3 Portions of Isaiah

This is the second of two week 2 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

THE CONTENTS: List the reasons scholars think there are three separate portions of Isaiah. Why might it be important as a preacher/pastor to understand this academic distinction?

This is an extremely timely question, as this week, someone asked on our church Discord (where most of our communal life takes place) about the relationship between Isaiah 43:23 and Isaiah 66:23-24. Their question was, in my opinion, based on a need to have a overly literal reading of the Bible and to make predictions about what the next life will be like. We talked about literalism in class last week, and my personal opinion on most of eschatology is that we should take Paul seriously when he tells us "Now I know partially but then I will know completely in the same way that I have been completely known." (1 Corinthians 12:12b) and not waste a lot of time in the now trying to figure out the exact details, but rather focus on what Jesus has told us about how to live in this life. However, I know that people, particularly people who have been heavily exposed to hellfire and brimstone type fundamentalism, worry about the future and have often been taught that they need to find certainty in the Bible even in the face of so many verses that tell us it isn't there. (ie Ecclesiastes 10:14, Matthew 24:36 ) And it is important to take that fear seriously, however, at the same time that I encourage people (myself included) to follow the guidance from Mandy Rice, MDiv on queerituality.com that "You can’t just unthink religious harm. You have to live your way beyond it." At any rate, simply talking about that "academic distinction" was helpful to my co-member in addressing some of their concern and then we were able to work from there.

Here is what I shared with my church about this:

I'm currently reading How The Bible Came To Be for a class and it talks about how Isaiah is likely 3 books or sections, written at different times, Isaiah 1-39, Isaiah 40-55, and Isaiah 56-66. Isaiah the prophet dates to the 8th Century BCE (the book puts him as just after Amos) and part 1 would take place then. The second part, which would include Isaiah 45:23 has references to then current events from the 6th Century BCE, concerning the plight of those exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Then, 56-66, containing the first passage you quoted references then current events from after some of those exiled returned and rebuilt the temple.

(But also, some of the first section might also have been written later.)

So anyway, it seems like at the very least the second passage was a later prophecy.

In addition to the above mentioned timing references, there are differences in style, which not only vary between the three sections, but are also another factor in recognizing that some of the first section my have different authors. That said, none of the three sections are entirely internally consistent in style, but that does not necessarily mean different authors, because I know I, myself, write differently depending on the context.

Beyond being able to give context on relative timing and relationships of prophecies in Isaiah, you cannot understand the context of any given part of Isaiah without realizing that there are different authors from different points in history. I think realizing that parts of Isaiah were written by other authors also impresses on us how important Isaiah was in his own time and shortly after - he may have founded a school of prophets or people may have attempted to copy his style or use his name to gain legitimacy. Finally, I think this is the type of information that helps us fight against the poverty of literalism.

Seriously But Not Literally

 This is the first of two week 1 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

Describe what it means that Progressive Christians “take the Bible seriously but not literally.” 

I've started, stopped and erased several partial paragraphs by now about what it means to "take the Bible seriously but not literally", because almost everything that I come up with is something that the literalists I know would also agree with, in some cases immediately and others in response to questioning. (Roger Wolsey partially addresses this in the introduction to his article 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret The Bible.) However, the more I think about it, the more I see the differences as almost anthropomorphizing the Bible. We don't just see the Bible as, as the CUA Statement of Faith puts it, "the authoritative textual basis of our faith"; we treat it as we would a beloved friend. I don't mean this in the sense of keeping it dear to our hearts and welcoming it into our homes (which my literalist friends do as well), but rather how we  listen and interact with it. We recognize that the same words in different contexts of time, place and content have different meaning. When my friend says "I just can't", context tells me whether they have reached the end of their physical or emotional rope and are asking for help or they are are excited about something and are using hyperbole or they are simply busy / setting a boundary and don't plan to discuss it further. As progressive Christians, we pay attention to nuance and style to determine the meaning of phrases in different contexts in the Bible, just like we do with our friends. If we are walking up to one of our friends and they are saying something that doesn't sound like the good person they usually are, or someone quotes them as having said something that doesn't line up with their usual personality and beliefs, we step back and make sure that they weren't quoting someone else, giving an example of something to avoid doing or saying, or otherwise not attempting to speak for themselves at that moment, and we apply the same to Bible verses. We recognize that story telling, sarcasm, poetry, and venting (imprecatory psalms anyone?) are all viable methods of communicating important information without expecting every word of them to also carry the exact literal truth in the Bible, just as we do in our friends. We recognize that what is appropriate in one time and place is not appropriate in another, and just as we behave differently when we show up to support our friends at something hard like a funeral than when we watch a movie together for relaxation, we don't expect every statement, requirement or prohibition in the Bible to apply in every situation. Just as we accept our friends when they are not perfect, as progressives, we don't and don't have to expect the Bible to be perfect in every way to value it or for it (in conjunction with the Holy Spirit) to illuminate our lives and strengthen our relationship with God.

(Are There) Passages to Know By Heart

This is the second of two week 1 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

Discuss the “Fifteen Passages to Know by Heart.” [This is in a publication called The Bible and The United Church of Christ.] In your response, indicate whether or not you agree with the importance of knowing Scripture by heart and list the passages you would suggest for a similar list to “know by heart” or to “be familiar with.”

 I think the most important line in Caldwell's article is not any of the specific verses, but rather his description of what he means by knowing a passage by heart - "The point isn’t just to be able to rattle them off; the point is to know them so intimately that they’re written on your heart." I strongly disagree with just learning verses in a vacuum, and I have my doubts about memorizing them at all. A lot of verses are only truly meaningful in the larger context or are extremely misleading without it. Among my favorite verses are the pairing of "beat their swords  into plowshares" (Isaiah 2:4 / Micah 4:3) and "beat your plowshares into swords" (Joel 3:10), in large part because I think part of the point of them is to remind us how important context is. (Although I absolutely want to live in a world where we all can, metaphorically, beat swords into plowshares and live in peace.) I think that learning verses by rote makes it easier to weaponize them. That isn't to say that the practice is bad, but when you only know a few verses, it is easy to put too much emphasis on them and not the rest of the story they are a part of. (Lists like [some number] Bible verses about [topic XYZ] need to be approached with similar caution.) For one of my classes, we watched some taped lectures from an evangelical school, Gordon College. One of those lectures talked about the problems of transmission of the Bible and the fact that we know there have been some transmission errors because manuscripts differ. One of the students in the original class saw this as a challenge to his belief in Biblical inerrancy, but wasn't able to verbalize how or even his belief in inerrancy beyond simply repeating "The Lord's word is flawless" (Psalm 18:30) over and over. In his case, having learned a (partial) verse to support and defend his belief was actually keeping him from being able to ask questions and gain clarification on a topic, he knew the verse but he hadn't brought it into his heart.

In my Bible study group recently, we were discussing how growing up queer in America, even if you are in an affirming church yourself (or even a UUA church where the Bible is merely one among several potential "sources of meaning"), there is this constant pressure to discuss and defend against the "gotcha" verses and how that interferes in having a full relationship with the Bible. And I notice this same thing in Christian Universalism, people spend so much time focusing on the hell versus salvation texts that they lose track of what the Bible as a whole has to teach us. As Robin A. Parry says "every theological system has its problem texts"(The Evangelical Universalist, p 154), and it's important that we don't just focus on (or in this case memorize) the texts that promote or defend our beliefs or, alternatively, call out beliefs we disagree with. (No one wants to define our own theology as reactionary, but sometimes we do define ourselves by who or what we are not.)

Another concern I have with verse memorization is learning differences. Some people find memorization very easy and others find it difficult to impossible. Some people retain information easily once they have memorized it and others have to constantly review in order to keep it. I have noticed that memorizing things like sentences or examples helps some people understand concepts and for others understanding starts with getting the gist and then implementing the knowledge in some way; requiring exact memorization does not seem to make a huge difference. I suspect that the actual personal value of verse memorization has a lot to do with where you fall in this learning spectrum.

Any verse that someone ends up memorizing because they find it valuable and reference and discuss it  - either with others or in their personal reflections and prayer (ie have taken to heart organically) is a treasure. But I'm not sure the same benefit comes from picking a verse and going over it in whatever manner works for you until you have memorized it. One might be able to imitate the first process and study, discuss and pray with a verse enough times that you do memorize it; but that isn't what we usually think of as verse memorization.

In the 1960's and 1970's editions of the Joy of Cooking, the introduction to the index talks about two kinds of knowledge, what you know and what you can find easily. The internet and the ubiquity of smartphones means that even if your memory of the verse is, as Caldwell puts it 'you just describe it by saying, “You know, it’s the one about…”', you can probably find it in a few seconds, likely in multiple versions and with notes and commentary. While I agree with Caldwell that our personal favorites deserve better than “You know, it’s the one about…”, I'm not sure how many more verses deserve more than that. And speaking of versions, memorization tends to trap us in one translation (unless we both know and memorize in the original language.) That may or may not be a good thing. In 6th grade, I attended an Episcopal school and we had to memorize the Lord's Prayer (I believe the 1962 BCP version), that is still the wording of the Lord's Prayer I think of 40 plus years later. My current minister rotates through different versions of the Lord's Prayer and some of the versions with more modern language really speak to my soul, but my mind still defaults back to what I learned in 6th grade. Had I learned that version by reciting it regularly with my family, the memories attached might outweigh the more archaic wording, but in fact, my family was UU and didn't attend a church that prayed like that and my 6th grade school was a horrible fit for me academically, emotionally and socially, to the point of being a damaging experience. I don't think most memorization experiences will be that extreme, but I do know several people who have read a section of the Bible in a new or unfamiliar translation and had it open their heart in some way and it would be unfortunate if prior memorization interfered with their ability to fully integrate that experience.

I think there are ways to engage seriously with scripture beyond just reading that don't necessarily require memorization or access to education or study helps. For my final project for Freshman calligraphy class (at a secular but private school), I made an artistic copy of the school chapter 1 Corinthians 13. The process of planning and carefully writing it out (and the slow process of doing so) allowed me to internalize this text without memorizing it and encouraged me to think about it. The practice of lectio divina is a more formal way of spending time with a piece of scripture. Putting a chapter or book of the Bible in audio format on repeat while you drive or do chores may have a similar effect.

I've covered which verses not to bring into your heart, but not really which verses I would suggest. Part of that is that because I am cautious and ambivalent about the value of memorizing verses on purpose, I don't have strong opinions on which verses one should pick for this task. As a list of meaningful verses, I mostly like Caldwell's list. As a universalist, I'd probably leave out John 3:16 because I think people get too caught up in the "everyone who believes in him" part, particularly when it is quoted as a stand alone verse. I'd add 1 John 4:8, but that may have as much to do with the fact that it was my grandmother's favorite verse as the verse itself. I prefer Mark 12:29-31 to Deuteronomy 6:4-5, but that is mostly because I have organically used and studied the former enough times that it has settled in my heart, not because I think it is actually the superior statement. Perhaps I spent too much time pondering the "glass darkly" in 1 Corinthians 13, but I think Revelation and the assumption that it (or anything in the Bible) is a specific message about what the next life will bring is problematic, so I would probably  leave out that verse.

There is a list of verses that I have considered memorizing. I am a big fan of the Narrative Lectionary, which is an attempt to cover all the important stories of the bible. My church uses materials from Spirit and Truth publishing that recommend a memory verse (often actually a partial verse) for each Lectionary Reading. No one in my church is memorizing them, or even paying attention to the fact that there are memory verses in the material, but it has occurred to me that if I actually did so for a year, those 30 or so verses might function as reminders for pretty much all the major stories of the Bible and that would be an amazing thing to be able to recall easily.

Chaplaincy and Separation of Church and State

This was a homework assignment from IFOC chaplaincy class.

The phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson replying to the concerns (and congratulations on being elected) of the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association that religion could be legislated in the various states. Jefferson feels this wall was built by the First Amendment.

Lemon v Kurtzman was a 1971 Supreme Court case looking at whether it was legal for the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island to (partially) reimburse private schools for the education of the state's children. It was found that it was not constitutional because the law was only benefiting the Catholic Church and the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church." The case law produced the "Lemon Test", which is a 3 prong test of whether or not a religious related act or entity violates the separation of church and state.

The Lemon Test

1. Secular Purpose - there needs to be a secular purpose to the act (educating children, feeding the hungry, helping the hurting)
2. Primary Effect - is it to advance or inhibit religion. Our textbook example of a violation is requiring spiritual counseling prior to admittance to a shelter. (Which our instructor points out is also "just mean.")
3. Excessive Entanglement - this means the government cannot show favoritism to any specific religion.

Lemon (Alton Toussaint Lemon) was a social worker and civil rights activist who objected to the state paying part of the salaries of private school teachers. He was also a parent with a child in public school, which gave him standing. Some believe he was chosen as the namesake because he was African-American and an underlying issue was people using private schools to avoid desegregation.

David Kurtzman represented the government (was the respondent). He had been Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh and worked for David Lawrence (the mayor of Pittsburgh and then Governor of Pennsylvania.) He might have been the Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, but it isn't clear.

Carter v Broadlawns (1989) looked at whether it was constitutional for government entities (a hospital in Iowa - Broadlawns Medical Center) to pay chaplains.  Carter refers to 2 people named Carter - Larry Henry Carter and Courtney Carter (a third person Maurice LaBelle also filed suit), all 3 identify as athiests. Applying the Lemon test, the court found secular purpose in supporting the hospital's holistic treatment approach. It was also found that having a professional staff chaplain reduced entanglement because part of the job was to ensure volunteer chaplains were not proselytizing and hospital staff were spending less time supervising volunteer chaplains.  (Source: Los Angeles Times 3/27/1989 )

Studying Chaplaincy

I've been studying to be a chaplain for a year now, and I'm going to start sharing some of my schoolwork. I've been loath to do so because the set topics don't always feel true to me, but I'm going to attempt to get over that.

Lenten Reading 2017 - Sundown Towns

This year for my Lenten reading, I am reading social justice books (well, possibly only one, we'll see how it goes.) This is very much in line with my UU heritage. I am starting by finishing Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by James W. Loewen. I started it, I think, a few years ago and have read it on and off, but quite honestly it is a hard and challenging read because I just don't want to face the racism I've been living with all my life and ignoring. I live in Oregon, which was designed to be all white and even advertised as a "White Paradise." Eugene, where I live now, was a sundown town. It wasn't that long ago that the white cross on a hill that historically marked the town as no blacks allowed was moved off of public property. It is apparently still on private property somewhere.

Pastor's Letter or Enduring Scripture

John Pavlovitz, in an excellent though mostly unrelated post, referred to the writings of Paul as pastoral letters. I am, in general, not a fan of Paul. I think he tends to say things that are overzealous and mean sprited. However, in the context of pastoral letters, his writings take on a whole different meaning. They are written not as permanent instructions, but to fix problems and raise faith in the present time and place. He is at times a great & poetic writer & his writing is worth keeping & studying for the beauty and history. But it is not and was never meant as instructions for how to live our faith outside of that time and those congregations.