Globally more voters than ever will head to the polls in 2024. At least 64 countries, representing a combined population of about 49% of the people in the world, will hold national elections. The results will be consequential for years to come.
In the United States, political-religious polarization continues to grow. A few days before the January 23rd New Hampshire Primary, the right-wing organization CatholicVote.org endorsed former President Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primary. The organization sees the former U.S. president as a great leadership “General” and “Someone who knows the truth and is willing to fight for it.” It is a dangerous time when we live in a world in which everyone has an opinion that is based on little or no trustworthy information.
According to NORC — the National Opinion Research Center — at the University of Chicago, confidence in U.S. democracy remains low. Most of the public think democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the presidential election next year, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.
We live in a time of tremendous socio-cultural change. As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, rising authoritarian “leaders” with their distorted dogmatism are a growing danger around the globe. Cheap slogans become truth statements. Fiction becomes reality. Authoritarian “leaders” — with their closed systems of power and authority — gradually or quickly shift into doing whatever they want, because too many people, anxious about social change, close their eyes, stop thinking, and unquestioningly submit to strong authoritarians who take charge but are fundamentally undemocratic, tyrannical, and immoral. As the authoritarian dictator Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) supposedly said “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”
The big challenge in the 2024 elections is evaluating the socio-political ethics of candidates for political office. Honesty, human rights, human dignity, compassion, and collaboration are the values that ethically healthy leaders promote.
This week I have five observations about the character traits of ethically unhealthy leaders. They are warning signs that should alert people and call for serious pre-election reflection.
1. Ethically unhealthy leaders care more about self-interest than other-interest. They set themselves above the rules that apply to others, seeking the upper hand rather than working with others collaboratively.
2. Ethically unhealthy leaders offer fantasy in place of reality, insults in place of inspiration, and rely on fear to gain the upper hand by stirring up conflict and inciting violence.
3. For ethically unhealthy leaders, power and control are far more important than respect and civility. Their key words and actions are what threatens, belittles, blames, shames, and physically or emotionally harms others.
4. Ethically unhealthy leaders separate people into bad and good categories – “them vs us.” The bad people are dangerous. They must be isolated or eliminated.
5. Ethically unhealthy leaders ignore ethics. For them the end justifies the means. They offer the same exception to their loyal supporters who behave unethically, saying they’ve done nothing wrong.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
The challenge for all of us is to really inform people and encourage them to critically evaluate candidates. The ethical issues are much bigger than whether or not a candidate says he or she is against abortion. Yes. We need to seriously discuss the abortion questions, but in this coming election the big questions are stressing the responsibility to be informed voters, to reflect and to evaluate a candidate’s integrity, trustworthiness, and competency.
Right now, I am thinking about the observation of the U.S. American writer Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992): “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
I am thinking as well about the warning of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (c. 424 – 348 BCE) who wrote: “The price good people pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil people.”
Doomsday scenarios are not my thing. But our challenge is very real.
Catholic Church leaders in Africa and Central Asia prohibit the blessing of same-sex couples, despite recent Vatican approval. In fact, Catholic bishops in several countries have objected to the Vatican’s, and Pope Francis’, recent approval of blessings for same-sex couples, underscoring the divisiveness of the issue in the global Catholic Church.
The Catholic bishops of Africa and Madagascar issued a unified statement refusing to follow the Vatican declaration allowing priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples and asserting that such unions are “contrary to the will of God.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a brief statement focusing mostly on its assertion that same-sex couples remain ineligible for liturgical blessings and reiterating the church’s position that marriage is a union of a man with a woman.
Some bishops in Germany and Belgium, however, have long defied the earlier Catholic Church ban on blessing same-sex unions, even going so far as to produce a rite of blessing for same-sex couples.
Anti-LGBTQ policies and punishments, elsewhere, remain strong. In Africa, for example, 33 of the 54 nations across the continent have laws that make same-sex activity a crime punishable with fines and even lengthy prison sentences. In Somalia and some of the states of Nigeria people can even be legally put to death for same-sex behavior.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, is still in effect and considers sexual activity between members of the same sex to be a grave sin and same-sex attraction as objectively disordered.
Nevertheless, on Monday, December 18, 2023, in an official declaration “Fiduciasupplicans” issued by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and approved by Pope Francis, it is now permissible for priests to bless same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies. [The “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (DDF) was originally founded by Pope Paul III in 1542 and was then known as the “Inquisition.”]
With this new declaration the DDF and Pope Francis have firmly established the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and remarried divorcees as a pastoral option. Pope Francis also emphasized, however, that blessing same-sex people should not be equated with blessing their sins! His remark reminded me of the earlier 2021 DDF declaration which had stated flat-out that the church couldn’t bless the unions of two men or two women because “God cannot bless sin.”
So now the Vatican takes small steps in the right direction? Time will tell. One of my theologian friends observed that the December 2023 DDF document is akin to kindly giving a glass of water to a starving person, but only a glass of water.
In any event, in view of recent developments, an historical-critical perspective is helpful…
LOOKING AT SACRED SCRIPTURE AGAIN
Up to now, the traditional religious condemnation of same-sex behavior had been based on: Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10. In the light of contemporary biblical scholarship, however, it is impossible to affirm that these texts provide a solid foundation for condemning same-sex behavior today.
The Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament texts should not be taken literally but should be interpreted in terms of the authors’ times, culture, and social contexts – an historical-critical interpretation.
The understanding, back when the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were composed, was that all human beings were naturally heterosexual and, therefore, any same-sex behavior was unnatural, a perversion, and immoral. That biblical assumption is now understood as incorrect, because some people are, by nature, same-sex oriented.
Relying upon the historical-critical method, it is clear that the traditional condemnation of same-sex behavior lacks legitimacy. Change does happen. The old understanding of human sexuality is time-bound. A new understanding has already begun taking shape. As an older Catholic historical theologian, I have often chuckled that in 1943, the year I was born, the Vatican endorsed a more critical study of Scripture based on an increase in historical knowledge. The Vatican recognized explicitly that “past ages” did not have “all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition.” Historical development.
No doubt the most influential biblical account leading to the condemnation of same-sex behavior has been the biblical account about Sodom in the book of Genesis (Genesis 19:1-28). A contextual exegesis, now agreed upon by most contemporary biblical scholars, shows that a same-sex condemnation based on the Sodom account is really not an accurate biblical interpretation. Scripture scholars today are in agreement that Inhospitality was the real sin of Sodom. The residents of Sodom refused to offer shelter to the two visiting angels who entered their city that evening.
If one asks why God would destroy Sodom because of inhospitality, one must realize that hospitality in ancient Near Eastern culture was highly valued. Travelers were vulnerable to all kinds of cruel treatment such as robbery, assault, rape, and murder. The clearer sin in both the Hebrew text and the original Hebrew context was the sin of inhospitality. Even the historical Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, affirmed this inhospitality interpretation, in his reference to Sodom when his disciples were not welcomed in a town with hospitality. (Luke 10:8-12)
A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE
The heterosexual – “other-sex” – orientation is an innate, deep-seated, and stable orientation to, predominantly, persons of the opposite sex. It is natural. The homosexual – “same-sex” – orientation is a similarly innate, deep-seated, and stable orientation to, predominantly, persons of the same sex. It is natural. A person’s sexual orientation is neither chosen nor readily changeable. It simply is. And… sexual acts – whether heterosexual or homosexual – are moral when they are natural and expressed in a truly human, just, and loving manner.
FOR FURTHER READING
Creighton University theologians, Todd A. Salzman (who completed his doctorate in theology at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1994) and Michael G. Lawler, have written extensively about Catholic sexual morality. I strongly recommend their book The Sexual Person, Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology, Georgetown University Press, 2008. Their book provides a helpful context for current ethical debates about marriage, cohabitation, sexual orientation, and reproductive technologies.
Todd and Michael contend that the Catholic Church is inconsistent in its teaching. It adopts a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology on social ethics; but it still adopts a static, classicist anthropology on sexual ethics. They propose a definition of human sexuality that finds love and truth in all just and loving heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual acts.
Historical-critical thinking is important. We observe. We reflect. We can change.
This week some more thoughts about actions in the New Year…
A good friend sent me a note about my “Another Voice” post of last week:
“Most of our words are too hollow for conveying the meaning of all that is rushing us along. For the sake of loving our grandchildren, I hope we can find, in one another’s voices, the new words that are beacons for digging through the rubble of what is happening, for sustaining life when we find it, and bringing new hope– hand to hand– for personal wholeness and social cohesion where the old civilization has crumbled once again.”
Our language is important and meaningful language springs from thoughtful observations about meaningful life experiences.
I have seven observations and questions:
1 The historical Jesus, whose Hebrew name was Yeshua, belonged to the Hebrew faith tradition and had a keen knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. He did not establish a new religion. He did not set up a church. His disciples worked out those things later. Jesus lived and called people to a new way of life. His early followers were called “followers of the Way” because the early Jesus movement was known as “The Way” (Acts 9:2; Acts 24:14). The name “Christianity” did not occur until Antioch, several years after Jesus’ resurrection. (Acts 11:27).
— Thought-starter: How do we live and promote the Way of Jesus today? How can we best live and describe it? How can we really inspire and motivate people? Are so many of our traditional words too hollow? Why are so many people dropping out of Christianity? While Christianity is currently the predominant religion in Latin America, Europe, Canada and the United States, the religion is declining in many of these areas, particularly in Western Europe, North America, and Oceania.
2 Historically, in Jesus’ days a rabbi would begin to take on students at the age of 30. It was at the age of 30 that Jesus, we believe, began his public ministry. Jesus’ disciples were not a group of middle-aged men but a group of young men and women, probably under the age of eighteen and some perhaps as young as 15. They were inspired by his example, teaching, and wisdom.
— Thought-starter: Where do young men and women today get their Christian inspiration? What do we need to do? Whose wisdom do they admire today? Do we understand their life experiences and their language? How can we speak meaningfully to them about Jesus?
3 As the post-Resurrection community of Jesus’ disciples and followers began to grow, non-Hebrew members also joined.
— Thought-starter: How do we welcome God-seekers today – young and old — especially those turned-off by organized religion?
4 Post-Resurrection followers of Jesus had growing concern about passing on the heritage of Jesus the Christ to future generations. This called for religious structuring: the composition of the Gospels AND the formation of Christian faith communities with their own rituals, symbols, and leadership.
— Thought-starter: What kinds of institutional structuring and re-structuring do we need today, especially in view of institutional misogyny, clericalism, and doctrinal rigidity? Is it helpful, for example, to say priests can bless same-sex couples but that their sexual expression, according to the Catholic Catechism is still “intrinsically disordered”? Why not simply acknowledge that same sex unions can indeed be healthy marriages?
5 In the earliest Christian communities men and women held leadership roles and presided at celebrations of Eucharist. At first there was no ordination. No separate clergy. Later ordination was introduced, not to transfer some kind of sacramental power but for quality control. Only qualified men and women could lead Christian communities.
— Thought-starter: How do we provide quality-controlled Christian leadership today? Should we have annual performance appraisals for clergy and bishops? And if they don’t pass? Should parish councils interview candidates and select their own pastors?
6 Religion is not faith. Religion is a system of beliefs, rituals, and symbols designed to help people understand their faith experience. We use religion. We don’t worship it. Religion is healthy when it points to the Sacred. It is unhealthy when it only points to itself not to the Sacred.
—Thought starter: Are our religious words, rituals, and symbols pointing people to the Sacred? How should they be adapted today?
7 What about our official statements of belief? Our creeds? The Nicene Creed, is accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. It was promulgated – at the insistence of Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337 CE — at the Council of Nicaea (325). Curiously, the Nicene Creed says nothing about what Jesus had taught, beyond the idea that God is a Father. It says nothing about loving one another, about compassion, or forgiveness, or helping the poor and needy, or renouncing violence, or building bridges with one’s enemies. Thanks to Constantine and his Council of Nicaea, institutional Christianity shifted its identity focus from correct Christian conduct to doctrinal fidelity and institutional obedience. It was indeed a major shift.
—Thought starter: How do we make a changed institutional focus? A focus on Jesus-style Christian conduct? Is it time for a new statement of belief? This may take some time yet for the institutional churches, but it will happen. Right now, however, how about gathering a group of friends and writing your own creed? I once asked a group of my university students to do that. The results were amazing and deeply moving. Much better than what Constantine’s fourth century bishops came up with.
We are historically conscious people. We realize that the present and the future come to us out of our past. What happened yesterday — and what we did yesterday — shapes what happens today. What happens today, of course, shapes tomorrow.
We move along as we grow and change. In 1942, T. S. Eliot (1888 – 1965) wrote the following words in his poem Little Gidding: “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice.” Eliot’s words inspired my blog “Another Voice” which I launched in 2010. My focus, as an historical theologian, has been contemporary religious and ethical issues. I am not all-knowing and readily admit that I am not infallible, but I do try to stay alert to new biblical and historical discoveries, and my eyes open to what is happening today.
A friendly reader suggested, once again, that I “avoid politics and stick to theology.” I understand his concern, but I would also stress that our contemporary Christian responsibility is to be critical observers about all aspects of our shared human life. Politics, especially today, warrants critical observation and commentary from a Christian values perspective.
So, we move on into the New Year…
In 2024, I hope that with all our voices we can discover the truth that is so often hidden or totally distorted in news reports, far-right and far-left political and religious rhetoric, and in social media. I am thinking right now, for example, about the billionaire megalomaniac who bought Twitter in October 2022 and transformed it into “X” which quickly became a haven for disinformation, white supremacism, and Neo-Nazi sympathizers.
Yes, we need to work together to combat ignorance. But as the Irish playwright and political activist, George Bernard Shaw (1850 – 1956), often said: “Beware of false knowledge. It is more dangerous than ignorance.” Authoritarian leaders, in their authoritarian dogmatism, thrive on false knowledge and denigrate — and often destroy — people anchored in critical observation and critical thinking.
Authoritarian dogmatism of course destroys democracy. The big challenge around the globe in 2024, will be selecting and promoting honest, well-informed, and critical-thinking leaders. In this new year we may very well see one of the starkest erosions of liberal democracy since the end of the Cold War.
In Europe, extreme nationalist and far-right parties are growing in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, and even Finland and Sweden.
Globally, more voters than ever will head to the polls in 2024. At least 64 countries, representing a combined population of about 49% of the people in the world, will hold national elections. The results will be consequential for years to come.
In the United States, of course, elections are scheduled for November 5, 2024. On January 8th President Biden already launched his re-election campaign with a strong speech at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Meanwhile the 45th president and his far-right-Christian supporters have launched his re-election campaign, proclaiming him a “sent by God” messianic figure who will MAGA — “Make America Great Again.” Well, the election year 2024 is already in full swing. [Although many of his supporters believe the 45thpresident created the loaded slogan, MAGA, it was popularized by Ronald Reagan as a campaign slogan in his 1980 presidential campaign.]
Twenty twenty-four will truly be an historic U.S. election year. The people of the United States will be deciding if their country will remain a real democracy or succumb instead to neofascism and autocracy. During this presidential election year, the president and vice president will be elected. In addition, all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested to determine the membership of the 119th United States Congress.
We need to courageously denounce the purveyors of misinformation and absolute falsehood. As Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948) once famously said: “non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.” We need to support, defend, and encourage good leadership.
We need to help build and support communities of truth-seekers and truth-speakers, within our friendship groups, parish communities, and professional associates. As we do this, we must emphasize the key values for communities of trust and truth:
(1) A focus on the human heart not just the brain: stressing active care, concern, and compassion for others. Jesus stressed love of neighbor. He didn’t say “just think nice thoughts about the other.”
(2) An openness to the deeper dimensions of our human experience. Call this a kind of meditative spirituality. Reality is much richer and more amazing than many people realize. Creator is with us, calling us to be creative.
(3) A stress on critically questioning all the information that bombards us day and night. Is everything now relative and up for grabs? What does the search for truth mean today?
(4) A stress on the genuine human values of fairness, trustworthiness, and honesty.
My warmest regards as we journey into this New Year. We do not have to be pessimists. But we do have to be observant and thoughtful and constructive realists.
Jack
PS And I want to sincerely thank all who responded to my 2023 Another Voice annual appeal.
And may we all help each other to be critical observers and thinkers.
May we strive to find and tell the truth in a society disfigured by popular illusions, lies, and falsehood. May we work together to find hope for people living in fear and despair.
As we prepare for Christmas 2023 celebrating the birth of Jesus, our contemporary world is shaken by political turmoil and violent warfare. Nevertheless, for more than two thousand years, the abiding spirit of Jesus has called all of us to a new way of living. Jesus was kind and caring to everybody. What bothered him was any system, civil or religious, that caused people to suffer.
The dangerous polarization of so much in our society, including religion, has claimed many victims. But Jesus’ presence and message remain our hope and our challenge today and for tomorrow.
We need to be alert to what is happening. And we need to act.
As my friend Archbishop Jean Jadot (1909 – 2009), Apostolic Delegate to the U.S.A. from 1973 to 1980, often reminded me: “Now is the time to look ahead. Just as we can look at the sky at night and tell what the morning will bring, so we must be able to read the signs of the times to prepare for the future.”
May we keep our eyes open. The future is in our hands.
“As long as there are people, Christ will walk the earth as your neighbor, as the one through whom God calls you, speaks to you, makes demands on you.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 – 1945): Reflections on Advent and Christmas.
My very best wishes for Christmas 2023 and the New Year! Jack
As we prepare for Christmas 2023 celebrating the birth of Jesus, our contemporary world is shaken by political turmoil and violent warfare. Nevertheless, for more than two thousand years, the abiding spirit of Jesus has called all of us to a new way of living. Jesus was kind and caring to everybody. What bothered him was any system that caused people to suffer.
Jesus’ presence and message remain our hope and our challenge today and for tomorrow.
We need to be alert to what is happening. And we need to act.
As my friend Archbishop Jean Jadot (1909 – 2009), Apostolic Delegate to the U.S.A. from 1973 to 1980, often reminded me: “Now is the time to look ahead. Just as we can look at the sky at night and tell what the morning will bring, so we must be able to read the signs of the times to prepare for the future.”
May we keep our eyes open. The future is in our hands.
“As long as there are people, Christ will walk the earth as your neighbor, as the one through whom God calls you, speaks to you, makes demands on you.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 – 1945): Reflections on Advent and Christmas.
My very best wishes for Christmas 2023 and the New Year! Jack
PS: Another Voice will return in mid-January 2024. Artwork today by Anthony VanArsdale
General Observations: 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 the Fourth Gospel.
Symbolism is very important in John, where we do not see proverbs and parables but symbolic discourses. Jesus’ miracles are designed to provide symbolic insight into Jesus’ identity and his relationship to the Father. In the Johannine Gospel, Jesus is clearly the Wisdom of God, the source of eternal life, and still continually living within the community of faith.
John’s Audience: Scholars like Pheme Perkins, professor of theology at Boston College, emphasize that the author of John presumes that much of the narrative about Jesus and its people and places were already well known to the Johannine 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 Fourth Gospel then is a call to re-examine their lives as followers of the Risen Lord. That challenge of course rings true for us today as well.
Jesus’ Public Ministry in John: According to the Johannine Gospel, Jesus’ public ministry 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 — with most of his ministry taking place within one year.
John uses a “post-resurrection” point of view. The author looks back on the Jesus events and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things that were happening at the time they occurred. See for instance: John 2:17-22, where there are obvious references to the Resurrection, “He was speaking of the sanctuary that was his body, and after he rose from the dead his disciples remembered.” John 12:16-17, “At the time his disciples did not understand this but later, after Jesus had been glorified, they remembered….” And John 20:9, “Until this moment they had failed to understand the teaching of scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” Perhaps we do not always clearly see and understand?
John’s Prologue: The gospel’s prologue (John 1:1-18) is most likely an elaboration of an early hymn. In the prologue, the gospel identifies Jesus as the Logos meaning divine Wisdom: God’s companion and intimate helper in creation. [Jerome (c.347 – 419), the early Christian biblical translator, mistranslated the Greek logos into the Latin verbum – meaning “word” in English.] Many scholars suggest that the prologue was added after the gospel had been completed.
Authorship and Locality: The old tradition, from the second century, was that the author was the apostle John, son of Zebedee. Most contemporary scholars are not of this opinion. Scholars such as Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998) believed that the original author of an oral tradition, that evolved into the Johannine Gospel, was a companion of Jesus, the “Beloved Disciple,” who formed a community, most probably in Ephesus. Scholars call this “the Johannine community.” 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 gospel composition date of between 90 and 110 CE. We don’t know who the “Beloved Disciple” was. There is quite a variety of scholarly opinions: a truly unknown disciple, the Apostle John, James the brother of Jesus, or even Mary the Magdalene, the “apostle to the apostles.”
Community Religious Issues: The Johannine community was greatly concerned with the church–synagogue debate and defined itself primarily in contrast to the Hebrew tradition. The final version of the gospel was composed after the crisis created by the expulsion of Christians from the synagogue. The Judaean criticism is strong; and, over the centuries, some have incorrectly used the Johannine Gospel as an excuse for anti-Semitism. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is unfortunate that English translators have so often used the words “Jew” and “Jews,” when “Judaean” and “Judaeans” would have been more correct and less problematic.
As I re-read John last week: Three things really struck me: (1) the problem of authoritarian followers, (2) Jesus’ abiding presence in the community of faith, and (3) a courageous and confident Jesus – a genuine spiritual hero and inspiration.
Authoritarian Followers: 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 church 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: high school students demonstrating against guns and in support of trans students, “radical” feminists, Mexicans, migrants, and LGBTQ+ people.
Jesus’ presence in the community of faith: John 13:1-4 is a turning point in this gospel. 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 in John 13 is the Last Supper. Unlike the Synoptics, the Johannine Gospel has no mention 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.” (John 13:15)
Washing feet: 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 Johannine author did not mention the Eucharistic bread and wine because he 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 Johannine Gospel is very clear: the primary real presence of Jesus is in the community. Jesus is the vine and we are the branches (John 15); and we are to love one another. The branches cannot survive without the vine; but the vine cannot survive without the branches. The profound mystery of life. No one can do it alone… 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 final Johannine chapters contain the accounts of Jesus’s trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. 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 other three 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).
Resurrection: Contemporary scholars suggest that the Johannine Gospel 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)
Appendix: Many scholars consider John 21 to be a later addition to the Johannine 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.
And my concluding thoughts for this week: 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)
Early Christians did not focus on Jesus’ birth. The key Jesus-event for them was Easter. They rejoiced in their belief that Jesus was raised from the dead and entered a new form of life: promising new life for all who believed and followed him. Christians were and are Easter people.
It was not really until around 200 CE that Christians began to commemorate a Jesus birth date. Not at first on December 25 but on January 6. Most likely the earliest source for setting December 25 as the date for celebrating Jesus’ birth is a document written by Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235). Hippolytus was an important second-third century Christian theologian. Early Christians connected Jesus to Sun imagery through the use of such phrases as his being the “Sun of righteousness.” They Christianized and took over the Roman celebration of the winter solstice which was held on December 25.
New Testament accounts of the birth and early life of Jesus – the “Infancy Narratives” — are found only in Matthew 1:1 – 2:23 and Luke 1:5 – 2:52.
The Infancy Narratives are certainly not fairy tales. But they are not strictly historical either. Our Bible contains a variety of literary forms by which the truths of our faith are expressed and communicated. We find poetry, drama, symbolism, metaphors, imaginative recreations of past events, and varying degrees of historical narration. But the Bible is primarily about understanding our faith. It is not primarily a history book. I resonate with the observation by the biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan: “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”
Most people today ignore the differences found in Jesus’ birth accounts in Matthew and Luke. They simply combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Very importantly they don’t know or realize that folkloric legends that arose centuries after Jesus’ birth get thrown into the mix.
Most of our contemporary Jesus-birth imagery comes actually from the Catholic friar Francis of Assisi (c.1181 – 1226). Francis created the Christmas Creche tradition. That tradition originated in Greccio, Italy, where Francis had visited a community to celebrate Christmas. Francis had wanted to create a scene that would be symbolic of Jesus’ birth and that would leave an everlasting impact on those in attendance. He therefore prepared a manger, which was a feeding trough for farm animals, and hay. He even brought an ox and donkey to where he prepared the altar, on which placed a statue of baby Jesus. The scenery had clearly symbolized the poverty and plainness that was associated with Jesus’ birth into the world.
Three kings? Neither Matthew nor Luke mentions “three kings.” Matthew mentions “wise men,” magoi in Greek, from which we get the English word “magi.” Although the “magi” are now commonly referred to as “kings,” there is nothing in Matthew that implies that they were rulers of any kind. In addition, nowhere in the New Testament do we find them called “Balthasar, Melchior, and Casper.” Those names are creations from the 8th century CE.
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 U.S. American biblical scholar and Catholic priest, John Meier (1942 – 2022), often stressed that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is not to be taken as an historical fact. Meier describes it as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about his birth in Bethlehem, because King David (c. 1010 – c. 970 BCE) was born and raised in Bethlehem.
The Bethlehem Church of the Nativity, built in the fourth century CE and located in the West Bank, Palestine, is built over a cave where supposedly Mary gave birth to Jesus. The church was originally commissioned by Constantine the Great (c. 272 – 337 CE) a short time after his mother Helena’s visit to Jerusalem and Bethlehem in 325–326 CE. Helena had been instructed by her son to find important Christian places and artifacts, since Christianity was becoming the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. She hired “helpful” tour guides.
Helena paid her tour guides very well, and they came up with creative “discoveries” for her that greatly pleased her son Constantine. Helena’s tour guides found the a bunch of old bones called the “relics of the Magi.” They were kept first in Constantinople; but then moved to Milan. Eight centuries later, in 1164, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa took the “relics of the Magi” and gave them to the Archbishop of Cologne. Whatever they really are – and there has been great debate about that since 1864 when the remains were examined — the relic’s are still in Cologne Cathedral, which I have visited many times, behind the main altar.
[Helena’s tour guides also found for her: three pieces of wood said to be actual pieces of the “True Cross,” two thorns, said to be from Jesus’ crown of thorns, a piece of a bronze nail, said to be from the crucifixion itself. And finally, they found a piece of wood said to be from the sign Pontius Pilate was said to have erected over Jesus when he was crucified.]
Some differences in Infancy Narratives: Unlike the infancy narrative in Luke, Matthew mentions nothing about a census, nothing about a journey to Bethlehem, and nothing about Jesus’ birth in a stable. In Matthew, after Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, the Wise Men from the east visit Baby Jesus at Joseph and Mary’s house in Bethlehem. They were led there by a star, to fulfil the Hebrew Scriptures prophecy of Micah 5:2, that a ruler for Israel would come from Bethlehem. Most contemporary scholars do not consider Matthew’s story about a star leading the Wise Men to Jesus to have been an historical event. The ancients believed that astronomical phenomena were connected to terrestrial events. Linking a birth to the first appearance of a star was consistent with a popular belief that each person’s life was linked to a particular star.
According to Luke, a census was called for throughout the Roman Empire. It meant that Joseph and a very pregnant Mary – probably between 12 and 16 years old — had to go to Bethlehem, since Joseph was of the “house of David.” When they got there, there was “no room for them in the inn,” and so Jesus was born and put in the stable’s manger. (Some people really don’t know that a manger is a feeding trough for animals. The English word comes from the Old French word mangier — meaning “to eat” — from the Latin mandere, meaning “to chew.”)
Difficulties in Luke: There are major difficulties in accepting Luke’s Roman census account. First it could not have happened in the days of King Herod, who had died in 4 BCE. Luke refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was not appointed as the governor of Syria until 6 CE, when Herod had already been dead for ten years. In addition, according to the annals of ancient Roman history, no such census under Caesar Augustus ever took place. In fact, there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus. More importantly, no Roman census ever required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors. A census of Judaea, therefore, would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.
Luke clearly followed the models of historical narrative which were current in his day. He needed an explanation for bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there. Let’s call the journey to Bethlehem an example of Luke’s “creative historical imagination.”
In Luke, we have no Wise Men, as we saw in Matthew, but angels appear to lowly shepherds, telling them to go visit Baby Jesus. The angels then sing out the famous words of the Gloria: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, and good will toward all people.”
Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth. Then forty days after his birth, Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem to complete Mary’s ritual purification after childbirth. Mary and Joseph simply followed the regulations in Leviticus 12:1-8. The holy family then returned to their home in Nazareth. (Notice that Luke makes no mention of a trip to Egypt.)
Luke’s Infancy Narrative concludes with a story of the very bright twelve-year-old Jesus. While on a trip to Jerusalem, Mary and Joseph lose Jesus. They later find him in the temple astounding the temple teachers with his understanding.
Today of course – more than two thousand years later – we too are astounded and encouraged not just by Jesus’ understanding but by his vision and his spirit that truly animates us and gives us hope for today and tomorrow.
Next week we take a look at the Gospel According to John.
Jack
_____________
And today I make my final announcement about Another Voice donations.
While Mark focused on the mostly Gentile Christian community in Rome and Matthew was more focused on the Hebrew-Christian community in Antioch, Luke stresses that Christianity is a way of life for Gentile as well as Hebrew-Christian believers.
Richard McBrien (1936 – 2015) Catholic priest and professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame wrote: “The Christian who will not live the Gospel cannot hope to understand it.” Luke teaches us how to live the Good News and understand it.
Luke is about a compassionate and loving God; and has a strong focus on healing and reconciliation: actions so greatly needed in our own contemporary society. Right now I am thinking about the Compassionate Samaritan who loved his enemy and had compassion on him.
Certainly, Luke’s stories of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost sons and the compassionate father, representing God — verses 15:1-32 – are a must read for a complete presentation of who God is. As a biblical-expert friend said recently, these verses represent “The Greatest Story Ever Told by Yeshua – who God really is.”
Luke’s author was a highly educated Gentile Christian who came from a thoroughly Greco-Roman environment. Unlike Matthew’s author he was not well-grounded in the Hebrew tradition. Scholars speculate on whether his “ordered account” was written for a Christian community in Antioch or some other location in Asia Minor, like Ephesus or Smyrna.
Luke and the Acts of Apostles make up a two-volume work often called simply Luke–Acts; and they are addressed to the “most excellent” Theophilus (Friend of God). For documentation, Luke’s author drew from the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the “Q” source, and a collection of material called the “L” (for Luke) source. The author is not named in either volume, but a tradition dating from the 2nd century suggested that the author was the Luke who was a companion of Paul. While this view is still occasionally put forward, many biblical scholars today question that supposition. There are significant contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters. Textual analysis suggests that Luke-Acts was written not earlier than 80–90 CE; and most likely as late as 90–110 CE, because the text was still being revised well into the 2nd century.
Last week I stressed that Matthew saw Jesus as the fulfillment of Hebrew history. He began his infancy narrative with a genealogy of Jesus from Abraham down to Joseph and Mary. Luke, on the other hand, understands Jesus as the high point in all human history. His genealogy is presented at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry and runs backwards fromJoseph to Adam.
Luke 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. (Next week we will take a closer look at the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke.)
What strikes you, as you re-read this gospel? Three themes caught my attention: women, building bridges, and religious hypocrisy.
WOMEN: Luke offers a unique focus and portrayal of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in her commitment to the will of God. In Luke 1:46-55, Mary’s Song of Praise – called in Latin the Magnificat — inspires us all. Perhaps we really can’t appreciate the boldness of Luke in centering the nativity story on a woman, let alone telling it from her point of view. It i certainly in contrast to the usual — and the norm for that time — male dominated Matthew account. Luke pairs most male stories with a female story. He outdoes the Gospel of John in portraying God as a woman in the search for the lost coins. (Luke 15:8-10)
In Luke we see Mary, 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 Resurrection accounts, women not men are most important: Women were among those who observed the crucifixion (Luke 23:27, 49). Women prepared spices to anoint Jesus’ body (verses 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 (verses 4-8). Women were the first to proclaim the Resurrection to Jesus’ other disciples (verses 9-11).
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, 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 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 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 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 Hebrew religious leaders (Pharisees, scribes, and Levites). I think these critics miss the point. Jesus was strongly critical of the arrogant hypocrisy of the religiously elite in his day. 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 the religiously elite praise God and ignore the poor, the oppressed, the diseased, and the marginalized.
The Hebrew Scriptures contain countless exhortations about social justice for the poor, widows, orphans, and all the oppressed and downtrodden. Isaiah relates that God has grasped us by the hand and calls us for the victory of justice, to be light for the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, to free the captives, and to bring those who live in darkness into the light. Luke quotes that as Jesus (Yeshua) begins his ministry and as a duty of each of us. In Luke’s beatitudes, Jesus says: “Blessed are the poor,” and not poor in spirit as in Matthew.
A closing contemporary thought: Perhaps today’s Roman Catholic Church leaders should read and reflect on Luke’s “building bridges not walls.” The Roman Catholic Church is deeply divided right now. No doubt more so than it’s ever been in the six decades since the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). As journalist Robert Mickens observed recently, the fractures are most obvious on social media where priests, bishops and cardinals polarize and preach all along their ideological spectrum. “More importantly,” Mickens wrote on 18 November in La Croix International, “on what side ofdivide, or where along the spectrum, do the cardinals who will be casting ballots for the next pope line up?”
Jack
__________
And today I repeat my annual request for Another Voice donations, which help me cover blog, internet, and computer costs, and supplement my retirement income. I will repeat the announcement until early December. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. There are three ways readers can contribute:
(1) With US dollars check, from a US bank, sent to:
Another Voice 