, early Christians no doubt pictured the Resurrected Jesus passing through the tunnel in the clouds up to heaven to sit on a throne at the right hand of God the Father.

Much later, in the seventeenth century, some elements of the ancient Hebrew universe perspective, maintained by the Catholic Church, led to the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. The reason: Galileo supported heliocentrism in which the spherical Earth and planets revolve around the Sun.

Some old cosmological images do last a long time. I was a pious grade school kid, when on November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) solemnly proclaimed in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, that in was: “…a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven.” Body and soul up there above the Earth.

I also remember the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin (1934–1968) who was the first person in outer space, completing a single orbit of Earth on April 12, 1961. The famous phrase “I see no God up here” was widely attributed to him. But today historians stress  that the phrase did not originate with Gagarin but came from a speech by Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971), First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964. Khrushchev used it to promote Soviet state atheism. Yuri Gagarin, in fact, was a baptized, believing Russian Orthodox Christian, despite the Soviet Union’s official state atheism. 

Well, today we need to move beyond ancient cosmology and antiquated theology based on it. So much of our religious perspective has been anchored in outdated ideas about the universe and planet Earth’s place in the universe.

In an ever-expanding universe, we need an expanded image of Creator God and a broader theology about God. That theology should be like poetry, which takes us to the end of what words and thoughts can do and redirects our minds and hearts. All religious language must reach beyond itself into a sort of silent awe and amazement. It is like describing being in love. We realize of course that God is always greater than anything we can understand.

As I wrote last week, sometimes people get so wrapped up in their religious words and rituals that they miss what those words and rituals are really about.

We all have moments of awe, wonder, and excitement that lift us beyond ourselves, when we realize that something very close and real is touching us very deeply within.

We need to spend more time reflecting on those kinds of experiences, through spiritual reflection and meditation. And this must be a major part of a re-focusing of Christianity in our time.

Spiritual reflection cuts across all religious traditions and addresses the non-religious as well. I often think about the observation of Dag Hammarskjöld (1905-1961) the Swedish economist and diplomat who served as the second Secretary-General of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961.”God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity, but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder, the source of which is beyond all reason.

• Jack

As a follow-up to last week’s reflection about Christian Nationalism, a brief reflection this week about God.

Perspectives on God are important. In Genesis, first book of the Hebrew Bible, we read that God created humanity “in God’s own image.” (Genesis 1:27) But periodically over the years, some people have tried to make God in their own image and likeness. Vindictive images of God have been used by Christian Nationalists to control, manipulate and even destroy people.

I don’t understand God as a vindictive and hard-nosed authoritarian. In the New Testament, such an understanding of God does not resonate with the historical Jesus’ understanding of God, as his loving Father.

Unfortunately, some medieval Christian theologians did have distorted authoritarian notions about God, and they passed them on to future generations. Anselm the famous Archbishop of Canterbury from 1033 until his death in 1109 is a good example. Anselm saw God as a nard-nosed judge and taskmaster. Anselm believed that human sin and human disobedience to God, going back to the first humans, had defrauded God of the honor that God was due. That offense to God’s honor, Anselm taught, had to be compensated for and repaired.

Anselm said that God could only be satisfied by having a being of infinite greatness, God’s very own Son acting as a human, repay the debt owed to God and thereby satisfy the injury to God’s honor. In other words, God would only be happy when God’s own Son was tortured and suffered a cruel death. What a strange image of God. Catholic theology has called it the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.”

Jesus and early Christians, however, clearly understood God as loving and kind. That is essential. That is where we begin. As my Nijmegen Catholic theological mentor and long-time friend Edward Schillebeeckx OP (1914 – 2009) often said: “Christianity began with an experience, an encounter with Jesus of Nazareth which caused people to discover new meaning and to direct their lives in a new direction.”

The clear message of Jesus was and still is that the Divine Presence is here, with us, and with all of creation. God is not simply “out there” in some far-off realm. The Jesuit philosopher and theologian Karl Rahner (1904 – 1984) stressed, however, that people do not come to know God by solving doctrinal conundrums, proving God’s existence or engaging in an abstruse metaphysical quest. Rahner stressed the importance of Divine mystery as very simply an aspect of our humanity.

Our challenge is to live that Mystery with openness and calm reflection. That Mystery, which defies exact description, is God. Religious doctrines have their place but can never totally explain or define that Mystery.They are symbolic or analogous pointers toward God. When people focus only on the pointers, however, they really miss the point.

As contemporary believers we have to ask how we can develop better pointers that really help point people towards God. We need pointers anchored in all the complex realities and needs of our time, enabling people to believe and deal with human suffering with serenity and courage. Many of us learned about God at about the same time we also learned about the Easter Bunny. As we grew in awareness, our understanding of the Easter Bunny phenomenon evolved and matured. But for many people their religious belief has remained somewhat static and adolescent. 

Divine revelation is not an event that happened once in the past. It is an ongoing and creative process that requires human perception and contemplation. Revelation is a part of reality. We are called to be open, alert, and contemplative. Faith means trust, commitment, and engagement. But too often it is mistakenly understood as simply an intellectual assent to ecclesiastical propositions.

Today, as science itself says there is so much we still don’t know. It is time perhaps to return to a theology that asserts less and is more open to mystery and calm and reflective exploration. This may not be easy for contemporary people so used to getting instant information with a click on a cellphone or checking their favorite website or social network.

The image of a domineering and controlling God is an archaic image. We journey today with a different and more of a traveling-companion God, even if we struggle with descriptive words about God. “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12) The true and essential work of all religions, but especially Christianity, is to help us recognize the divine image in everyone and everything.

My concluding reflection this week comes from the priest and theologian Ronald Rohlheiser OMI, a friend who also completed his doctorate at the Catholic University of Leuven: “God lies inside us, deep inside, but in a way that’s almost non-existent, almost unfelt, largely unnoticed, and easily ignored. However, while that presence is never overpowering, it has within it a gentle, unremitting imperative, a compulsion towards something higher, which invites us to draw upon it. And, if we do draw upon it, it gushes up in us in an infinite stream that instructs us, nurtures us, and fills us with endless energy.”

Our perspectives on God are important and worth sharing. For me, God is my traveling companion on the great journey.

• Jack

In July, the United States will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. People will commemorate and celebrate July 4^th 1776, the day when American colonists declared themselves independent from Great Britain.

These memorable opening lines, of course, are deeply etched in my brain: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Moving toward this year’s historic milestone, however, contemporary U.S. democracy is under threat. The Declaration’s underlying commitment to the self-evident truths that all are created equal and that a just government is rooted in the consent of the governed is crumbling. Various American religious traditions have historically reinforced social equality as a national value.

But today’s American “Christian Nationalism” rejects that commitment to social equality, on which American democracy depends.

According to the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington DC, one-third of contemporary Americans support Christian Nationalism: with Adherents at 11% and Sympathizers at 21%. A majority of Republicans qualify as either Christian Nationalism Adherents, at 21%, or Sympathizers, at 35%. But less than one in five Democrats, with 5% Adherents and 12% Sympathizers.

Pete Hegseth, the current United States Secretary of Defense, secondarily titled the Secretary of War, is a far-right Evangelical Protestant and a strong supporter of Christian Nationalism. He has persisted in framing the war in Iran as divinely sanctioned, repeatedly invoking “God’s almighty providence” and expressing certainty that God is on the side of the U.S. Military. He has called on the American people to pray for victory “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

While American Christian Nationalism is often associated with white Evangelical Protestantism, a distinct and influential cohort of American Roman Catholics has increasingly embraced the ideology. These Catholics often move beyond standard conservative politics, advocating for a “re-Christianization” of American culture and law, sometimes referred to as “Catholic Integralism.”

Key Roman Catholic figures in contemporary American Christian Nationalism are Vice-President J.D. Vance and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who has openly identified as a “proud Christian Nationalist.”

Nine days after Charlie Kirk’s death, the former Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan appeared on “Fox & Friends” and was quick to praise Kirk as a “modern day St. Paul.” Dolan called him “a missionary, an evangelist, and a hero.” I have personally known Tim Dolan, now 76, for many years. He served as Archbishop of New York from April 15, 2009 to December 18, 2025.

Charlie Kirk (October 14, 1993 – September 10, 2025) was strongly aligned with the Christian right and advocated for American Christian Nationalism. His wife and children are Catholic and he regularly attended Mass with them. Days before his murder, Kirk privately told Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno, California that he was close to converting to Catholicism.

Conservative American Catholic support for Christian Nationalism is closely linked with Opus Dei and the architects of Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for the Incumbent President’s second term. Its goal is restructuring the U.S. Government with a conservative, religion-based agenda. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and a key leader of Project 2025, has close ties to Opus Dei.

Opus Dei (“God’s Work”) is a very conservative Catholic organization founded in Spain in 1928. It became influential during Francisco Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975). With strong Opus Dei support, the Franco regime relied on a blend of his own authoritarian nationalism and Catholic Christian Nationalism.

Project 2025, a 900-plus page policy blueprint organized by the Heritage Foundation and supported by over 100 conservative groups, aims to reshape the U.S. federal government, under the current presidential administration, by implementing the Christian Nationalism ideology. Under Project 2025’s very conservative “Christian vision” for the United States, married heterosexuality is the only valid form of sexual expression and identity. It opposes what it calls “radical gender ideology” and advocates that the government “maintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.” To achieve this, it proposes ending same-sex marriage and removing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual or gender identity. Project 2025 has also recommended the arrest, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants. It proposed employing the military for domestic law enforcement and called for immediate capital punishment of convicted offenders.

American Christian Nationalism presents a limited and narrow view of God. The “In God we trust” god becomes a national instrument of power rather than a universal figure. This perspective views divine favor as exclusive and prioritizes power and dominance over love and grace. Christian Nationalism emphasizes a “god of war” image, highlighting biblical stories of a vindictive and angry God taking revenge on enemies as a justification for harsh action against perceived adversaries.

And Christian Nationalism’s morality is hardly Christian. For example, the incumbent presidential administration’s March 2025 decision to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.

Nevertheless, Christian Nationalism is very strong in the current presidential administration. Already in January, 2024, the incumbent U.S. President’s supporters had made a video called “God Made Trump.” It began with this statement: “On June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So, God gave us Trump.” This year at a White House event on April 1, Paula White-Cain, an evangelical Christian pastor and the president’s chief spiritual adviser, told him to his face that he was the “greatest champion of faith that we’ve ever seen in a president,” and then she compared his story to Jesus Christ’s. “You were betrayed and arrested and falsely accused,” she said, “It’s a familiar pattern that our Lord and Savior showed us.” She continued, “And sir because of his resurrection, you rose up.”  It is not so surprising, then, that the incumbent president recently made the comparison himself. On April 12, 2026, he posted an image on his Truth Social media platform, owned by the Trump Media & Technology Group. The colorful image depicted the incumbent president as Jesus healing a sick man, with worshipers looking on in adoration, a flag of the United States waving in the background, and military figures floating in the sky.

Soldiers in the United States Armed Forces have now lodged more than 100 complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation saying that their commanders are using extremist religious rhetoric to describe the U.S.-Israel war against Iran. American military commanders have told their troops that the attack on Iran is a “holy war,” and that Jesus anointed U.S. President Donald Trump to light the signal fire in Iran.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 2005 by Michael L. Weinstein, a former Air Force officer and attorney. The organization’s mission is to ensure that members of the United States Armed Forces can practice their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination or coercion, and to promote the separation of church and state within the military.

I conclude this week’s reflection with a quote from Sandra Day O’Connor (1930 – 2023) who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 until her retirement in 2006. O’Connor was the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. She retired from the bench in 2006 to care for her husband, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

All Christians in the U.S. and beyond need to reject the dangerous distortion of Christianity in Christian Nationalism. It is incompatible with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

• Jack

The Good News According to John differs from the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) in style and content in several ways. John omits a large amount of material found in the Synoptic Gospels, like the temptation of Jesus, Jesus’ transfiguration, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer are also not found in John.

Symbolism in John is very important. We do not see proverbs and parables, as in the Synoptics, but symbolic discourses. Jesus’ miracles, as reported in John, are designed to provide symbolic insight into Jesus’ identity and his relationship to the Father. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is clearly the Wisdom of God, the source of eternal life, and still continually living within the community of faith.

Jesus speaks metaphorically throughout the Gospel of John to illustrate spiritual realities. Metaphors are found in nearly every chapter of the Gospel of John, that can at first confuse readers who interpret them literally, such as in the “Bread of Life” discourse in John 6, which we will look at in a few minutes.

Scholars like Pheme Perkins (born1945), professor of theology at Boston College, and a nationally recognized expert on the Greco-Roman cultural setting of early Christianity, emphasize that the author of the Gospel of John presumed that much of the narrative about Jesus and its people and places was already well known to the John’s audience. They would have been familiar with the various titles for Jesus, with Baptism, Eucharist, and the Spirit. They were already Christians, entering the second century of Christian life and experience.

The Gospel of John then is a call to the followers of the Risen Lord to re-examine their lives. That challenge of course rings true, today, for all of us.

Jesus’ public ministry, in John, appears to extend over a period of at least three years. During that time, he went, several times, from Galilee to Jerusalem. The Synoptics, on the other hand, have Jesus making only one journey to Jerusalem: the final one. And most of his public ministry took place within just one year.

The author of John uses a “post-resurrection” point of view, looking back on the Jesus events and emphasizing the inability of the apostles to understand what was happening at the time the events occurred. See for instance John 12:12-16: “The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So, they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!’ And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, ‘Fear not, daughter of Zion. Behold your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!’ His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him.”

The Gospel of John opens with a profound prologue, John 1:1-18, stating, “In the beginning was the Word (Logos)” which is reminiscent of Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The prologue was most likely an elaboration of an early Christian hymn. In the prologue, Jesus is identified as the Greek word Logos, a complex Greek term meaning “word,” “reason,” or “principle,” which often represents divine wisdom, as the organizing principle behind creation. Many scholars suggest that the prologue was added after the Gospel of John had been completed.

Who wrote the Gospel of John? The old understanding, from the second century, was that the author was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, a prosperous Galilean fisherman. Most contemporary scholars are not of this opinion.

Scholars, such as the American priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), believed that the original author of an oral tradition, that evolved into the Gospel of John, was a companion of Jesus, the “Beloved Disciple,” who formed a community, most probably in Ephesus. An oral tradition of eye-witness recollections of the “Beloved Disciple” evolved and began being written down around 90 CE. The final redaction occurred ten to twenty years later, giving us a textual composition date of between 90 and 110 CE.

We do not know who the “Beloved Disciple” was. There is quite a variety of scholarly opinions. Some say a truly unknown disciple, or the Apostle John, or James the brother of Jesus, or even Mary the Magdalene. My old friend the theologian Leonard Swidler (1929-2026), who died on March 23rd, proposed that Mary the Magdalene was the “Beloved Disciple” and the primary author of the Gospel of John. He believed she wrote a “proto-gospel” which served as the foundational source for the Gospel of John.

The Johannine community was very engaged in the “church–synagogue” debate and defined itself primarily in contrast to the Hebrew tradition. The last version of the Gospel of John was composed after the crisis created by the expulsion of Christians from the synagogue. The Gospel’s criticism of the Judaean religious authorities and their supporters in Jerusalem is strong. Over the centuries, some have incorrectly used this Gospel of John’s criticism as an excuse for anti-Semitism. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, it is unfortunate that English New Testament translators have so often used the words “Jew” and “Jews,” when “Judaean” and “Judaeans” would have been more correct and less problematic.

Re-reading the Gospel of John, four points really strike me: (1) the problem of authoritarian leaders, (2) Jesus’ abiding presence in the community of faith; (3) humanity taking on divinity, and (4) the courageous and confident Jesus, who is a genuine spiritual hero and inspiration.

• Authoritarian Leaders: Why did the Judaean hierarchy conspire to crucify Jesus? Why did so many ordinary people collude in their decision? Was the High Priest Caiaphas any different from contemporary national leaders in his simple judgment that “If we let him [i.e. Jesus] go on speaking in this way, everybody will believe in him… It is better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” (John 11:48-50) Today, political leaders – and some religious leaders — know so very well the power of demonizing specific people and certain groups, as a way of achieving a semblance of social or institutional unity: students demonstrating against guns and in support of trans students, “radical” feminists, Mexicans, migrants, LGBTQ+ people, and opponents of “Christian nationalism.”
• Jesus’ presence in the community of faith. John 13:1-4 is a turning point in the Gospel of John. Jesus’s “hour” had come “for him to pass from this world to the Father… He had come from God and was returning to God.” The occasion is in John chapter 13’s observations about the Last Supper. Unlike the Synoptics, the Gospel of John has no institution of Eucharist. But Jesus washes his disciples’ feet. “I have given you an example so that you may copy what I have done to you.”  I think we forget that people’s feet back then were really dirty! Washing feet was not a pleasant task. Reading this scripture, I think we forget as well what Jesus also said: “Whoever welcomes the one I send, welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.” (John 13:20) The Gospel of John does not mention the institution of Eucharistic bread and wine because the author wanted to emphasize that Jesus is present in the Community of Faith. Jesus promises that his Spirit (the Advocate) will be with them. (John 14:15-16, 15:26, 16:15) For centuries, in my Roman Catholic tradition, people have argued about Jesus’s “Real Presence.” The Gospel of John is very clear. The early Followers of the Way of Jesus celebrated gathering together, with exultation, and sincere hearts, and shared their meals, and the rite, they called the breaking of the bread, which came to mean celebrating the Lord’s Supper. (See for instance: Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 21; 11:25-26). The breaking and sharing of the bread reminded them of the presence of Jesus the Christ. After all, Jesus wanted us to remember him, every time we ate and drank – a reminder of the Christ within each of us and in the community.
• In John 6:53–58, we do have the Jesus metaphorical text: “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Of course, Jesus could never have meant for anyone to eat his physical flesh, let alone drink his blood. He would only utter it symbolically. He meant for us to incorporate not only his virtues, his teachings, but his very self. He wants us to be truly one with him and the Father, and for both of them to dwell in us.
• Humanity taking on Divinity: In Mark, Matthew, and Luke the stress was on Divinity taking on humanity. That is true in John as well, of course. In John, however, we see another emphasis: humanity taking on Divinity. God is truly with us: in the very heart of our being. That is worth meditating about. Some of the old images of God may no longer speak to contemporary people; but God has not abandoned us. We should not abandon God. We simply need to reflect on better ways of conceptualizing and speaking about our experience of the Divine.
• A Courageous and Confident Jesus: The Johannine account of the crucifixion does not stress Jesus as one who suffers, as we saw for example in Mark 15.25–39. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is the one who is exalted, “lifted up” in his moment of glorification. In John 13 to John 16, Jesus prepares his disciples for his imminent departure followed by his “high priestly prayer” in John 17. Here we see a very strong and confident Jesus. “I have glorified you on earth and finished the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, it is time to glorify me…” (John 17:4-5) The Jesus who stands before Pilate and later walks to his crucifixion is strong. On the way to Golgotha Jesus carries his own cross. He does not need the help of a Simon of Cyrene as we saw in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Also in John, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ crucifixion occurs on the day of preparation of the Passover (John 19:14) rather than on the Passover holiday itself. Here Jesus prepares himself for the departure to the Father and seems to be in complete control of his destiny, even to the extent of commending his mother to the Beloved Disciple (John 19:26–27).

Contemporary scholars suggest that the Gospel of John ended originally with the discovery of the empty tomb by the women and other disciples (John 20:1–10), Jesus’s appearance to them (John 20:11–18), and the narrative of “Doubting” Thomas (John 20.24–29). The last two verses contain what many scholars think may have been the Gospel’s ending: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

Many scholars consider John chapter 21 to be a later addition to the Gospel. It not only contains resurrection appearances in Galilee, but it also emphasizes the authority of the Beloved Disciple, who likely died a normal death in contrast to Peter’s martyrdom (see John 21.15–23). Quite possibly, this appendix reflects a controversy among the second or third generation of believers, some of whom may have considered the Beloved Disciple inferior to Peter. Chapter 21 reinforces the Beloved Disciple’s role as THE authorized witness of the Jesus tradition for the Johannine community.

For us today, the courageous and confident Jesus is our hope and our inspiration. Across two thousand years he is saying that we too, in our contemporary world of war, conflict, and social & political unrest, can and must be courageous and confident as we work together and move forward. 

As Jesus says in this week’s Gospel: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” – (John 14:27)

Jack

P.S. Next week some thoughts about contemporary U.S. Christian nationalism.

The Gospel of Luke gives us one of the longest, most detailed accounts of Jesus’ life. In Luke 1:3, the author declares his intention to write a “carefully ordered account” for the “Most Excellent” Theophilus, after investigating everything from the beginning. The account was written to provide certainty and a firm grasp on the truth of the events about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

As we have seen, the Gospel of Mark most likely written in the late 60s to early 70s CE, focused on the mostly Gentile Christian community in Rome. The Gospel of Matthew, composed between 80 and 90 CE, was more focused on the Hebrew-Christian community in Antioch.

The Gospel of Luke, also composed between between 80 and 90 CE, stresses that Christianity is just as much a way of life for Gentile-Christians as it is for Hebrew-Christians. Luke stressed, as well, that Christianity called for legal recognition in the Roman Empire. The Gospel of Luke is strongly focused on themes of healing and reconciliation. Both so greatly needed today.

Contemporary scholars generally hold that the actual author of the Gospel of Luke is unknown. The earliest reference to the Gospel’s being authored by someone named “Luke” is from the Christian bishop Ireneaus of Lyon (c. 125-202), whose ministry was in the south of today’s France. His traditional attribution that the author was “Luke the physician” is now doubted by a significant number of researchers who believe this Gospel was written by an unknown and well-educated Gentile Christian late in the first century. Scholars doubt that Luke the physician, a companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke because the text shows historical inconsistencies with Paul’s own letters; and the portrait of Paul in Acts differs significantly from Paul’s own former Hebrew identity and apostolic authority.

The Gospel of Luke’s author came from a thoroughly Greco-Roman environment. Unlike the Gospel of Matthew’s author, however, he was not well-grounded in the Hebrew tradition. Scholars speculate on whether his account was written for a Christian community in Antioch or some other location in Asia Minor, like Ephesus or Smyrna. The Gospel of Luke and Acts of Apostles make up a two-volume work often called simply “Luke–Acts.” Both are addressed to the “Most Excellent” Theophilus.

Theophilus’ identity is unknown. Some scholars suggest he was a wealthy man who paid to have Luke-Acts written. Other biblical scholars have concluded that he was a Roman official who had been initiated into the church’s teachings, for whom the author of Luke now provided a full narrative.

Some scholars, however, suggest that since the name in Greek means “Friend of God,” both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description. Nevertheless, since the author of the Gospel addresses Theophilus specifically as “Most Excellent Theophilus,” I side with those who believe Theophilus was a particular historic person who supported the Luke-Acts author. He was most likely a Christian or prospective Christian, who needed an orderly account to confirm his faith’s historical reliability.

For documentation, Luke’s author drew from the Gospel of Mark and a collection of his own materials. Some scholars used to say that Luke’s author also drew from  “Q,” from the German word “Quelle,” meaning “source.” The “Q” theory was devised by German scholars in the nineteenth century. But this hypothetical written collection of Jesus’s sayings, once believed to have been used by Matthew and Luke, has been heavily debated and is now generally rejected by contemporary New Testament scholars.

Perspectives on Jesus:

The Gospel of Matthew saw Jesus as the fulfillment of Hebrew history. The author began his infancy narrative with a genealogy of Jesus from Abraham down to Joseph and Mary. The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, understands Jesus as the high point in all of human history. His genealogy, presented at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, runs backwards from Joseph to Adam.

Most people really ignore the differences found in the Jesus Infancy Narratives in Matthew, chapters 1 and 2, and Luke, chapters 1:5 to 2:52. They simply combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Nor do they know or realize that folkloric legends that began centuries after Jesus’ birth were added to the mix.

In Matthew we do find: the visit of the wise men, the star, and Herod’s plot to kill Jesus. These are not found in Luke however. In Luke, on the other hand, we find: the birth of John the Baptist, the shepherds, and the presentation of Jesus at the Temple. But these are not found in Matthew. The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities.

The American biblical scholar and Catholic priest, John Meier (1942 to 2022), often stressed that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is not to be taken as an historical fact. Meier described it as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” As I wrote in my reflection on the Gospel of Matthew a few weeks ago, many contemporary scholars presume Jesus was actually born in Nazareth.

Luke’s perspective is also more Mary-oriented than Joseph-oriented. In Matthew’s infancy narrative the light is on Joseph. In Luke’s account, it is Mary who shines. She is the one who hears and keeps God’s word. In Luke 1:46-55, we find Mary’s Song of Praise: “The Magnificat.”

Three particular themes draw my attention when re-reading Luke: women, building bridges, and religious hypocrisy:

WOMEN: In Luke, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), a 12-year-old girl (Luke 8:41-42, 49-56); a woman with a 12-year infirmity (verses 43-48); and a woman who had been crippled 18 years (Luke 13:10-17). In Luke we see Mary the Magdalen, an early disciple of Jesus. She sits before Jesus and listens to him. Her sister Martha complains to Jesus that Mary should be helping her with serving. Jesus replies: “Martha, Martha…it is Mary who has chosen the better part.” (Luke 10:38-42). In the Death and Resurrection accounts, women are the most important: Women were among those who observed the crucifixion (Luke 23:27, 49). Women prepared spices to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 23: 55-56). Women were the first to find Jesus’ tomb empty (Luke 24:1-3) and angels told them Jesus had been raised from the dead (Luke 24: 4-8). Women were the first to proclaim the Resurrection to Jesus’ other disciples (Luke 24: 9-11). Catholic upper-level ecclesiastics who still oppose women’s ordination should reflect on these passages.

BUILDING BRIDGES NOT WALLS: Luke’s stress on peace-making implied a new relationship with the Roman Empire. Dialogue had to start, and destructive polarization had to end. In Luke’s Infancy Narrative, the angelic messengers proclaim: “Good news of great joy for all people. To you is born this day . . . a Savior! . . . Peace on earth among those whom God favors!” (Luke 2:10-11,14). These words echo and go far beyond the Roman monument inscriptions that had praised Augustus Caesar (63 BCE-14 CE) as “god” and “savior.” Luke hereby stresses that Jesus had completed more fully and uniquely the work of Augustus. Later in this Gospel, Luke offsets the fact that Jesus was executed by the Romans, by having the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (who died after 36 CE) declare Jesus innocent three times (Luke 23:4,14,22). Only Luke, unlike Mark and Matthew, has the Roman centurion at the foot of the cross exclaim: “Surely, this man was innocent.” (Luke 23:47). Building bridges. In Luke’s narration, Herod Antipas (c. 20 BCE – c. 39 CE), who publicly identified himself as a Hebrew and was the 1^st century ruler of Galilee, and Pontius Pilate become unlikely friends, after being in Jesus’ presence (Luke 23:12). And finally, only in Luke’s Gospel does Jesus pray for forgiveness for his crucifiers (Luke 23:34).

RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY: Some observers accuse Luke of antisemitism, because he regularly shows Jesus criticizing some Hebrew religious leaders, who were Pharisees, scribes, and Levites. I think these critics miss the point. Jesus was not antisemitic. But Jesus was strongly critical of the arrogant religious hypocrisy of some of the religious elite in his day.

During Jesus’ time, the Pharisees were a prominent Hebrew religious group known for their strict adherence to the Law and were often viewed as overly legalistic. When invited to dine in the home of a Pharisee, for example, the religious leader accused Jesus of not washing ahead of time. Jesus replied: “Now then, you clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people!…give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you…you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God….Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.” (Luke 11:37-44).

Luke speaks strongly to our own contemporary society, in which many praise God but ignore the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. By way of example, contemporary U.S. political leaders are using religious language as manipulative rhetoric with no honest substance. Healthy religion limits what can be said in God’s name. Without those limits, God can be made to authorize and endorse anything — including hatred, murder, destruction, and a war in Iran.

Jack

[Next week we take a look at the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel of John is widely considered the most unique and distinctive of the four canonical Gospels, and categorized separately from the “Synoptic Gospels” (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). It is estimated that over 90% of the  material in John is unique, featuring different stories, a distinct chronological structure, and a higher, more philosophical focus on Jesus’s divinity and identity as the Son of God.]