Thursday, April 24, 2014

Malala Yousafzai: Meet My Father And My Mother

Malala Yousafzai couldn’t come to TED2014 — because she has vowed to never miss another day of school. But her voice was heard through this video, which introduced Ziauddin Yousafzai’s powerful talk about his daughter and their shared commitment to education.


My daughter, Malala 
Pakistani educator Ziauddin Yousafzai reminds the world of a simple truth that many don’t want to hear: Women and men deserve equal opportunities for education, autonomy, an independent identity. He tells stories from his own life and the life of his daughter, Malala, who was shot by the Taliban in 2012 simply for daring to go to school. "Why is my daughter so strong?” Yousafzai asks. “Because I didn’t clip her wings."

Part XVII Matthew – The Story of Jesus from Shavuot to Rosh Hashanah

by John Shelby Spong
https://johnshelbyspong.com/

After a three-week hiatus to consider some pressing theological questions and political issues we return this week to our story of Matthew’s gospel. It was indeed a good place to break away momentarily from Matthew’s text because in the Sermon on the Mount he had reached his first climax and would begin now to introduce his second. Allow me to review how this gospel has been developed up to this point, to get us all back on board.

Matthew began his gospel by introducing some brand new material into the Jesus narrative, material that had never before appeared anywhere in the developing Christian tradition. First, there was his genealogy in which he traced the ancestry of Jesus through about 1800 years of Jewish history. In this genealogy he touched the Jewish mountain peaks from the call of Abraham to found a new people, to the establishment of the dynasty of King David, to the bitter time of defeat at the hands of the Babylonians and the subsequent exile of the Jewish people into a foreign land. This genealogy culminated with the birth of Jesus.

Was this genealogy accurate history? Was Matthew following some ancient literal record? Of course not! No one then or now has 1800 years of family history on file. Matthew was simply proposing this genealogical reconstruction to demonstrate the thesis he intended to develop in his narrative. He was claiming for Jesus the DNA of his nation. He was asserting that Jesus had in fact fulfilled all of the messianic requirements about which the Jews dreamed. He was heir to the throne of King David. He was born in David’s city of Bethlehem. Cosmological signs marked his birth Matthew was laying the foundation to claim that Jesus was the expected Jewish gift to the world.

In this same genealogy, Matthew then proceeded to shock his readers by including four women, who were, according to their sources of their stories in the Old Testament, guilty respectively of incest, prostitution, seduction and adultery. In this strange maneuver, he was actually mounting his defense of the divine nature of Jesus, which was to culminate in his introduction of the account of Jesus’ miraculous birth while still claiming that God could bring holiness out of any and every human failure or distortion. Jesus was of God, he was asserting. He was the child of the Holy Spirit. Matthew, however, quickly informed his readers that this story was not about biology. He was countering anti-Jesus criticism that suggested that Jesus was “base born.”

It was a powerful narrative, but clearly it was not a literal narrative. Next, Matthew brought Gentiles in the form of the wise men to this Jesus who was to him the “brightness of God’s rising,” and in their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, he signaled the themes of the life that was about to introduce in his gospel. Jesus, Matthew declared, is to be viewed as the King of the Universe, which makes the gift of gold appropriate; he is to be viewed as a revelation of the meaning of God, which makes the gift of frankincense appropriate, and he is to accomplish his purpose through his death, which makes the gift of myrrh appropriate. It never occurred to Matthew to think that anyone would ever literalize this magnificent word portrait that he was intent upon painting. His own Jewish audience would have recognized what he was doing because they were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures from which he was so skillfully drawing.

Matthew then inserted into this account of Jesus’ miraculous beginnings a biblical episode on which he intend to pivot, as the adult story of Jesus begins. He referred back to the biblical account of a wicked king named Pharaoh trying to eliminate God’s promised deliverer in his infancy by killing all the male Jewish babies in Egypt, to tell the story of another wicked king named Herod, who tried to do the same thing to Jesus. Matthew’s major theme of Jesus as the new Moses was now beginning to emerge in this gospel.

We then traced the development of this theme. At the moment of the Exodus, Moses split the waters of the Red Sea to move the Hebrew people from bondage to a new self-identity. Jesus at his baptism now led his people out of the “bondage of sin” by splitting the heavenly waters, so that “living water,” i.e. the Holy Spirit, could bring his followers into a new self-identity as those who live in “the glorious liberty of the Children of God.” Recall that the Genesis creation story defined the “heavens” as the firmament, which separated the “waters above from the waters below.” Moses split the waters below; Jesus, the new Moses, split the waters above. Then Jesus, still following the Moses pattern, entered the wilderness. For Jesus it would be for forty days, for Moses it had been for forty years. In that wilderness, both Jesus and Moses would face similar trials or temptations. In both cases the first temptation or trial had to do with the shortage of food, the second with putting God to the test and the third with worshiping something other than God. Once again, this was not the recalling of history, but the result of attempting to parallel the lives of Moses and Jesus.

Then arriving at the first great climax of his gospel, Matthew portrayed Jesus as the new Moses on a new mountain, giving, not a new Torah, but a new interpretation of the Torah. This is what we now call the Sermon on the Mount. It carries Matthew’s text through chapters 5, 6, 7 and ends only when Jesus comes down from preaching on the mountain. Lest there be any doubt that Matthew ever thought that this Sermon on the Mount was a literal event that took place in time and history, we noted that he based this sermon on the 119th psalm that just happened to be the psalm used at the 24-hour vigil called Shavuot, which celebrated Moses receiving the Torah from God on Mount Sinai. Matthew was an interpretive genius, painting a deeply Jewish portrait of the coming of the messiah and thus of the inauguration of what he referred to as the “Kingdom of Heaven.”

Matthew next has Jesus leave the mountain and return to the valley of pain and suffering. He will then proceed to relate a series of incidents that will carry his story to his next climax, the celebration of the Jewish New Year, called Rosh Hashanah, which came three months or so after Shavuot. In the manner in which Mathew deals with Rosh Hashanah, we will find the clue to the way his entire gospel is organized. In order to make that clue obvious, our story continues.

Be reminded that Matthew had Mark in front of him as he wrote. We know this because Matthew incorporated almost 90% of Mark directly into his gospel. By comparing the two gospels, we can study the places where Matthew changed Mark, where he modified Mark and when he omitted Mark. As this study is engaged, we begin to see the outlines of Matthew’s values, his insights and maybe even his soul.

We also observe the acknowledged fact that he has expanded Mark. His gospel is some 40% larger than Mark. What was there, we wonder, that caused Matthew to view Mark as in need of expansion? Next we look at where Matthew placed the expansion material. It was not just scattered around in the text of Mark. Matthew has significantly front-end loaded Mark. A quick look at the first eleven chapters of Matthew will reveal the presence of massive amounts of extensively new non-Marcan material. Mark, for example, has no genealogy, no birth narrative and no description of the nature of Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness and no Sermon on the Mount. Mark provides us with very little of the content of the preaching of John the Baptist. These additions represent substantial material newly introduced into Christianity by Matthew. Yet when we move toward the final part of Jesus’ life we discover that Matthew tracks Mark very closely from about chapter eleven on, including almost identical passion stories. If Matthew’s gospel represents a front-end load to Mark, his primary source, and if both wind up telling the story of the cross against the background of the Passover celebration, then is there a clue to be found in the liturgical calendar of the synagogue that would cause this kind of gospel organization to make sense?

I think there is. We first look at how Mark opened his gospel. He has cast John the Baptist in the role of the New Elijah, who comes to prepare the way for the arrival of the messiah and the Kingdom of God. Matthew turns John the Baptist into a human shofar, the ram’s horn, who gathers the people together, announces the nearness of the Kingdom and urges them to prepare with penitence. Every Jewish reader of Matthew’s gospel would recognize each of these elements as something drawn from the New Year liturgy of Rosh Hashanah. So Mark’s gospel appears to begin with Jesus stories appropriate to Rosh Hashanah and to end with Jesus stories appropriate to Passover. That means that Mark started his gospel with Rosh Hashanah and ended it with Passover, thus covering only six and a half months of the annual Jewish calendar. If Matthew front-end loads Mark, is he not attempting to cover with Jesus stories the five and a half months that Mark has failed to cover? Is this not the reason Matthew felt a compelling need to expand Mark? The liturgical year needed to be made whole.

The compared texts of these two gospels seem to point to this conclusion. Matthew is clearly following the liturgical calendar when he portrays the Sermon on the Mount as a Shavuot story. Next he provides Jesus stories for the time between Shavuot and Rosh Hashanah, until his narrative can reconnect with Mark who starts at Rosh Hashanah and then together they will follow the balance of the synagogue’s liturgical year, climaxing it with the account of Jesus’ crucifixion at Passover and the Easter story on the first or first two Sabbaths after Passover.

We are now ready to begin our analysis of those Jesus stories that Matthew used to enable the transition time between Shavuot and Rosh Hashanah to be covered. That starts when this series resumes.

Government Surveillance — This Is Just The Beginning

Privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian sees the landscape of government surveillance shifting beneath our feet, as an industry grows to support monitoring programs. Through private companies, he says, governments are buying technology with the capacity to break into computers, steal documents and monitor activity — without detection. This TED Fellow gives an unsettling look at what's to come.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Suicidal Crickets, Zombie Roaches And Other Parasite Tales

We humans set a premium on our own free will and independence ... and yet there's a shadowy influence we might not be considering. As science writer Ed Yong explains in this fascinating, hilarious and disturbing talk, parasites have perfected the art of manipulation to an incredible degree. So are they influencing us? It's more than likely.

Night Terrors

by Joe Erwin

I noticed a recent conversation on Adventist Today about belief in "demons." It does surprise me a little when anyone with "a lick of sense" professes belief in demons, but I have to remember that such beliefs are quite common all over the world and right here among many of my neighbors in the hills of Appalachia--and I have to think way back to when I was growing up as a devout Adventist, and most of the people around me held such beliefs.

Don't get me wrong--I was taught that there was no such thing as ghosts. The Adventist doctrine of death without any disembodied soul or spirit helped me not get worried too much about a spirit world. Even so, I recall awakening, frozen in fright, looking up at a devilish face looking down at me from the window drapes in my bedroom. When I finally struggled and uttered the name, "Jesus," the devil's countenance miraculously vanished. This pattern was repeated twice or more, with the same result and relief. Then, one night, I uttered "blah blah blah," and the result was the same. That’s when I began to understand that I had been experiencing a "night terror" with my own brain/mind supplying the content and interpretation.

But I continue to wonder what the long-term mental health consequences are of believing in a spirit world. Whether or not there is any reality at all to a spiritual dimension, we have very personal ways of injecting meaning into the things we sense or think about. And even if we have all our marbles (meaning the appropriate neurons are in the correct places and our neurotransmitters are adequately balanced), what are the functional consequences of acting as if spiritual magic controls the world and us? Can we really be sane and believe in demons?

Many people who comment on Adventist Today are highly functioning adults in the real world, but their mental health is pretty marginal when it comes to having a grasp on reality. So, believing in demons does not mean that someone is psychotic (obnoxious, perhaps, but not certifiably insane). However, for those inclined toward mental imbalance and frank psychoses, like David Koresh, doesn’t immersion in the bizarre aspects of Adventist dogma and its fanatical trajectories add fuel to their hellish fires?

I am amazed that any of us survived....

The Strangeness Of Scale At Twitter

When hundreds of thousands of Tweets are fired every second, a one-in-a-million chance — including unlikely sounding scenarios that could harm users — happens about 500 times a day. For Del Harvey, who heads Twitter’s Trust and Safety Team, these odds aren’t good. The security maven spends her days thinking about how to prevent worst-case scenarios while giving voice to people around the globe. With deadpan humor, she offers a window into how she keeps 240 million users safe.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

It's a miracle!

It's a miracle! This image of Bastet, the cat goddess, has appeared on our ceiling. We will be opening our residence each evening between 6:30-8:00 for worshippers (for a small donation). We're looking forward to paying off our mortgage quickly. Council has been warned of parking issues. Wait a minute - it's a reflection from our toaster!! Oh well... Ignore that. It's a miracle even though there is a rational explanation!

Thursday, April 10, 2014

A 50-Cent Microscope Made Of Paper

In this cool demo from TED Fellow Manu Prakash, meet a microscope made of paper that's easy to fold and use (and costs about 50 cents to make). These cheap, cutting-edge microscopes could help rural health clinics diagnose diseases faster -- and for students, it turns the world into a hands-on science experiment.

Generation Change: Why Our Youth Leave

Best Practices for Adventist Ministry
by Samuel E. Reyes
danmartella55@gmail.com

The church needs to wake up to the realization that the emerging generation is not just the so-called church of the future, it is the church right now. This generation of young, courageous, and bold Seventh-day Adventist Christians are redefining the very fabric of how we “do church” in our cities, communities, and country.

Like no generation before, our young people have access to limitless information. They live in a world where social media is redesigning the way people interact. They live in a world filled with innumerable ideas, belief systems, and ways of life. And while that world certainly does not answer their deep soul questions, all too often they fail to find relevant answers from their churches. In We Can Keep Them in the Church, Gary Hopkins and Myrna Tetz note the youth flight in Adventism and the graying of Adventism when they tell us that the average age in the local church back in 1965 was 35, and in 1995 an alarming 65.[1]  

According to Thom and Sam Rainer’s research, the youth who leave the church “don’t completely depart from their faith. Rather, they part ways with the church.”[2] Their study of 18-30 year old adults in America who attended church regularly for at least one year during high school identified seven reasons why young people leave their churches:

They want to take a break from church.
They are turned off by judgmental attitudes and hypocrisy seen in the church.
They have moved to another community.
Their work responsibilities conflict with their church attendance.
They have a busy social life.
They are weary of church politics.
Their attendance was based only on the desire to please others.

In a five-year research project headed by Barna Group president David Kinnaman, issues that challenge faith development among teens and young adults were identified. The resulting book, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church and Rethinking Church, Kinnaman lists six reasons why “nearly three out of every five young Christians (59%) disconnect permanently or for an extended period of time from church life after age 15:” [3]

Churches often seem overprotective, making it difficult for them to connect with the world.

Teens’ and 20-somethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow. They say church is irrelevant to their daily lives, that there isn’t enough in-depth study of the Bible and a real/in-depth relationship/experience with God.

Churches come across as antagonistic to science. “Research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.”

Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic or judgmental. The modes of teaching that the church uses are not relevant to the sexual exposure and education young people have outside the church.

Young Christians wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity. “Younger Americans have been shaped by a culture that esteems open-mindedness, tolerance and acceptance.”

The church feels unfriendly to those who struggle with doubts.

These are just a few of the reasons why this generation is slipping out the back door, and the research suggests that these young people are not likely to return later in life. Something, therefore, has to change in the way we do youth ministry. Something that will keep our young people connected with God and the church. Something more than a set of rules to feed their faith. Something that will anchor solid conviction and purpose in their beliefs.

More than anything else, our youth need Jesus at the core of their lives. Since the Great Commission commands us to teach and make disciples, we have to ask the question: What are we doing to make true and passionate disciples among our young people?

In next week’s Best Practices for Adventist Ministry, I will share with you some suggested ministry designs for winning and discipling youth and young adults in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Samuel E. Reyes is the youth and young adult pastor for the Forest City Seventh-day Adventist Church in Altamonte Springs, Florida



[1] Gary Lee Hopkins, Myrna Tetz, We Can Keep Them In the Church (Nampa: Pacific Press, 2004), p. 39
[2] Thom Rainer, Sam S. Rainer, Essential Church? Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts (Nashville: B&H Books, 2008), p. 30
[3] Barna Group (2011). Six Reasons Young Christians Leave the Church. https://www.barna.org/barna-update/teens-nextgen/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church#.UfHmwcu9KK2

That's Discouraging

Meet Global Corruption's Hidden Players

When the son of the president of a desperately poor country starts buying mansions and sports cars on an official monthly salary of $7,000, Charmian Gooch suggests, corruption is probably somewhere in the picture. In a blistering, eye-opening talk (and through several specific examples), she details how global corruption trackers follow the money — to some surprisingly familiar faces.

Thursday, April 03, 2014

Why Smart Statistics Are The Key To Fighting Crime

When she became the attorney general of New Jersey in 2007, Anne Milgram quickly discovered a few startling facts: not only did her team not really know who they were putting in jail, but they had no way of understanding if their decisions were actually making the public safer. And so began her ongoing, inspirational quest to bring data analytics and statistical analysis to the US criminal justice system.

Part XVI Matthew – Did Jesus Teach Us to Pray the Lord’s Prayer?

by John Shelby Spong
https://johnshelbyspong.com/

If it is true, as I have suggested, that Jesus never preached the Sermon on the Mount then we immediately have to face other startling implications. That conclusion would raise questions about the authenticity of “The Lord’s Prayer,” which is first introduced into the developing Christian tradition in Matthew as part of the Sermon on the Mount. If the Lord’s Prayer turns out to be Matthew’s creation, would it still be proper for us to say: “And now as our Savior Christ has taught us, we are bold to say,” which are the words by which this prayer is liturgically introduced? So we turn now to look at the Lord’s Prayer.

I begin with some facts. There is no mention of a prayer taught to the disciples by Jesus in any Christian writing before Matthew introduces it in the 9th decade. If this prayer carried the imprimatur of Jesus himself, would his followers have gone that long ignoring this directive? Paul, who wrote all of his epistles between the years 51 and 64, never alludes to what we call today “the Lord’s Prayer.” If the claim made for this prayer that it came directly from Jesus were historically accurate, would Paul have declined to reference it in any way? These questions become even more provocative when we recognize that Mark, the earliest gospel, usually dated about 72 CE and on which Matthew leaned so heavily, also does not include any reference to this prayer. To make this biblical analysis complete we need to note that when John, the last gospel to be written, appeared near the end if the first century, there was once again no reference to a prayer that Jesus had taught his disciples to pray. Did this final gospel writer do this because he knew it was not authentic? Most people are simply not aware of these biblical facts.

In Matthew’s gospel, the Lord’s Prayer is introduced as part of his commentary on the Fourth Beatitude: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be satisfied.” For the Jews “righteousness” was a synonym for God’s kingdom. To “hunger for righteousness,” therefore, meant to hunger for the coming of the kingdom of God. That identification would be one with which the Jews were thoroughly familiar. The prophet Isaiah referred to Israel as “God’s Vineyard,” where “righteousness,” that is God’s kingdom, is to be established. Later this same prophet writes: “God shows himself present and holy” in the manifestation of “righteousness.”

Matthew first introduces the word “righteousness” in his story of Jesus’ baptism. John, viewing himself as secondary to Jesus, objects to his baptizing Jesus saying: “I have need to be baptized of you.” Jesus responds to this by saying that his baptism is a necessary step in “fulfilling all righteousness,” that is, as a means of establishing the kingdom of God. Later, but still in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew portrays Jesus as exhorting his followers not to be anxious about what they are to eat, to drink or to wear, insisting that they spend their every moment seeking God’s kingdom and its “righteousness.” “Righteousness” is a word that the deeply Jewish Paul uses frequently and every time he uses it, it refers to the kingdom of God. So when Matthew has Jesus say: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,” he is referring to those who live in anticipation of the kingdom of God and who prepare themselves for that kingdoms arrival by fasting, praying and studying the Torah.

In Matthew’s mind the kingdom is present and becomes visible when God’s righteousness is lived out or when God’s presence is seen in human life.

The earliest Christian prayer recorded in the New Testament is not the Lord’s Prayer, but a prayer for Jesus to come again. Paul closes the first epistle to the Corinthians with the words, “Our Lord, come.” The book of Revelation ends with Jesus promising to come soon and the prayer of the people in response is “Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus.” It is with this understanding that Matthew introduces the Lord’s Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount along with a discussion on prayer itself.

The Lord’s Prayer thus serves as an example of the things about which he has been speaking. Matthew has Jesus begin by describing the proper prayer attitude. Jesus is portrayed as exhorting his followers to observe a proper tradition when praying. Prayers for the kingdom are not to be done for show, so they should not be uttered on street corners, but in the privacy of one’s own room. Prayer should not be the stringing together of pious phrases and empty words. God, Jesus reminds his hearers in the Sermon, knows their needs before they ask. Prayer is thus not the activity of reminding God as to what it is that God can do for you. That is when in the Sermon Matthew has Jesus say “Pray then like this” and the words of the Lord’s Prayer follow.

It is quite clearly a prayer for the kingdom of God to come in human history. This prayer begins by addressing itself to the One who is beyond all limits, for that is what “heaven” means. Heaven for the Jews was never a “place” located above the sky, but an expression of the limitlessness of God. God’s kingdom is not a physical realm, but an experience of God’s presence, a moment in which the life of God becomes visible in another. This prayer then moves on to express our yearning to be sustained until that day when the kingdom arrives. “Give us this day our daily bread” and “do not bring us to the test” or into temptation that we cannot overcome lest we miss the kingdom’s arrival. In this prayer Jesus has been cast in the role of the messiah who inaugurates that kingdom, which is an understanding of Jesus that surely was not fully worked out until well after the defining experience of crucifixion and resurrection, through which the followers of Jesus had to walk.

Thus it becomes obvious that the Lord’s Prayer was a prayer developed by the church, the followers of Jesus, after they came to the conclusion that in his life they had seen divinity through the lens of the human and they had seen life overcoming death. Jesus was thus a glimpse of what the kingdom of God was like, but it would not be known in all its fullness until Jesus came again at the end of the age. So what we call the Lord’s Prayer was created as a prayer to be prayed by those who lived between the first coming of Jesus, when the kingdom was glimpsed and his second coming, when God’s kingdom would be established in all its fullness.

To complete the biblical analysis of the prayer we call the Lord’s Prayer we need to recognize that there is a second version of this prayer in the gospel of Luke. It is recognizably similar, but not identical. It is shorter and a bit truncated. It reads as follows:

“Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.” That is Luke’s version in its entirety.

When we confront these two obviously similar, but not identical versions of the same prayer we are driven back once again into the debate about the Q hypothesis. Do these two versions of the Lord’s Prayer reflect a common tradition that would have been present in an earlier, now lost source of Jesus’ sayings to which both Matthew and Luke had access? Or is Luke editing out the deeply Jewish elements of this prayer, which he had acquired from Matthew, in order to appeal to his more cosmopolitan and less Jewish audience?

Increasingly I am convinced it is the latter. Luke’s community was made up primarily of dispersed Jews, who were increasingly adapting to a Gentile world, along with Gentile proselytes, who had been drawn to the non-cultic, ethical monotheism of Judaism. They would have had little interest in Matthew’s rendering of the Sermon on the Mount, which was written to give Christian content to the Jewish festival of Shavuot, the 24 hour vigil ceremony designed to recall Moses on Mt. Sinai receiving the Torah as God’s greatest gift to the Jewish people. Luke reflected a later and far more Gentile phase of the life of the Christian Church. He understood God’s greatest gift to God’s people to be, not the Torah which the Jews celebrated fifty days after Passover at their Pentecost, but the coming of the Holy Spirit and the growth of the Christian Church which the Christians celebrated fifty days after Easter at their Pentecost.

For Luke it was the growth of Christianity not the second coming of Jesus that would be the means by which the Kingdom of God was to arrive on earth. So Luke has edited out the cultic elements of Matthew’s gospel and he adapted the Lord’s Prayer to fit his understanding and his circumstances. It is worth noting that the Fourth Gospel, written even later than Luke, is quite specific in stating that when the raised Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on his disciples on the evening of Easter Day that this was the “second coming” of Jesus. Perhaps that is why the Lord’s Prayer does not appear in the Fourth Gospel since a prayer for God’s Kingdom to come did not seem appropriate after the Holy Spirit had already come at Christian Pentecost.

So if Jesus never composed the prayer we call “The Lord’s Prayer” and did not enjoin these words on his disciples, does this prayer then have no value for us? That is not our conclusion, but it does mean that this prayer must be understood in an entirely different way.

“Our Father who art in heaven” means that God cannot be limited by human creeds, doctrines or dogmas. It means that we must seek to define the holy beyond the theistic definitions we have for so long used uncritically. “Hallowed be thy name” means that the ultimate, the holy, the mystical, the ineffable can never be captured in human words. “Thy Kingdom come” means that our eyes must be trained to see the divine inside the human. It means that the kingdom of God comes when we are empowered to live fully, to love wastefully and to be all that we are capable of being. It means that the work of the kingdom of God is the work of enhancing human wholeness that occurs when the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame leap and the mute sing and when all demeaning human prejudices die. That is when the kingdom of God dawns and when God’s righteousness is revealed.

So we pray – Come, Lord Jesus, establish the realm of God in each one of us. Show us what it means to be human and what it means to be Christian for they are one and the same.

Sola Scriptura?

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love "Useless" Art

Luke Syson was a curator of Renaissance art, of transcendent paintings of saints and solemn Italian ladies — serious art. And then he changed jobs, and inherited the Met's collection of ceramics — pretty, frilly, "useless" candlesticks and vases. He didn't like it. He didn't get it. Until one day...