Lectionary Reflection: Lent 3 - 2013

The Lectionary Readings for the Third Sunday in Lent:

Isaiah 55:1-9; Psalm 63:1-8; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Luke 13:1-9

Again, my reflection comes from Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.

Again, I know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate Gospel text), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might shed some light on - or at least conversation with - Luke's account. Where possible, I will be referring to the parallel Markan accounts of Luke's passages.

This week, there is a direct parallel with Mark 11:12-14 in which Jesus also curses a fig tree. In Mark's account follows Jesus' entry (upon donkey) into Jerusalem, at which point, we are told he "scopes" out the temple, then returns to Bethany.

The following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it." (Mark 11:12-14 - NRSV).

What follows is a political action in the temple: Jesus (and others?) drive out those selling and those who were buying, over turned the money changers tables, the seats of those who sold doves, and wouldn't let anyone carry anything. In essence, he shut down the temple. He teaches a bit and leaves Jerusalem.

The next day, "In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots." (Mark 11:20 - NRSV).

Now that we have the setting of where the "cursing of the fig tree" occurs within Marks' Gospel, how does Myers respond? What insights do we achieve?

Myers starts by noting that the "cursing" episode is the first of three (a. curing of the fig tree; b. temple action; c. fig tree results and parables about faith moving mountains). Myers draws our attention to the ways in which the fig tree drama "sandwiches" the temple action. As such, Myers posits that the fig tree is an acted parable critiquing the temple system itself.*

[Myers] discussion will draw heavily upon W. Telford's detailed study of the background of Mark's metaphorical imagery here ([Telford. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree.] 1980).

Jesus, returning to Jerusalem from Bethany for the start of his ministry of confrontation, curses a fig tree unable to relieve his hunger because it is not the "time" (kairos) for figs (11:13f.). The disciples "hear" this curse (11:14c), and find the next day that the tree has withered (11:20f.). Tleford has demonstrated how the Hebrew Bible as well as contemporaneous Jewish and Christian literature clarify the semantic field of this odd magical tale. He points out that even if it were not narratively juxtaposed with the temple action, the fig tree image would have been recognized as a metaphor for the temple-based nation and its cultus.

Pointing out that the Old Testament literature "on the whole knows very little of nonsymbolical trees," Telford examines five primary (Jer. 8:13; Is 28:3; Hos 9:10,16; Mi 7:1; Jl 1:7,12) and several supplementary texts. He concludes:

The fig tree was an emblem of peace, security, and prosperity and is prominent when descriptions of the Golden Age of Israel's history, past, present, and future, are given - the Garden of Eden, the Exodus, the Wilderness, the Promised Land, the reigns of Solomon and Simon Maccabaeus, and the coming Messianic Age. It figures predominately in the prophetic books and very often in passages with an echatological import. ...

The blossoming of the fig-tree and its giving of its fruits is a descriptive element in passages which depict Yahweh's visiting his people with blessing, while the withering of the fig-tree, the destruction or withholding of its fruit, figures in imagery describing Yahweh's judgement upon his people or their enemies. The theme of judgement is, if anything, more pronounced in the prophetic books. Very often the reason given ... is cultic aberration ... a corrupt Temple cultus and sacrificial system. In some cases, indeed, the fig or fig-tree ... can be used expressly as a symbol for the nation itself. ... Who could doubt, then, the extraordinary impact that Jesus' cursing of the fig-tree would have produced upon the Markan reader, schooled to recognized symbolism wherever it occured [1980:161f., emphasis in the original].

This intertextual evidence is further confirmed in later Jewish material, especially the halakah and haggadah. Again, Telford summerizes his findings:

We have seen how important the fig-tree was in the everyday life of Palestine, and the high esteem with which this, the most fruitful of all the trees, was regarded ... its fruits being among the principal First-fruits to be brought to the sanctuary. ... In the Rabbinic imagery and symbolism ... the good fig is the godly man, or collectively God's righteous people, and the search for figs a picture of Israel's God, seeking out those who are his own. ...

In the Jewish Haggadah ... we found a world of ideation within the context of which the Markan story has its rightful place. Features of the story that are problematic for the modern reader were found to be consonant with the haggadic view of nature and the affairs of mean. In these stories, the world is endowed with human characteristics. The trees are sensitive to the moral dimension. They can be addressed. They can give or withold their fruit in response to human need (whatever the season). Their blossoming or withering has moral and symbolic significance. In the world of the haggadah, the Rabbi's curse has incontrovertible efficacy. ...

We took note, too, of the connection existing in the Jewish mind between the fruitfulness of the trees and the maintenance of the Temple service. According to Rabbis of the first and second centuries, the fruits had lost their savour when the Temple had been destroyed, a state of affairs that was, however, to be reversed in the Messianic Age. ... By placing the story ... in the context of Jesus' visit to the Temple, Mark has dramatically indicated that the expected fruitfulness associated with that institution is not to be true. Its destiny is rather to be withered, and that - ek rhizon [to the roots]! (1980:193-96).

The same semantic field informs Mark at several points, notably the parables (especially the parable of the vineyard, 12:1ff.).

Indeed, the image of "withering to the roots" has already been introduced in the parable of the sower (4:6). thus, the symbolic action of Jesus' cursing of the fig tree is Mark's own little haggadic tale, as well as a midrash on Hosea 9:16 ... . Its narrative function is to begin Jesus' ideological project of subverting the temple-centered social order. The reappearance of the fig tree in the apocalyptic parable (13:28-32) at the conclusion to this section confirms this. In the second sermon, the leafy (i.e. fruitless) fig tree is offered as a sign of the "end time." The world that is coming to an end is the world of the temple-based state .... [BtSM:297-9].

We are left, then, with a direct parable-type action, criticizing the temple as symbolic center for the Judaen social order and oppressor of the people, rather than running as a means of re-distributing the resources of a community/nation/people, the temple had become a power-hungry means of keeping the people poor.
If Lent calls us to look at our-selves closely (not just as individuals, but as a society-at-large), which I think Lent does, then in what ways are we participating in keeping the poor poor? What re-distribution systems are no longer working in our society/culture at large? What would be the symbol Jesus would curse and cause to wither-to-its-roots to get the message across to us?
If we have ears to "hear" and eyes to "see" (unlike the disciples who remain "deaf" and "blind", or at least hard of hearing and seeing), this is a tough lesson to wrestle with.

Blessed Be,

Joel
_____________________
*(See "INTO THE HOLY PLACE: SYMBOLIC DIRECT ACTION (11:11-26)" Binding the Strong Man:297ff.)

Sustainable Monday - Watching Water, Lent 2013

Fresh Water is a marvelous gift - a sustainable necessity to human (and other organic) life on our planet. Yet in some regions of the world, the fresh water is in very short supply and/or what is available isn't fit of drinking. We who live upon the sea can well understand that.

Water water everywhere

Yet not a drop to drink

Fresh water can fall from the sky and collected in our tanks via water catchment systems; be lugged out to our boats via our dinghies from a source on shore: streams or waterfalls or discovered wells and/or springs, or even that marvelous hose. When we are docked in a marina with water right at the tap or staying ashore like the shore dwellers (a.k.a. "landlubbers") we tend to take the water for granted.
When heading back out on a cruise, how do we monitor our usage? Some people use a 5 gallon "day tank" to help keep things in perspective. Others have sight tubes on their water tanks with markings equating to certain gallons in the tank. Foot and hand pumps help, rather than automatic/electric pump systems. No matter what our strategy, it is very helpful to have some system in place to monitor our water consumption, especially on a long ocean passage.
Here's an idea that I ran across in Cutting the Dragon's Tail by Lynda and David Chidell. They built a large junk-rigged yacht for charter work. The question of how to monitor water consumption in a way that guests would understand directly was worked out while installing the pumping. They used a gravity tank to create the pressure needed for all the water needs aboard the boat. This involved using a large day tank. The water was pumped into the day tank via a high capacity (think bilge-type) hand pump. A mark was made upon a chart indicating how many pumps were needed each day to keep the tank topped off. A guest who was using lots of water, could be shown how many more pumps were needed each day since they stepped aboard. The Chidells remark that this system was quite effective.
No matter how you monitor your fresh water, may you find yourself thankful for this gift.
May your use of fresh water remind you of your blessedness.
Blessed Be
Joel

Lectionary Reflection: Lent 2 - 2013

The Lectionary Readings for the Second Sunday in Lent:

Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18; Psalm 27; Philippians 3:17-4:1; Luke 13:31-35

Again, my reflection comes from Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.

Again, I know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate Gospel text), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might shed some light on - or at least conversation with - Luke's account. Where possible, I will be referring to the parallel Markan accounts of Luke's passages.

That, said, there really isn't a parallel with Mark this week.  Mark's Jesus does not lament coming into Jerusalem, as does Luke's and Matthew's Jesus. So, I'm going to instead reflect upon the reading for this Sunday in Year B: Mark 8:31-38. Keep in mind that Mark's Jesus is rather antagonistic toward Herod, and the Galilean Aristocracy as a whole, especially for the way in which they are living off of (and to the detriment of) the peasant and artisan classes, forcing many of them into the "un-status" of expendables.

Backing up to verse 27 (Mark 8:27): Jesus and the Disciples travel to Caesarea Philippi - and "on the way" he asks them, "Who do people say that I am?" Notice the "I Am" saying here - remember Moses at the burning bush asking Yahweh "Who shall I tell them sent me?" and Yahweh answers, "I am who I am" (Exodus 3)? Also notice the ties back to Mark 6:14f. in which Mark introduces his interlude concerning the events of the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod:
Mark's Report                                                       Disciple's Report
1. they were saying that John the Baptist        .......... John the Baptist,
     had risen from the dead
2. but others said that it is Elijah,                    .......... and others Elijah,
3. and others said a prophet like any prophet; .......... and others one of the prophets.
Do the disciples draw the same conclusion? No. Peter introduces to the story world for the first time (the reader was told at the beginning) the politically loaded term "Messiah/Christos". Not only is Jesus a great prophet, he "is a royal figure who will restore the political fortunes of Israel. The revolution, Peter is saying, is at hand" (BtSM: 242).

Not bad for a "blind" guy like Peter, the Reader thinks only then to be shocked when Jesus silences this assertion. "Wait a minute? We were told just this back in Mk 1:1!" Myers points out that Jesus uses the same strong command (epetimesen) that he used to silence the demons (1:25; 3:12); and the wind (4:39). Myers invites us to notice the dialectical interply of this verbal struggle:

Peter: Jesus is Messiah
Jesus silences Peter (8;30)
Jesus: the Human One must suffer (8:31)
Peter silences Jesus (8:32)
Jesus silences Peter (8:33)
Jesus: Peter is Satan.
The series begins with Peter's dramatic confession, but by the end this has been eclipsed by Jesus' still more remarkable double counter-confession: he is not "Messiah" but "Human One," and Peter is the mouthpiece of Satan. This shocking reference brings to mind the polarization in Jesus' war of words with the scribes in 3:22f., and reminds us of the essential war of myths, begun with Satan in the wilderness (1:13) [BtSM:244].

Jesus introduces the first of his three "portents concerning his political fate. With the phrase "Then he began to teach them that it was necessary" (8:31), the entire story is set veering off in a new direction: the long march toward Jerusalem has begun [BtSM: 242-3].

First, Myers draws us into the semantic field of Mark, reminding us that "Mark's audience would clearly have identified as apocalyptic" this portant of Jesus' suffering being "necessary" (BtSM:243). Myers quotes:

It is crucial to understand that this sort of deterministic statement is not made out of a generally fatalistic belief or hope. It belongs specifically to apocalypticism. ... The theological emphasis of this assertion is to strengthen the faithful in times of frightful suffering. This is the way dei is used in Mark 13:7 and also in Revelation. ... The reader is to understand that the sufferings of Jesus were a crucial part of the eschatological drama. So also were the sufferings of John before him and, as chap. 13 should make clear, so are the times of persecution and hardship through which Mark's community was passing [Bennett, W. "The Son of Man Must." NovTest, 1975:128f.]

It is necessary that John/Elijah/Jesus challenge the highest powers and be executed by them, it is part of the "script."

Second, Jesus changes "Messiah" for "Human One" - Mark already shows that the Human One is someone who challenges authority (scribes and Pharisees). Myers, again, mentions that the Human One is from Daniel 7:13f: "I saw in the night visions: behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Human One; and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdoms, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him." (Also appears in 4 Ezra). "This figure ... represents true "human" government as opposed to the brutality of the "beasts" in the visions" (BtSM:243). Mark appeals to Daniel's Human One (written under the Hellenistic oppression two centuries earlier during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV), especially the "courtroom myth" during Jesus' second call to discipleship (Mk 8:31-34).

Third, Jesus then predicts his own death at the hands of the new political coalition (the Jerusalem authority structure), "which does in fact engineer Jesus' murder (10:33; 11:18; 14:1; 15:1, 31) [BtSM:243]. Here Mark adds two new "opponents" (the elders and high priests) by linking them to the old ones (scribes). "The word used for their "rejection" (apodokimasthenai) denotes something "thrown out after a test" by an official court" [BtSM:243].

Through this, Jesus is

challenging the accepted bounds of political discourse in the war of myths. According to the understanding of Peter, "Messiah" necessarily means royal triumph and the restoration of Israel's collective honor. Against this, Jesus argues that "Human One" necessarily means suffering. This is so because, as the advocate of true justice, the Human One as critic of the debt code and the Sabbath necessarily comes into conflict with the "elders and chief priests and scribes" (8:31). In other words, this is not the discourse of fate or fatalism, but of the political inevitability. It is in this sense that Jesus addresses his political vocation "openly" (8:32a, parresia, used only here in Mark; meaning frankly or boldly). Peter's fantasies of power must be censured by clear-eyed realism [BtSM:244].

The bitter exchange with Peter ends with a sharp opposition posited between divine and human authority, echoing the earlier conflict with Pharisaic ideology in 7:8f. The phrase "you are not on the side of God, but of men" is difficult to translate. The verb phroneis (occurring only here in Mark, but more than twenty times in Paul's writings) must be understood in terms of making a commitment or holding a conviction. The radical dualism implies that there is no middle ground - a theme indigenous to the political perspective of apocalyptic. ... Mark is serving us notice that we have arrived at the heart of the ideological conflict [BtSM:245].

Then with the words: "deny yourself"; "take up your cross"; "follow me" Jesus offers a second call to discipleship, not just to the disciples but openly, inclusively, to the entire community. Here "Mark's subversive narrative bursts into the open. There can be no equivocation concerning the political semantics of this invitation. The "cross" had only one connotation in the Roman empire: upon it dissidents were executed" (BtSM:245). Mark may have been borrowing a recruiting phrase from Jewish insurgents (who, of course, would have been regularly crucified). Regardless, there is no way to read this but as a political invitation to face the consequences of daring to challenge the ultimate hegemony of imperial Rome.

Myers continues:

The true antecedent to "taking up the cross" is "self-denial." Is this, as often argued by bourgeois exegesis, indication of a spiritualizing tendency already within the text, as if Mark defines the cross as personal asceticism? Emphatically not; as has been carefully argued by [B.] van Iersel, the semantic context is one of the courtroom:

We are faced with an appeal to Christians who are taken to court in a situation of persecution similar to the one described in 13:9-13. They have to opt between either professing Jesus or denying him. The former requires self-denial, i.e., the risk of one's own life ["The Gospel According to Mark: Written for a Persecuted Community?" NedTehoTijd, 1980:25f.].[BtSM:246]

The paradox of saving one's life only to loose it has similar rhetoric in Hellenistic military officer speeches before a battle: those who fight well, even though they die, die nobly and live on, whereas those who try to keep their own life by fleeing, end up dieing at the hands of their enemies. "But Mark is not goading the disciples to military heroism; he is introducing the central paradox of the Gospel. The threat to punish by death is the bottom line of the power of the state; fear of this threat keeps the dominant order intact. By resisting this fear and pursuing kingdom practice even at the cost of death, the disciple contributes to shattering the powers' reign of death in history. To concede the state's sovereignty in death is to refuse its authority in life (BtSM:247).

There is a double-jeopardy going on here. Not only is this about the "legal court" but also "economics" (the language switches from juridical to economic at 8:36). It is a "bad investment" to try to "bail out" of the legal-confessional bind at a political trial. Even if it showed a "return" there is not "profit" but rather a "dead loss." "Fidelity to Jesus simply has no price" [BtSM:247].

This section then ends with a twist: who's on trial? Not only is this a matter of honor/shame (to be "ashamed" of Jesus words brings reciprocal "shame" as in all honor/shame cultures, and with it a loss of status). With all the judicial language "it is no surprise that Mark should again allude to Daniel's mythical courtroom scene. The "judgement" of the Human One is pitted against the "judgement" of earthly courts and the tyrants who enforce them. To be acquitted by one is to be found guilty in the other. ... [This is not about future triumphalism - bear the cross to wear the crown.] ... In the story world of Mark, the "relations of power" in the myth appear to be reversed. It is the Human One in 8:31 who, in his inevitable conflict with the powers, becomes a defendant in their court, where he is tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. In this sense, Mark's Human One has more affinity with the persecuted saints ... But in the saying of 8:38f., the Human One again appears as true judge, who comes "with the angels" ... to receive the kingdom. In all of this, Mark has reproduced the "bifurcation" of reality effected by Daniel's myth. In Daniel, the prophet "sees" (Dn 7:2) oppressive rulers who appear to be prevailing in the historical moment. But if the prophet looks more deeply ("as I looked again," Dn 7:9), he sees the Human One establishing justice. Thus in Mark, the Human One represents at once both defendant and prosecutor - depending upon which court, "earthly" or "heavenly," is being considered" [BtSM:247-9].

Myers insists that his discourse is not just historical (Daniel or Jesus) but illuminates present reality whatever Christians experience. This story/myth empowers us "to choose to stand with the Human One, a choice that will in reality overthrow the highest and deepest powers (13:26f.)" [BtSM:249].

May we all have such courage.

Blessed Be

Joel

Sustainable Monday - Bio-Regional Education, Lent 2013

My Uncle suggested that I check out Liz Clark's blog/web-page about her voyages on Swell, her Cal-40. Clark is currently sailing through French Polynesia, surfing when she gets the chance. Her reflections are inspiring. You might like to check them out yourself: Liz Clark and the Voyage of Swell.

For our first posting in Lent regarding sustainability, I am going to re-post something Clark wrote regarding our Bio-regional Educations (or, rather, how we have forgotten what our ancestors took thousands of years to learn). She concludes with a quote from Thor Heyerdahl. Thought provoking way to start Lent, and good questions to ponder as we strive to live gently upon this earth - this home - our ours.

Blessed Be.

Joel

Food Foraging and Our Forgotten Bioregional Educations: What we don’t even know we don’t know

May 19, 2012 By Captain lizzy in Blog 11 Comments Tags: back to nature, bioregionalism, fatu hiva, food foraging, Marquesas Islands, nature, thor heyerdahl

In the spirit of Thor and Liv Heyerdahl’s ‘Back to Nature’ adventure almost a hundred years earlier, I embraced my time in Marquesas as a chance to live a little closer to the Source. The relatively low populations and highly fertile soil make for lots of nature’s edibles to be foraged with permission from the local people. So Raiarii and I spent much of our time in the hills and valleys and sea gathering food, cooking over a fire, and combing the terrain for nature’s treasures. We learned from Mami Faatiarau and other friends that with some knowledge of the local plants, we could also make bark rope, palm frond baskets, natural remedies, seats, shelter, hats, you name it… We witnessed that those who were motivated and educated in the flora and fauna, could live heartily and almost wholly off Mother Nature’s provisions.
A few things struck me. Regional plant and animal knowledge must have taken generations upon generations of learning to accumulate. Modern ways make it so easy to let go, homogenize, and forget what our ancestors spent lifetimes figuring out! It can go extinct as easily as a species without a habitat, like it has in so many places where native peoples were killed, disrespected, and paved over. Where I grew up, we don’t even know that we almost all of human history would laugh at us for not knowing our plants!? That itself is a measure of our alienation from nature  and our ‘bioregions’…

There were multiple varieties of mangos, loads of starfruit, lichee, papayas, bananas of all sorts, avocados,  local oranges and grapefruit, limes, and breadfruit just to start! Edible roots included taro, tarua, manioc, and sweet potatoes. And even delicious leafy greens that grew in the streams and slowly flowing tributaries!

It never hurts to get a higher perspective on things!

Can anyone identify these delicious leafy greens?

Mami F's lovely palm frond basket.

New foraging techniques were developed...

We learned how to crack bamboo into flat lengths and weave together to make walls or flooring!

Getting to know palm fronds a little better these days.

“We like to think of progress as modern man’s struggle to secure better food for more people, warmer clothing and finer dwellings for the poor, more medicine and hospitals for the sick, increased security against war, less corruption and crime, a happier life for young and old. But, as it has turned out, progress involves much more. It is progress when weapons are improved to kill more people at a longer range. It is progress when a little man becomes a giant because he can push a button and blow up the world. It is progress when the man in the street can stop thinking and creating because all his problems are solved by others who show him what happens if he turns on a switch. It is progress when people become so specialized that they know almost everything about almost nothing. It is also progress when reality gets so damned dull that we all survive by sitting staring at entertainment radiating from a box, or when one pill is invented to cure the harm done by another, or when hospitals grow up like mushrooms because our heads are overworked and our bodies underdeveloped, because our hearts are empty and our intestines filled with anything cleverly advertised. It is progress when a farmer leaves his hoe and a fisherman his net to step onto an assembly line the day the cornfield is leased to industry, which needs the salmon river as its sewer. It is progress when cities grow bigger and fields and forests smaller, until ever more men spend ever more time in subways and bumper-to-bumper car queues, until neon lights are needed in daytime because buildings grope for the sky and dwarf men and women in canyons where they roll along with klaxons screaming and blow exhaust all over their babies. When children get a sidewalk in exchange for a meadow, when the fragrance of flowers and the view of hills and forests are replaced by air conditioning and a view across the street. It is progress when a centuries-old oak is cut down to give space for a road sign.” –Thor Heyerdahl, Fatu Hiva

Lectionary Reflection: Lent 1 - 2013

Here are the Lectionary Readings for the 1st Sunday in Lent (February 7, 2013):

Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13; Luke 4:1-13

While I was sick this past month, I was able to catch up on some reading. One of the books I've been wanting to read for some time, now, is Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.

I know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate Gospel text), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might shed some light on - or at least conversation with - Luke's account. Where possible, I will be referring to the parallel Markan accounts of Luke's passages.

A word about bias: as a Christian activist, Myers reading shows the political nature of Mark's story of Jesus. Of course this is not the only way to read Mark (or the gospels in general) but I think it is a story that often times becomes neglected. Myers also points out something that I have often taken for granted, but that I think we forget, too. In the the world of antiquity, it is rare (are the gospel's the only accounts?) that a story coming from the populous is written; usually stories/history come from those in power. Myers attempts to keep this in mind throughout his commentary.

Myers' perspective is that Mark wrote his/her Gospel during the Jewish Wars (66-70) from the Galilee. During a period of time in which only two options are presented (pro-Jewish Temple or pro-Roman), Mark offers a critique of both, and a third way - a Messianic Community. To do so, Mark does something never before done, writes a Gospel. To do so, s/he uses influences from apocalyptic and prophetic literature but keeps the action here on the earthly realm, rather than portraying what is happening in the heavens. Mark is not writing a biography: a good reminder.

Now, to take a look at Mark's account of Jesus' Baptism and Wilderness experience (of course, we see parallels with our 40 days of Lent and the 40 years Israel wondered in the Wilderness after leaving Egypt).

Mark 1:9-20
A quick side note: The beginning of Mark's Gospel starts with a reference to Genesis: implying a new beginning: a story about a new heaven and a new earth. And via Mark's title for Jesus ("Messiah") s/he is calling into question the very nature of Roman imperial propagation: Jesus is the true ruler of the world, this is the good news about him - not about the Empire or about the a god-man emperor. Also, by quoting Isaiah and the wilderness, Mark critiques the power structure in Jerusalem by focusing upon the periphery, rather than the Temple/Jerusalem "center." So in the introduction, Mark has set up a critique of both power structures: Roman and Temple/Jerusalem.

John-as-Elijah (notice what John is wearing and in the limited words of this Gospel, how focused Mark is on telling us) comes onto the scene to announce the kingdom's mission (repentance) and the kingdom's envoy (Jesus). The people (especially readers) might notice the tension: is this the beginning or the end?

"Elijah and his prophetic disciples are portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as:

Bringing the pronouncement of judgement on king and court and sentence for faithless violation of the covenant with Yahweh, often as a result of strong foreign culture influence ... the prophets also performed one of the traditional functions of the judge (shophet) in communicating Yahweh's redemptive action, his protection of his people against foreign invasion and domination. ... Against the oppression ... the prophets Elijah and Elisha and their followers, the "sons of prophets," fomented a popular rebellion [against] the house of Ahab [Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. 1985:139, 141] (Binding the Strong Man:126-7).

But John reveals that the "day of the Lord" is waiting for "someone stronger" (BtSM: 127): that person, the reader knows, is Jesus. Notice that this scene of Jesus' baptism starts with Jesus coming from the Galilee (1:9a) and the next scene starts with Jesus' returning or coming back into the Galilee (1:14b).

Galilee ... was notorious; the northern border of Palestine, it was regarded with contempt and suspicion by most southern Jews. ... Galilee was surrounded by Hellenistic cities, populated heavily by gentiles, predominately poor, and geopolitically cut off from Judea by Samaria. Mark has, in other words, confirmed the spatial tension between center and periphery implied in the Jerusalem/wilderness opposition of 1:5 (BtSM:128).

And into the mundane, terrestrial narrative comes a moment of apocalyptic imagery: the heavens are torn open and a voice proclaims blessing. (Such apocalyptic imagery occurs only three times in Mark's Gospel). But the reader is left with the mundane and terrestrial: Jesus retreats into the wilderness (or "forced" into the wilderness by the Spirit). Myers wonders if the readers ask themselves: "Has Mark reduced the apocalyptic hope of a new heaven and earth to hallucination?" (BtSM:129).

     Using K. Burridge's concept of redemption as the discharge of social obligation, Waetjen argues that the symbolic act of Jesus' baptism must be seen in specifically social terms:

It is a genuine act of repentance. As such it ends his participation in the structures and values of society. It concludes his involvement in the moral order into which he was born. ... The entire redemptive process of Jewish society as it is maintained by the institutions through which power is ordered ... the totality of the Jewish-Roman social construction of reality, has been terminated. All the debts that have been incurred under this elitist ordering of power and its community life have been cancelled. The death experience of repentance has redeemed Jesus from his comprehensives indebtedness and the prescribed ways and means of discharging his obligations. He has become wholly unobliged [Waetjen, "The Construction of the Way into a Reordering of Power: An Inquiry into the Generic Conception of the Gospel According to Mark," unpublished, 1982: 6f.] (BtSM: 129).

Myers concludes that Jesus' baptism marks Jesus as a subversive player whose role is now to challenge the oppressive structures of law and order around himself. Baptism-as-declaration-of-resistance, then, is analogous to the USA draft card burning during the Indochina conflict.

Mark sends - "forces" - this "new-human-being" out into the wilderness where Jesus is shaped and tempted to compromise himself (which later occurs in 8:11; 10:12 and 12:15) and to which Jesus warns the disciples against (14:38). And borrowing from Daniel, these "wild beasts" take on the symbolic power of kingdoms. This experience, then, puts a mythic power behind the principalities and powers (Satan and the "wild beasts") of the "world." As a Spirit-human, Jesus is then at odds with the Satan-humans (their oppressive power structures, actually).

Points for pondering:

• I think it is worth pointing out the mythic use of the "wild beasts" (also ties to the Roman Games and the persecutions?) in Daniel rather than the wild creatures we see around ourselves.
• Also, if baptism is "act-as-declaration-of-resistance," how do we need the forty days of Lent to become "new-humans" that are Spirit-led in our confrontations of unjust power structures?
• If this is not the way we saw ourselves at our own baptisms (for instance, I was baptized as an infant) how does this call us into discipleship?
• How do we serve unjust power structures?
• What would the world look like if we didn't?

Blessed Be,

Joel

Ash Wednesday, 2013

On this Ash Wednesday, I find myself rebuilding a bilge pump and cleaning our Dickenson stove.
What are you working upon?
Do you find yourself reflecting upon your task at hand and how that might apply to you (i.e. "What in my life do I need to pump out?" or "Where do I need to clean in my interior/exterior life?")?

Such is the start of Lent.

Blessings,

Joel

Below is the standard Ash Wednesday service I have used for years (out of the United Methodist Book of Worship) - this year, I'm tempted to change the ritual from Ashes to Earth/Mud - reminding ourselves of our connection to our planet home, and the original blessing in the second creation story (see Genesis 2:4ff - please note that adama means human - not Adam whose partner is Eve). Thanks to Tanya and Creation-Care, 365 for this suggestion and pointing out the questions that Paul Nuechterlein raises:

 How about changing the line on Ash Wednesday for the Impositions of Ashes to, "Remember that you are earth, and to earth you shall return" -- which is basically another way to translate adama in Gen. 2:7. Isn't the deeper meaning of Genesis 2:7 that we are made of the same stuff as the earth, and so our fates are bound together? We are called to be stewards of the earth from which we are made. ...
Does this take us too far from the traditional Ash Wednesday theme? I might argue that, given the fact that the Imposition of Ashes is tied to Gen. 2:7, this way of striking the theme might be more true to the overall intentions of the beginning of the Lenten season with Ash Wednesday. If salvation from our sin is the theme of Lent, then let's put the matter into its proper cosmic, creational framework. The scope of God's salvation in Jesus Christ is the whole Creation. And our sinfulness is tied directly to the salvation of Creation because of our failure to live according to our true and original calling, namely, to be stewards with God of God's Creation. Redemption from our sin of straying away from our calling as stewards means redemption of the whole Creation. If we are redeemed to finally take care of the earth as we should, then the earth also begins to be redeemed.
~ Paul Neuchterlein, Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary, "Green Ash Wednesday"

ASH WEDNESDAY SERVICE

GREETING:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
And also with you.
Bless the Lord who forgives all our sins.
God’s mercy endures forever.

OPENING PRAYER   (from the United Methodist Hymnal #353)

O God,

maker of every thing and judge of all that you have made,

from the dust of the earth you have formed us 

and from the dust of death you would raise us up.

By the redemptive power of the cross, 

create in us clean hearts

and put within us a new spirit,

that we may repent of our sins

and lead lives worthy of your calling;

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

SCRIPTURE:
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17
Psalm 51 #785
Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21

INVITATION TO THE OBSERVANCE OF LENTEN DISCIPLINE
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

the early Christians observed with great devotion 

the day of our Lord's passion and resurrection, 

and it became the custom of the Church that before the Easter celebration 

there should be a forty-day season of spiritual preparation.

During this season converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism.

It was also a time when persons who had committed serious sins 

and had separated themselves from the community of faith 

were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, 

and restored to participation in the life of the Church.

In this way the whole congregation was reminded 

of the mercy and forgiveness proclaimed in the gospel of Jesus Christ 

and the need we all have to renew our faith.

I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, 

to observe a holy Lent: 

by self-examination and repentance; 

by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; 

and by reading and meditation on God's Holy  Word.

To make a right beginning of repentance, 

and as a mark of our mortal nature, 

let us now kneel (or bow) before our Creator and Redeemer.

(a brief silence is kept)

THANKSGIVING OVER THE ASHES
Almighty God, you have created us out of the dust of the earth. 

Grant that these ashes may be to us a sign of our mortality and penitence,

so that we may remember that only by your gracious gift

are we given everlasting life;

through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen.

IMPOSITIONS OF THE ASHES
(as people come forward, a leader dips a thumb in the ashes and makes 

a cross on the forehead of each person saying:
Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

THE LORD’S PRAYER

DISMISSAL WITH A BLESSING

Lent Planning - 2013

O My Soul, Your Voyages have been my Native Land.

~ Nikos Kazantzakis

With Lent starting this Wednesday (Ash Wednesday) it is time for some pre-trip planning. Just like before a voyage is taken, the crew sits down and does some preparations and planning, so, too, are we going to discuss some topics to get us thinking about Lent. It is your choice how much planning you want to do, maybe just deciding on the direction is enough (North? South? East? West?).

The forty days of Lent (we don't count the Sundays, as Sundays are always little Easter's, the Lord's Day of Resurrection) is a time of preparing for the Resurrection and for Pentecost. Where are the parts in your life that you would like to have Resurrected? Lent provides an opportunity to explore new areas of your life - establish new ways of being and doing - new habits of the spirit and your greater life.

Just as a concert pianist puts herself under the discipline of the art: practicing daily, learning new music, working with others (the rest of the symphony, the director, etc.), so, too, can we put ourselves under disciplines.

I would invite you to start with the above reflection: Where and What in your life is calling out for Resurrection? After spending some reflection upon that question, ask needs to change in your life to allow that to happen?

Perhaps you would like to feel better connected to the environment (this watery world on which we dwell) and so choose to not use your engine this Lent with the idea of learning to sail in and out of situations, and become less fossil fuel dependent. Maybe you decide to replace all of your lights with LEDs that use a fraction of what your halogen bulbs are using. Maybe you decide to spend Lent eating only local foods. Maybe Lent is calling you to purposefully re-connect with other people: family, friends, co-workers.

Rather than thinking of Lent as a time of giving something up (although you may want to do that, too), Lent offers a chance to create new habits of being.

May these habits of being, pull us closer to experiencing the Divine's grace blowing through our lives.

Blessed Be,

Joel

Changing Technology

After a period of illness, I'm finally feeling better. Hope you are all staying healthy.
Being sick did mean I was able to get some reading done: some frivolous and some serious (stay tuned, Lent is just around the corner and I'll be reflecting on some of it then). One of the enjoyable books I read was by Marjorie Petersen (STORNOWAY East and West). Marjorie and her husband, Al, sail out of New York in the mid-1950's to as far east as Malta before returning via the Caribbean. Out is a delightful story with no mishaps, just sharing the delights of visiting foreign countries and meeting the people there.
The thing that struck me where the photographs. Less than an eighth (1/8) of the photographs were taken by them. As there is no mention of a camera/film mishap I conclude that they set out without a camera.
How things have changed. Cameras are so pervasive these days: phones even have them, digital ones can be had cheap. It is unheard of that someone would set out without a camera, even to just record the voyage for themselves. Wow. Technology had really changed. Yet there story remained a good reminder that these technological tools and toys are just extra. Their voyage was still a profound voyage for them.
How are your technological advances helping you to see with new eyes the wonders and grace of God?
Blessed Be,
Joel