Another Voice

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

As many will remember, “The Hill We Climb” is a poem written by the U.S. poet Amanda Gorman and recited by her at the presidential inauguration on January 20, 2021. Gorman was twenty-two years old when she recited the poem, making her the youngest inaugural poet ever. The poem was written to call for “unity and collaboration and togetherness” in the movement forward.

I find it an excellent post-election 2024 reflection. More than ever, we all need “unity and collaboration and togetherness.”

When day comes we ask ourselves, where can we find light in this never-ending shade? The loss we carry, a sea we must wade. We’ve braved the belly of the beast, we’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace and the norms and notions of what just is, isn’t always justice. And yet the dawn is ours before we knew it, somehow we do it, somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken but simply unfinished.

We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president only to find herself reciting for one. And, yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine, but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect, we are striving to forge a union with purpose, to compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and conditions of man.

So we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands before us. We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside. We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another, we seek harm to none and harmony for all.

Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true: that even as we grieved, we grew, even as we hurt, we hoped, that even as we tired, we tried, that we’ll forever be tied together victorious, not because we will never again know defeat but because we will never again sow division.

Scripture tells us to envision that everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree and no one should make them afraid. If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade, but in in all of the bridges we’ve made. That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb if only we dare it because being American is more than a pride we inherit, it’s the past we step into and how we repair it.

We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it. That would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy, and this effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can periodically be delayed, but it can never be permanently defeated.

In this truth, in this faith, we trust, for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us, this is the era of just redemption we feared in its inception we did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour but within it we found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and laughter to ourselves, so while once we asked how can we possibly prevail over catastrophe, now we assert how could catastrophe possibly prevail over us.

We will not march back to what was but move to what shall be, a country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold, fierce and free, we will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation, our blunders become their burden. But one thing is certain: if we merge mercy with might and might with right, then love becomes our legacy and change our children’s birthright.

So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left, with every breath from my bronze, pounded chest, we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one, we will rise from the golden hills of the West, we will rise from the windswept Northeast where our forefathers first realized revolution, we will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the Midwestern states, we will rise from the sunbaked South, we will rebuild, reconcile, and recover in every known nook of our nation in every corner called our country our people diverse and beautiful will emerge battered and beautiful, when the day comes we step out of the shade aflame and unafraid, the new dawn blooms as we free it, for there is always light if only we’re brave enough to see it, if only we’re brave enough to be it.

• Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick

Historical Theologian

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

This week as we prepare for next week’s U.S. presidential election, with so much political and religious polarization, the image of Jesus in the Good News of John speaks to me in a very distinct way. 

Contemporary scholars, writing about the Good News (“Gospel”) of John, suggest that an oral tradition of eye-witness recollections of the “Beloved Disciple” evolved and began being written down around 90 CE. But the final editing of the text came 10 to 20 years later, giving us a textual composition date of between 90 and 110 CE. The location was most likely Ephesus, near the modern village of Selçuk in western Turkey.

Who was the “Beloved Disciple”? There is quite a variety of scholarly opinions: a truly unknown disciple, the Apostle John, or James the brother of Jesus, or even Jesus’ close friend Mary the Magdalene.

The Good News of John differs from Mark, Matthew, and Luke in style, content, and perspective. It omits, for instance, the temptation of Jesus, his transfiguration, and the institution of the Eucharist. What stands out in John’s Last Supper account is the washing of feet and Jesus’ exhortation “I have given you an example so that you do as I have done to you.” (John 13:15) 

John’s community understood well the complexity and problems of religious polarization. In the 90s of the first century a “parting of the ways” between Hebrew and Christian believers occurred. Early Christians no longer went to synagogue for the basic reason that more Christians were Gentile converts and the distinction between Hebrew and Christian belief had become clearer. John 9:22 describes how “the Hebrew people had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or Messiah that person was to be excluded from the synagogue.”

What deeply attracts me in the Good News of John is the message that Jesus is a wise man and a man of courage, hope, and confidence. I see texts that speak loudly and clearly to our contemporary life situation: Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches (John 15). We need one another. The branches cannot survive without the vine; but the vine cannot survive without the branches. Jesus promises that his Spirit will be with us. (John 14:15-16, 15:26, 16:15) Yes, we live in frightening times, but there is no reason for debilitating fear. 

With its hopeful focus, John’s account of the crucifixion does not stress Jesus as one who suffers. 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 an extraordinarily strong 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)

 In John’s accounts of Jesus’s arrest and crucifixion, Jesus is confident and courageous. In the garden experience after the Last Supper, when Roman soldiers and temple police came to seize him. “Jesus, knowing full well what was about to happen, went out to the garden entrance to meet them. Stepping forward, he asked, ‘Who are you looking for?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. He replied, ‘I am he.’” (John 18:4-5) On the way to Golgotha, Jesus carries his own cross.

 May we all find courage, hope, and confidence in the Spirit of Christ. Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches. We need one another.

 Writing about Hildegard of Bingen, a few weeks ago, I stressed the importance of prophetic witness. I stress that again today.

 Our witness is not just to speak, but to act: to be courageously active supporters of one another, offering hope for people today, and confidence that love is stronger than hatred; and that honesty is more effective than political deception and falsehood.

 With courage, we move forward.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

At the start of this week’s post, I should say that a friend warned me to not get into politics this week. My concern as an historical theologian has always been about promoting critical reflection about faith, life, and morality. I respect my friend’s concern, but politics is part of our life experience; and with less than two weeks before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, there is a great need for critical thinking.

Being a critical observer and thinker today is challenging. There is certainly a lot of falsehood and pure nonsense in our contemporary world that is packaged and promoted as truth. There are also frightening realities.

In September, the former U.S. president said that if he is reelected, his plan to deport 15 to 20 million people currently living in the United States would be “bloody.” As Heather Cox Richardson reported on October 21^st, Mark Milley, 20th chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023, told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “a fascist to the core…the most dangerous person to this country.”

We need critical observers, but critical observers can also be quickly repudiated or denigrated. We need, these days, a great many courageous critical observers, who are supportive of other courageous critical observers.

The reality is that engaging in respectful exchanges of opinions, while working toward the same goals, is how we will thrive and grow as a society. That challenge will be here before and after November 5^th.

Thinking about helping people become well-informed critical thinkers today, I suggest that we stress “values clarification.” How do people display and practice truth and honesty? Or how do they display and practice falsehood and deception? Do we take time to compare or help people compare a person’s rhetoric with that person’s actual behavior? How do we help people clarify their own values? How do we clarify our own values.

Reviewing the most recent “Al Smith Dinner in New York,” on Thursday, October 17^th, can be a helpful values clarification exercise. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, commonly known as the Al Smith Dinner, is an annual white tie dinner in New York City to raise funds for Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York. It is currently hosted by the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

This year Vice President Harris did not attend the October 17^th Al Smith dinner and Cardinal Dolan strongly criticized her for not attending, saying she was sending “one of those zooms” instead. Former President Trump and his wife Melania did attend the dinner.

Cardinal Dolan looked on with a friendly expression as Trump made his degrading comments, occasionally laughing at the former president’s remarks and personal attacks against Kamala Harris. “We have someone in the White House who can barely talk, barely put together two coherent sentences, who seems to have the mental faculties of a child,” Trump told the New York group. “It’s a person who has nothing going, no intelligence whatsoever. But enough about Kamala Harris.” Cardinal Dolan sat there with a big smile. Shame on Timothy Dolan, whom I have known from the time he was a young priest in St. Louis, Missouri. Once upon a time we were even friends.

The 45^th president of the United States is a Bible man, according to his ardent supporters. Indeed, the God Bless the U.S.A. Bible isalso known as the “Trump Bible.” It is based on the King James Version of the Bible (first published in 1611) with added content specifically relating to the United States. The God Bless the U.S.A. Bible was first published in 2021 but was later marketed by Donald Trump under his brand name and promoted as part of his 2024 presidential campaign. Donald Trump may be a “Bible man” but, as the American columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times on October 19^th, “Trump is proudly amoral. He disdains the Christian values I was taught by nuns and priests. His only values are self-interest and self-gratification.”

For the Al Smith dinner, Vice President Kamala Harris did not give “one of those zooms” but a well-thought-out video presentation. She had explained several days before the dinner that she could not be personally present because she would be campaigning in the battleground state Wisconsin on that Thursday. Cardinal Dolan was terribly upset she did not attend. Mr. Trump was probably relieved.

Getting ready for the big November 5^th election, requires values clarification reflection and decision-making. An important values clarification exercise before November 5^th would be reviewing the personal values of the candidates, as expressed in their words and actions. Project 2025 – the Trumpian agenda for the U.S.A. if he is re-elected — calls for a careful and critical reading. I find it dangerously alarming.

Well, we do indeed have much to observe and think about these days.

And this remark concludes my October “political” commentary.

•  Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Researcher: Religion and Values in U.S. Society

As we draw ever closer to the 2024 U.S. presidential election on November 5th, my thoughts are very much about public morality.

Public morality – what some call civic virtue — refers to ethical standards for public behavior. The survival of democracy depends on it.

Public morality governs everyday life: how we treat ourselves and others, and what we think about the world — about nature, business, culture, religion, family life, and so on. Openness is essential as well as serious reflection and engagement. We observe. We judge. Then, we act.

Without a healthy public morality, democracy collapses into either chaos or authoritarian dictatorship.

Those dangers are very real today. Public morality is often casr aside in authoritarian dictatorships because social order is maintained not by adherence to shared public values but by fidelity to the dictates and wishes of the authoritarian ruler. Authoritarian “leaders” like chaotic situations in which people living in fear can be kept obedient and dependent on the leader.

There are three big characteristics of authoritarian rulers. They behave without accountability. They have zero tolerance for criticism or questions. They display unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions.

In a healthy democracy there are certain generally held moral principles. Key primary values, for example, are that murder is immoral, theft is immoral, harming innocent people is immoral, and lying is immoral. When these immoral actions are turned into social virtues or social normalities, society is in trouble. I recall the words of the French philosopher and writer Voltaire (1694 – 1778): “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Public morality insures, in effect, the survival of the human spirit. By the “human spirit” I mean those positive aspects of humanity that people show toward one another: empathy, respect, generosity, connection, emotional bonding, and identifying with the other. These elements require a sense of equality and a demand for human rights and justice in all domains of life, especially social and economic justice. Extremely self-centered righteousness leads to conflict, not cooperation; to fear, not hope; to aggression, not mutual respect; and to suspicion, not trust.

People set and adjust their public morality through interaction with family and friends, and with social, religious, political, and educational groups with whom they identify.

After the next presidential election, regardless of who wins and becomes president in January, we will still need to safeguard our democracy based on shared common-good public morality. Maintaining the common good means caring not just for ourselves but taking responsibility for the well-being of others.

As the American cognitive linguist and philosopher, George Lakoff (1941) stressed in his book, The Little Blue Book: Talking and Thinking Democratic, “Houses fall apart if they are not maintained, so do democracy and the gifts of democracy that we barely notice and take for granted: the right to vote, public education, human rights, due process, unbiased news, clean water, clean air, national parks, safe food, good jobs, ethical banking practices, affordable mortgages, fair elections.”

It is all part of public morality and avoiding polarization and chaos.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick—Historical Theologian

This week’s reflection is a follow-up to last week’s reflection by my friend Patrick Sullivan.

Christian environmental change means that our churches must be not only supportive caring communities but up to date biblically and historically, and always open to discovery and development.

Changing the church environment, for all Christians, must be a prophetic movement forward. Today, I suggest six ways to change, improve, and move ahead.

(1) We must move from living in the past to engaging with the present and thinking creatively about tomorrow. This means moving well beyond, for example, antiquated understandings of human sexuality and gender, prejudice against women, and distorted biblical and historical understandings.

(2) We need ongoing education that moves people from boxed-in perspectives to open and developing theology. All doctrinal statements are provisional understandings. We are all learners. No one has all the truth. There is still much to learn and discover.

(3) We need to shift from self-protective bureaucratic hierarchies, whose vision is to protect and save the institution, to being supportive communities of faith. Ideally, the institution is the medium for conveying the ministry and message of Jesus. Unfortunately, too often the medium becomes the message. People forget that Jesus did not exercise power over people. He empowered people to take responsibility in living, learning, and caring for one another. Jesus did not control people through authoritarian decrees, nor by setting up institutional structures. The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (272 – 337) was the great institutionalizer. At the Councils of Arles (314) and Nicaea (325) he passed on the institutionalization fervor to Christian bishops.

(4) We need to abandon religious arrogance and move into humble inter-church collaboration. No Christian and no Christian tradition can be regarded as superior to others and therefore act in a haughty or snobbish manner. Some Catholics still think they have all the truth. Some evangelicals think that way as well.

(5) We need to stop being energetic and proud temple-builders and start being traveling pilgrims. What do people today really need? An impressive and bigger cathedral or a roof overhead, a meal, health care, childcare, compassionate understanding, and a more secure and hopeful life. It is a values question.

(6) We must not focus on just schooling professionals but mentoring spiritual leaders. When it comes to Christian ministry, the mentality of the professional is often not enough. I trained and taught seminarians for many years. We need pastoral leaders and ministers who are much more than professionals. We need leaders who are men and women anchored in deep faith and who, as our fellow travelers, understand us and support our own faith development as compassionate and genuine spiritual guides.

Christians must stop seeing the world as their enemy and start appreciating the world as the real place where we live and meet the Divine. As Hildegard of Bingen (1098 – 1179) wrote: “The truly holy person welcomes all that is earthly.”

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

This week I am busy welcoming guests to our university city, and therefore I am pleased to publish an observation by my friend Patrick B. Sullivan, DPA, M.Div.

I have been a student of organizational behavior for over 40 years. Within my background in public administration, I have observed many different organizations. I have found that most organizations are dysfunctional. The Cambridge Dictionary defines dysfunctional as “Not behaving or working normally.”

In the context of organizations, the meaning is somewhat the same. According to Angela Montgomery, co-author with Domenico Lepore and Giovanni Siepe of Quality, Involvement, Flow: The Systemic Organization (CRC Press, New York. 2016):

“The word dysfunctional contains the prefix dys- from the Greek meaning ‘bad,’ ‘abnormal,’ difficult,’ or ‘impaired.’  We can say that an organization is dysfunctional when it works in a way that is not consistent with the goal it is supposed to pursue. Why would that happen? Because there is a lack of clarity and understanding of the goal. This could easily produce dysfunctional behavior, meaning behavior that is not consistent with that goal. Very often what could be perceived as dysfunctional toward a stated goal can be extremely functional for a non-verbalized one.”

We need to consider what the goal is for organizations. Typically, goals in organizations are stated in terms of some kind of product or service. That makes sense, of course. However, there is another goal that is overloked. We organize to take advantage of collective efforts. This is not just a matter of the sum of the parts, i.e., the people. One should assume by using the term “organization” itself that we intend for there to be even more. 

What I have found is that far too much energy is consumed in organizations on wasteful interactions that interfere with carrying out the mission. The Roman Catholic Church exhibits all of these.

I identify seven practices or features that make any organization dysfunctional:

1.  Lack of relationship-building – The first thing I learned at the Franciscan School of Theology is that it is all about relationships. The irony is that the church discourages relationship-building rather than promoting it. At another seminary, this was very apparent. The leadership emphasized obedience and reprimanded me when I engaged in conversation with my colleagues. Diocesan priests now generally live alone. When I suggested that the priests from the five local parishes should live together, the response was a firm refusal. Don’t get me started with mandatory celibacy. The irony here is that such isolation only contributed to the sex abuse scandal. If a person does not build healthy relationships, one is more likely to either get drawn into unhealthy ones, depression, or substance abuse.

2. Arrogance – The primary source of arrogance, according to the National Institute of Health (NIH) is the resistance to accepting the limits of one’s own knowledge. Nelson Cowen, a psychologist from the University of Missouri, suggests that there are three types of arrogance: individual, comparative, and antagonistic. He identifies six progressive components: distorted information and limitations in abilities, overestimation of one’s information and abilities, resistance to new inforlation about one’s limits, failure to consider the perspectives of others, belief or assumption of superiority, and denigration of others. I have observed every one of these in the church. An excellent example of this was an instance in a seminary for second career vocations. One of my classmates, who was an M.D. and had a Master of Public Health degree, pointed out that the food served to the seminarians was entirely inappropriate for older men. I brought this to the attention of the vice rector. He utterly rejected the idea and said the food was fine. What would prompt a person whose only credentials were in theology to argue against the medical doctor? I think you know the answer.

3. Lack of Trust – Closely tied to relationship building is the development of trust. The lack of trust leads to turf protection and duplication of effort. Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston, identifies seven attributes of trust: boundaries, reliability, accountability, the vault, integrity, non judgmentn, and generosity. I have observed many instances of gossip, judgment, and lack of accountability. The sex abuse scandal has certainly exposed much of this. I cannot count the number of times I have dealt with those either ordained or lay who have violated trust or failed to own their mistakes. What is particularly troublesome is Brown’s definition of integrity: “It’s choosing courage over comfort; choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast, or easy; and practicing your values, not just professing your values.”  I believe the values should come down to the great commandments of loving God and neighbor.

4. Lack of transparency — A healthy organization is one that is open about its challenges and failures. Transparency is a critical leadership attribute that helps to build trust. Studies have shown that transparency is particularly helpful for organizational commitment. The idea is to inform the key stakeholders regarding the critical issues of the organization. The church has not exactly been clear about all their finances. We found that out with the bankruptcy hearings tied to the other thing we did not hear about. I remember clearly a bishop telling me that the whole sex abuse crisis was just “anti-Catholicism.”  A few years later, he had to admit that they had mishandled the whole thing as part of the settlement.

5. Excessive emphasis on control – I honestly do not think I need to say much at all about this one. During my ten-year journey trying to become a priest the emphasis was almost always about obedience. I can understand wanting to have consistent teaching of theology. However, the obedience was less about that and more about controlling resources and the congregation. In my experience, there is truly little teaching of theology for adults in parishes. It is clear the fear is that adult Catholics will think for themselves.

6. Untrained managers – Even though seminary training is extensive (eight years if you count undergraduate studies) there are no courses in leadership or management. The one course I identified was on parish administration but had little to do with leadership and more to do with control. This has become a greater problem in recent years because there are so many more parishes with only one priest.  There is minimal opportunity to serve as an assistant or associate pastor to learn some of the “soft skills” (a term I loathe because people skills are the hardest ones of all to learn.)  Instead, a newly ordained priest can be sent directly to be the pastor.

7. Poor conflict skills – Most of my consulting work has involved dealing with conflict. The truth of the matter is that very few people know how to engage in conflict in a healthy manner. The church is no exception. In several parishes I have been involved with, there is invariably an argument over liturgy or music. Instead of working toward collaboration to find win-win solutions, the usual process involves recruiting allies and building to a heated argument. There is some truth in the joke “what is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.”  When I interviewed people involved it became clear that the conflict was largely conducted surreptitiously. Healthy conflict involves each side being able to convey their perspective directly and honestly and the two parties working toward a solution. Conflict is inevitable but it does not need to lead to hard feelings and disruption of the organization.

I am not saying there are no decent people in the church or any organization, for that matter. I am pointing out that the interrelationships are dysfunctional. It does come back to honest relationship building. We just choose not to do it. We have rationalized our way out of doing the hard work of building relationships. I use that work intentionally. This is a continuation of adopting what we call rational thought as the only way to solve problems or work together. The problem is that our emotions and conation also play a role in how we work together. Without them or when we disregard them our ability to cooperate and learn from one another becomes terribly hampered. In the church itself, we are failing to follow,the last commandment Jesus gave us: “love one another.”