Another Voice

This week an historical reflection about Christianity and power.

In the fourth century, Christianity emerged as an accepted and welcomed part of the Roman Empire. But, as the Christian religion, with strong Roman Empire support, developed a more defined institutional structure, a major paradigm shift was underway.

As happened back then, and still happens today, people and institutional leaders sometimes neither see nor understand the long-term implications of what they are getting into.

Before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge north of Rome in 312 CE, according to the early Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/265 – 339 CE), Constantine had a vision of a cross-shaped symbol formed from light above the sun at midday. Attached to it there was a text “By this conquer.”

Constantine’s vision, about which there are numerous historical questions, was interpreted as a promise of victory if the Chi Rho, the first two letters of Christ’s name in Greek, was painted on the soldiers’ shields. Eusebius reported that, fighting under the insignia of Christ, Constantine’s troops defeated Constantine’s fellow emperor Maxentius (c. 283 – 312) who drowned in the river Tiber.

Following the battle and the defeat and death of Maxentius, Constantine became the undisputed emperor in the West. Maxentius’ head was cut off and then triumphantly carried through the streets of Rome. Constantine’s victory over his rival, set the precedence for Christianity to resort to violence whenever necessary to achieve its goals.

Constantine converted to Christianity but was not baptized until shortly before his death in 337. Historians wonder if he really became a Christian or very pragmatically used the growing Christian religion to tie together his unsteady empire.

Constantine was certainly pragmatic and hoped to unify his Roman Empire by promoting just one religion for all. In 313 he issued the Edict of Milan, making Christianity one of the legally recognized religions in the Roman Empire. Then in 325 Constantine convened a council of all Christian bishops in Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). The bishops formulated the Nicene Creed – still used today — and demanded that all Christians accept it. For Constantine it was another step in unifying his empire.

Although Constantine died in 337, it was forty-three years after his death that his dream was realized with the 380 Edict of Thessalonica, which declared Nicene Christianity to be the ONLY legitimate religion for the Roman Empire. The result was that Church and State were becoming one. — Church leaders became imperial leaders in power, influence, courtly attire, and imperial protocol. Constantine had already made bishops administrators and civil judges in the Roman legal system.

Curiously, the Nicene Creed of 325 said nothing about what Jesus had taught, beyond the idea that God is Father. It said nothing about loving one another, nothing about compassion, or forgiveness, nothing about helping the poor and needy, and nothing about renouncing violence.

Post-Constantine church leaders forgot or simply ignored the ethical focus of the historic Jesus. Jesus did not overpower people, and Jesus taught by example not dogmatic decree.

Look at Luke 10:25-37: “Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’

But wanting to justify himself, the lawyer then asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’”

A contemporary thought: If fidelity to Christian doctrine is the sign of an authentic Christian, rather than correct Christian conduct, some very strangely behaving people today carry the label “Christian.” They can say “God sent me” but continue oppressing the poor, denigrating women, mishandling immigrant children, and destroying the environment. When “Christian” leaders ignore the ethic of Jesus, they become strange proclaimers of his Gospel.

Writing about the clash of Christianities, more than a hundred tears ago, Frederick Douglass (1818 – 1895), the U.S. American social reformer, abolitionist, and writer, said it very well: “Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.”

We need genuine Christian leaders but not self-protective and self-promoting power bosses. The Christian community is a community of men and women living and acting in the Spirit of Christ. They are a life-giving community of acceptance, concern, and care.

Throughout the coming months, I hope we can better appreciate the full picture of what it means to be a Christian. I hope we can become better informed, more collaborative in our decision-making, and more courageous in our critical words and constructive actions.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Current Research Focus: Religion and Values in U.S. Society

This week, on Saturday, we will have the 80th anniversary of the WWII Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 to 25 January 1945). There, 8,407 U.S. soldiers lost their lives, 46,170 were wounded and 20,905 declared missing. There were also an estimated 103,900 German casualties.

Next week, on Monday, we will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Auschwitz concentration camp liberation.

On 27 January 1945, Auschwitz, the Nazi concentration camp in occupied Poland was liberated by the Soviet Red Army. Historians estimate that more than a million people were “exterminated” in Auschwitz during the less than 5 years of its existence. The majority, around 1 million people, were Jewish. Although most of the prisoners had been killed, about 7,000 had been left behind. The date is now commemorated as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

But another commemoration, about which one does not hear much these days, is the 80th anniversary of the death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 – 1945).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor, theologian, and anti-Nazi dissident who was a key founding member of the Confessing Church, which arose in opposition to German government-sponsored efforts to unify all the Protestant churches into a single pro-Nazi German Evangelical Church

When I was a seminary student in Detroit, Michigan, one of my professors introduced me to Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison, first published in 1951. It was a mind-opening experience, for a very pious seminarian. The book was compiled by Bonhoeffer’s good friend, the German theologian and pastor, Eberhard Bethge (1909 – 2000). It is based on letters and papers that Bonhoeffer had written and received during his imprisonment at Tegel Prison, north of Berlin.

Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 by the Gestapo and imprisoned at Tegel Prison for 1½ years. Later, he was moved to Flossenbürg concentration camp, near the German border with what was then Czechoslovakia. At Flossenbürg, on April 9, 1945, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging.

One year before the Nazis executed him, Bonhoeffer had written to Bethge: “What is bothering me incessantly is the question about what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today.”

Bonhoeffer felt that the time had come for a “religionless Christianity,” because so much institutional religion seemed so alien to the Gospel. Today, I would say he was writing about the problem “churchianity.”

“During the last year or so,” Bonhoeffer continued, “I have come to know and understand more the profound this-worldliness of Christianity. The Christian is not a homo religiosus, but simply a human person as Jesus was a human person…I am still discovering, right up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith….By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes, failures, and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God. That, I think, is faith. And that is how one becomes a human and a Christian.”

We do not know how Bonhoeffer would have developed these ideas. I wish he could have lived longer. Ironically, he was executed just two weeks before soldiers from the United States 90th and 97th Infantry Divisions liberated the Flossenbürg camp. And a month before the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces on May 8, 1945, ending World War II in Europe.

History does not repeat itself, but some historic mistakes are often ignored and repeated.

We can indeed learn a few lessons from the Bonhoeffer era as we see abuses of power and the betrayals of leadership in our own days — inside and outside of the church.

Bonhoeffer was alarmed that so many Christian church leaders (Protestant and Catholic) openly supported Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945). He was even more alarmed that so many Christian men and women tacitly supported the inhumane Nazi regime through their own silence and inaction.

Adolf Hitler was baptized as a Catholic but was not at all a Christian believer. He and his Nazi party promoted “Positive Christianity,” a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines. His involvement in “Positive Christianity” was driven by opportunism and a pragmatic recognition of the political importance of the Christian churches. It was promoted as well by Nazi Party condemnation of criticism from a “lying press” during Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

In Hitler’s “Positive Christianity” and his exaggerated self-pride, Hitler and his Nazi zealots saw the Führer as the herald of a new revelation. He proclaimed Jesus as an “Aryan fighter” who struggled against “the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees.”

Joseph Goebbels (1897 – 1945), Reich Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, wrote in April 1941, in his diary, that although Hitler was a powerful opponent of the Vatican and Christianity, “…he forbids me to leave the church, for tactical reasons.” In his memoirs, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments Albert Speer (1905 – 1981) wrote that Hitler “…conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him.”

For further reading and reflection, I recommend a book by Doris L. Bergen: Between God and Hitler: Military Chaplains in Nazi Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2023).

Bergen’s work contributes to current scholarly inquiry into the behavior of Christian clergy during the Nazi era. How did Christian clergy respond to the persecution of Jews and individuals with disabilities? Bergen shows that the military chaplains were indifferent to their suffering. The desire to avoid opposing Nazi policy prevailed among military chaplains just as it did among most civilian clergy.  

History does not repeat itself, but some historic mistakes are often ignored and repeated….

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Current Research Focus: Religion and Values in U.S. Society

Thinking about next Monday’s U.S. presidential inauguration – which this year ironically coincides with Martin Luther King Jr. Day – I have been collecting my thoughts about authoritarian leaders and their followers.

Last week, on Friday January 10^th, the president-elect, in a court decision in Manhattan, received an unconditional discharge of his sentence, which formalizes his status as a felon and makes him the very first person in U.S. history to carry that distinction into the White House. 

The sentencing resulted from Mr. Trump’s conviction on charges of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his first campaign. Once the jury convicted Mr. Trump on all 34 felony counts, he had fought to avoid the spectacle of a sentencing, but the Supreme Court rejected his effort to block it.

Over the years I have had a number of encounters — and a few conflicts — with authoritarian leaders and followers, in ecclesiastical settings but in academia as well. What I learned, early on, is that authoritarian followers are highly submissive to authoritarian leaders and aggressively insist that everyone should behave as dictated by the authority. They are fearful about a changing world and a changing society which they neither understand nor want to understand. They would rather turn the clock back to some imagined golden era because it makes them feel safe and comfortable.

Authoritarian leaders are coercive and dictatorial. What they want to implement is hardly democratic and quite often tyrannical. They become even more sinister, when they begin to proclaim their message in the name of Christianity. Then, in reality their authoritarianism becomes an anti-Christian virus. That anti-Christian virus is very real today.

The Authoritarian Personality:

(1) In their self-righteous efforts to re-shape society in their own image and likeness, authoritarians feel empowered and compelled to isolate, to humiliate, and to persecute.

(2) If an authoritarian leader has a narcissistic personality disorder, he or she may come across as conceited, boastful, or pretentious. That person belittles or looks down on people he or she perceives as inferior.

(3) Authoritarian followers need to conform and belong to their barrel-vision-group. Loyalty to their group ranks among their highest virtues. Members of the group who question group leaders or group beliefs are quickly seen as traitors.

(4) All authoritarians go through life with impaired reasoning. Their thinking is sloppy, and they are slaves to a ferocious dogmatism that blinds them to evidence and logic. As Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) said, “What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

(5) Authoritarians are surprisingly uninformed about the things they say they believe in. Deep, deep down inside, many have secret doubts about their own core beliefs. In somewhat the same way that some publicly outspoken critics of homosexuality, are often unwilling to acknowledge their own same-sex inclinations and actions.

Change is Necessary and Possible:

Today we need to be well-informed and critical-thinking observers who are willing to courageously collaborate with others as effective change agents.

(1) We need to have a clear and correct vision of reality. Dialogue is important here because it must be a shared vision. We listen, we see, and we explore together. And we build and we re-build together.

(2) We need to be courageous and persistent but patient as well. Change does not happen overnight. Many people get frustrated when change does not happen fast enough. The danger is that they lose sight of the vision as something that can really be achieved. Effective change agents need to help people see that every step forward is a step closer to the goal.

(3) We need to show that we are about more than just nice-sounding rhetoric. Effective change agents need credibility. If one wants to create change, one must not only be able to articulate what that change would look like but show it to others.

(4) We must build strong relationships built on trust. All the points above, mean nothing if one does not have solid relationships with collaborators. People will not want to grow and change if they do not trust the person who is pushing for change.

(5) And finally: We must not allow ourselves to become and act like the authoritarians. Nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in creating broad-based change than violent campaigns. Empathy and compassion are Christ-like. Hatred and denigration of other people are tokens of the anti-Christ.

For further reading, I recommend: The Age of The Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy around the World – by Gideon Rachman.

And I conclude this reflection with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. – “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Current Focus: Religion and Values in U.S. Society

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

On December 23, 2024, New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in an interview that President-elect Trump “takes his Christian faith seriously.”

Cardinal Dolan’s remark prompts me to begin my 2025 Another Voice reflections, with two brief observations about religion: first, that there has always been healthy as well as unhealthy religion. Secondly, that all religions, including Christianity, go through a 4-stage evolution that often gets repeated more than once. As the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886 – 1968) so often said: Ecclesia semper reformanda est (Latin for “the Church must always be reformed.”

Healthy and unhealthy religion:

Healthy religion is not about using and manipulating people. The historic Jesus did not exercise power over people but empowered them to build bridges between people, promoting mutual respect and support for all people. Unhealthy religion builds walls and creates barriers separating people into qualitative classes. It relies on prejudice, ignorance, and false information, as it promotes hatred and cruelty through racism, misogyny, and homophobia.

Healthy Christianity is about searching, asking questions, and collaborative religious exploration, as people reflect on the Divine Presence in their lives.

All religions go through a 4-stage evolution.

In stage one, they begin with an energetic, charismatic, and loosely structured foundation phase, in which faith communities develop where people live in the spirit of the founder. In the history of Christianity, we see this first stage in the early Christian communities, characterized by creativity. Men as well as women presided at Eucharistic celebrations and women and men were leaders in early Christian communities. The historical Jesus did not ordain anyone because ordination did not exist in his lifetime.

The second stage arrives when the original disciples begin to die-off and people become concerned about passing-on their faith heritage to the next generation. In stage two, beliefs are written down, sacred scriptures (like Paul’s letters and the Four Gospels) take a set form, and specific rituals, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are more uniformly established.

Ordination is created by the Christian community not to pass on “sacramental power” but as a quality control procedure – to ensure that the leaders were qualified and trustworthy.

Stage three arrives, often many years later. Religious shortsightedness gradually sets in and the institution and its leaders become the focus.

Doctrinal statements, rituals, and church structures that once pointed to the Sacred and sustained people now become, in stage three, narrow restraints and barriers to growth and life.  

The church which once pointed to God now begins to point more to institutional leaders. People start being evaluated more in terms of obedience to ecclesiastical authority and unquestioned acceptance of authoritarian teaching.

Richard Rohr (b. 1943), U.S. Franciscan priest and writer on spirituality, has often described what happens to Christianity in stage three: “We morph into “Churchianity” more than any genuine transformative Christianity.”

Then, when enough people see what is happening, we move into stage four: reformation.

Today’s reformation involves all Christian traditions, not just the Roman Catholic tradition. In the current reformation, we need to move from a talked-about religion to a practice-based religion—with the focus on how we live and grow in our relationship with the Divine and with each other.

In our reformation work in 2025, all Christian churches need to focus on: a better understanding of Scripture and Christian history, and a genuine involvement and concern about issues such as human suffering, healing, poverty, environmentalism, social justice, inclusivity, care for the outsider, and political oppression. We need to form critically-observing reform groups, who see, judge, and then act. Big issues await us.

My warmest regards as we move ahead.

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick — Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

This week’s reflection is adapted from a Christmas homily, given some years ago by Fr. Richard Rohr, an old acquaintance and collaborator, a well-known writer on spirituality, and the founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

*******

“And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” – John 1:14

I know because it is Christmas you are hoping for some very special meditation. I do not think I have one, because there is really only one message. We just have to keep saying it until finally we are open enough to hear it and to believe it. There is no separation between God and creation. That is the message…

And so, this Word, this Eternal Word of God that we read about in the prologue to John’s Gospel, took its abiding place on Earth, to heal every bit of separation that we experience. That separation is the sadness of humanity.

When we feel separate, when we feel disconnected, when we feel split from our selfs, from family, from reality, we can become depressed people. We know we were not created for that separateness. We were created for union.

So, God sent into the world the one who would personify that union—who would put human and divine together, who would put spirit and matter together. That is what we spend our whole life trying to believe: that this ordinary earthly sojourn means something.

Sometimes we wake up in the morning wondering, what does it all mean? What’s it all for? What was I put here for? Where is it all heading?

I believe it is all a school. And it is all a school of love. And everything is a lesson — everything. Every day, every moment, every visit to the grocery store, every moment of our so-ordinary life is meant to reveal: I am a daughter of God. I am a son of the Lord. I am a sibling of Christ. It is all okay. I am already home free. There is no place I have to go. I am already here.

“And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”

My very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

And sincere thanks to all who contributed to my annual appeal.

I will return to Another Voice on January 8, 2025.

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

This week, a post a day earlier than usual. Too many things going on right now with my pre-Christmas classes.

The Infancy Narratives are not strictly historical, but creative images to convey theological understandings.

The Scriptures are primarily about understanding our faith. They are not primarily a history book. I resonate with the observation by the Irish-American biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan (born 1934): “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.”

Our Sacred Scriptures have 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.

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 do not know or realize that folkloric legends that arose centuries after Jesus’ birth get thrown into 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 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 (c.248 – 330) 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 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 relics are still in Cologne Cathedral, which over the years I have visited many times.

[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 fulfill 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. But 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 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 creative 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. This story echoes Roman heroic leaders like Augustus (16 BCE – 14 CE). At the age of 12, Augustus delivered the funeral speech for his grandmother Julia Caesaris, much to the amazement of all present.

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.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

The date of the birth of Jesus is not stated in the Gospels or in any historical sources. Most biblical scholars and ancient historians believe that Jesus was born between 4 and 6 BCE.

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.

A brief explanation about our dating system: Our dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus (475 – 544) but was not widely used until the 9th century. Exiguus was a monk and a Roman theologian, mathematician, and astronomer. He used the terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC), because he mistakenly thought Jesus was born in the year 1. The term anno Domini in Latin means “in the year of the Lord.” Today scholars increasingly use the terms Common Era (abbreviated as CE), with the preceding years referred to as Before the Common Era (BCE).

It was not really until around 200 CE that Christians began to commemorate an actual ceremonial Jesus birth day. Not at first on December 25 but on January 6. 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 solar Sun imagery using 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.

The early Christian writer Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325), who was an advisor to the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 272 – 337), wrote “the east is attached to God because God is the source of light and the illuminator of the world and God makes us rise toward eternal life”. It is for this reason that the early Christians set up their posture for prayer as being eastward, towards the rising sun.

A late fourth-century sermon by Augustine the Bishop of Hippo (354 – 430) explains why the winter solstice was a fitting day to celebrate Jesus’s birth: “Hence it is that he was born on the day which is the shortest in our earthly reckoning and from which later days begin to increase in length. He, therefore, who bent low and lifted us up chose the shortest day, yet the one whence light begins to increase.”

The Christian leadership in Rome began officially celebrating Jesus’ birth date on December 25 in 336, during the reign of Emperor Constantine (272 – 337). Since Constantine had made Christianity the effective religion of the Roman Empire, choosing this date had the political motive of weakening the earlier established pagan celebrations.

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. More about these narratives next week.

Most of our contemporary imagery about Jesus’ birth however comes from the Catholic friar St. 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 have an everlasting impact on those in attendance. He therefore collected hay and prepared a manger, which was a feeding trough for farm animals. He even brought an ox and donkey to location where he prepared the altar, on which placed a statue of baby Jesus. The scenery had clearly symbolized the poverty and simplicity 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 called “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.

Next week more historical-critical observations about the “Infancy Narratives.”

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 _____

I am very appreciative that people have contributed to my annual Another Voice appeal. This week is my last invitation, for making a donation.

You can check details from last week’s post or simply donate by credit card or PayPal, using this link:  

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=PKYCT8S5Q44SN

My very sincere thanks.

Dear Another Voice Friends,

          Thinking about U.S. Thanksgiving tomorrow, I am very thankful for your interest and support in the past months. I hope to continue traveling with you, as we learn, grow, and move forward.

          As I do once a year, I am inviting you to contribute to my annual appeal. As you know there is no charge for my blog. Contributions from readers therefore help me keep my equipment up to date and cover other related expenses. I appreciate whatever people can contribute. My ICT equipment is getting old just like its owner.

      There are several ways one can contribute:

• By credit card or PayPal. Simply click on this link:  

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=PKYCT8S5Q44SN

• By ZELLE via:       jadleuven@gmail.com
• With a US dollars check, made out to “John A. Dick” and sent to:

         FIFTH THIRD BANK — Attn: Lisa Schwandt

         1967 E Beltline Ave NE

         Grand Rapids, MI 49525       

• By international bank transfer to my Belgian bank account

             BNP Paribas Fortis Bank, (Warandeberg 3, 1000 Brussels

                          SWIFT CODE:     GEBABEBB

                          IBAN:    BE83 2300 3923 6015

Many very sincere thanks. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Leuven – Louvain

Email:     john.dick@kuleuven.be

A few days ago, a friend asked in a discussion group, that I moderate, what we really know about the historic Jesus of Nazareth. He chuckled and then said: “Isn’t the whole Jesus thing just a collection of old religious tales?” A good question.

In December I have been invited to give a series of lectures about Jesus and the Gospels at our local senior center. I was invited, said the fellow who invited me, “because people want to know the truth not just a bunch of pious stories.” Well, interest in my course is remarkably high. The meeting room will be filled to capacity.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was an historical figure and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus.

Jesus was a Galilean Hebrew who was born between 7 and 2 BCE and died around 30 CE. Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea. Like most people from Galilee back then, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. Jesus spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.

The tradition about the life and meaning of Jesus are found in the Gospels.

The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon term god-spellmeaning “good story,” a rendering of the Latin evangelium and the Greek euangelion, meaning “good news.” The Four Gospels proclaim the “good news” about Jesus Christ.

When reading and studying the Gospels, however, our approach should not be based on a literal interpretation of texts but on an historical-critical understanding. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, we see two textual traditions that can be confusing. With all due respect, the final version of Matthew should have been critiqued by a good editor. We see a negative Matthew, in Matthew 22:1-14, who displays violence, vengeance, and calls for divine retribution on enemies. But we also see a positive Matthew in 5:1-11, who displays the highest possible Christian consciousness in the Sermon on the Mount.

An historical-critical understanding asks what the original text meant in the author’s mind, in its original language. Was the message factual, symbolic, or imagined? What was the intention of the author and the purpose of the text? And what influences affected the text before it achieved its final form.

An historical-critical understanding is essential today, but not just with biblical texts. In fact, in our contemporary life situation, we need a strict historical-critical understanding as well, when seeing and reading news reports and even Facebook observations. Who is doing the reporting? What is the reporter’s background and agenda? Is the reporter reliable? Is what’s being reported truth or fantasy? Or is it absolute falsehood? Is the reporter’s purpose to inform people or to manipulate and control them? An historical-critical perspective and evaluation will be essential in the new U.S. presidential administration.

But getting back to the Gospels…The Gospels were written to inform and encourage believers and to call them to growth in their Christian faith. The Gospels, however, were not written to give us strict “history.” They have history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus.

Most importantly, the Gospels were written to give the meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, and raised from the dead. He revealed Divinity and authentic Humanity.

All four Gospels evolved from oral traditions, passed on from person to person and from place to place. More than one single person (i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) composed the final versions of the four Gospels as we have them today.

Mark (written for a gentile Christian audience most probably in Rome) was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70 CE. The Gospel of Matthew (written for a Christian audience with a Hebrew background) and the Gospel of Luke (written for a gentile Christian audience) were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives. In addition, because both Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark, most scholars hold that the authors of Matthew and Luke also drew from a collection of Jesus’ sayings that they incorporated into their works.

The Gospel of John (written for a Hebrew Christian and gentile Christian audience) emerges from an independent literary tradition that is not directly connected to the Synoptic tradition. This explains the major differences between John and the Synoptics. John reached its final form around 90–110 CE.

Each time the gospel narrators adapted their accounts to the needs, understanding, and cultural/religious backgrounds of their listeners.

The Gospels were not written therefore to give us strict “history.” They have bits of history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus. The Gospels were written to give the meaning of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, whom God raised from the dead. We see in Matthew and Luke, for instance, two quite different accounts about Jesus’ infancy. They present creative theological images rather than strict historical facts. Once again perspective is important.

The Gospels’ focus was not primarily to present an historical narrative, but to affirm and proclaim Christian theological belief about Jesus the Christ, in whom we find Divinity, Life, and Hope

Anchored in Christian faith, the authors of the Gospels – using a variety of literary forms — wanted to pass on to future generations their understanding and belief in and about Jesus Christ.

The Gospels inform, stimulate, and encourage us to grow in our own Christian faith.

Living that faith is our contemporary Christian challenge. And that challenge is very real today.

Jack

____________________________________

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Years before George Washington became president of the United States, he penned 110 “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” His writing project was more an exercise in youthful penmanship, because he copied a translated older text, originally written by French Jesuits. Nevertheless, the focus of Washington’s observations was civility: polite, reasonable, and respectful behavior.

A few of Washington’s rules struck me recently, as I was thinking about recent U.S. events.

• “Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those present.”
• “When you reprove another be without blame yourself.”
• “Let your conversation be without malice or envy.”
• “In all causes of passion allow reason to govern.”

Incivility takes form in rude and discourteous actions, in gossiping, in spreading rumors, or simply in refusing to assist another person.

Civility means much more than simple politeness. Civility is about interpersonal respect and seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences. It is about moving beyond preconceptions and listening to the other and encouraging others to do the same.

Civility is hard work because it means staying present to people with whom one can have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. Civility means collaborating for the common good. It is about negotiating interpersonal conversations in such a way that everyone’s voice is heard, and nobody’s voice is ignored. Not always easy. Civility means that despite different personal perspectives we still have a larger shared vision and we must collaborate to make it a reality.

When civility is replaced by mockery, dishonest accusations, and abusive slogans, people become monsters. History shows amply that monsters create more monsters. History also reminds us that such a scenario never has a happy ending.

The reflection this week is brief. But the task awaiting us is a long process. Civility begins with you and me, with family and friends, with neighbors and colleagues. We gradually construct what I like to call coalitions of transformation: communities of faith, hope, and support. In her 1964 book, Continuities in Cultural Evolution, the famous cultural anthropologist, Margaret Meade (1901 – 1978), said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

 Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian & Contemporary Observer