Mark Twain considered it his most important book, and his best book. It was fourteen years in the making, twelve years of research and two years of writing. The book is Joan of Arc, a book of which I had never heard.

Having only a sketchy acquaintance of Joan of Arc, I decided to read the story of this  person who so enthralled Twain. One can feel Twain’s admiration, bewilderment and fascination in this run-on sentence.
“But Joan was competent in a law case at sixteen without ever having seen a law-book or a court-house before; she had no training in soldiership and no associations with it, yet she was a competent general in her first campaign; she was  brave in her first battle, yet her courage had had no education—not even the education which a boy’s courage gets from never-ceasing reminders that it is not permissible in a boy to be a coward, but only in a girl; friendless, alone, ignorant, in the blossom of her youth, she sat week after week, a prisoner in chains, before her assemblage of judges, enemies hunting her to her death, the ablest minds in France, and answered them out of an untaught wisdom which overmatched their learning, baffled their tricks and treacheries with a native sagacity which compelled their wonder, and scored every day a victory against these incredible odds and camped unchallenged on the field.”
Still, Joan’s condemnation and death by fire were sealed before the trial even began.

Mark Twain’s fascination with Joan was a antidote to his pessimistic view of human nature. He believed that humans, although desiring freedom and liberty in thought and action, succumbed to the bondage of selfish motives. Joan represented the possibility that humans could be free of that bondage, even if they seldom were. Twain ends his book with the words, “she is easily and by far the most extraordinary person the human race has ever produced.”

We can trace some of the factors that go into the geniuses of Mozart, Madam Curie and Einstein, but how do we account for people like Joan of Arc and even even Jesus of Nazareth, who, coming from peasant stock, unlettered and inexperienced in the ways of the world, have  led such extraordinary lives and have had such an impact on human history?

Nevertheless, in only focusing on those who display extraordinary talents, skills and courage, it is easy to overlook the everyday courage of people. As a minister, listening to the stories of others, the traumatic stories which every minister hears, I gained an appreciation for the quiet heroism of ‘ordinary’ people. People have dealt with so much that should have crushed them: death, addiction, divorce, rejection, abuse, dreams dashed, etc. I stand in awe at the tenacity of people to pick up the pieces of their lives and to move forward one step at a time. I find strength for my own journey when I remember what I call ‘the awesome tenacity of the human spirit.’ I think for the most part, we humans go through life not knowing what strength is in us until something turns up that calls out of us resources of which we were previously oblivious.

There is a magnificence in the ordinary lives of ordinary people, even living in ordinary times.

Bob Tucker
August 2009

Speaking of a war between science and religion is quite common. I find that ‘war’ metaphor quite objectionable. A far better metaphor, to my mind, is to consider these two areas of human existence as ‘siblings.’ For although science and religion can be at odds with each other (what brothers and sisters don’t fight), they are bound far more tightly by their common search for truth—for investigating, understanding and articulating the awesome existence of ourselves and the world of which we all are a part. To speak of a war means we take our focus off our commonality and think in terms of an enemy.

The two fields, being part of the same family, have parallel histories. (Do note, I am using religion and science as umbrella words under which broad areas of life are included. Also, I will be using the words functionally, not normatively.)

In medieval times religion dominated learning in the university and theology was called the ‘queen of the sciences,’ which meant that all departments of scholarship were seen in light of, and subject to, theology or religion. By the middle of the twentieth century, when I was in public schools and universities, science was the new ‘queen,’ (although not given that title). What that meant was that other academic disciplines were now seen in light of, and subject to, science.

For example, when I studied introductory sociology, the first chapter of the sociology textbook was a statement on why sociology was a science. When I studied introductory psychology, the first chapter of the psychology textbook was a statement on why psychology was a science. And, years later, I received a master’s degree in the field of ‘Library Science’ (such a strange use of the word science, but its use shows the power science held). Although science continues to have a powerful hold on society and academia, science lost its role of ‘Queen’ in the university, just as religion had done so previously.

What caused the precipitous drop of science from its ‘queenship?’ I believe science mirrored its sibling, religion. Both areas became pedantic and both became harmful to human life.

Compare, for example, how religion is taught and how science is taught, especially in pre-university education. (Remember I am writing of science and religion and science functionally.)
Each subject uses a book: the Bible/confirmation book and the science textbook.
Each subject has an authority: the religion teacher and the science teacher.
Each subject teaches dogma derived from authority. The correct answer for the speed of light is 186,000,000/mps based on authority, for no middle or high school student has checked that out. Incomprehensible facts/beliefs are taught to be true: the incomprehensibility of Jesus as fully man and fully God, and the incomprehensibility of light as both wave and particle.
Each subject has exams: testing not one’s experience-knowledge but one’s memorization-knowledge of the material that is funneled into minds from the authorities of book and lecture.

There is one additional similarity.
In the hands of average teachers (and average means the large bulk of any population) each subject tends to be taught by people who personally lost, or never had, the feeling of awe and wonder of the subject, and who lost, or never had, the thrill of searching and discovering. That lack of excitement is also communicated in the classroom.

If, when young, once-a-week religious instruction is tedious, how does sitting in a classroom for a required five days a week and learning dry facts avoid tediousness?

Science, like religion, also became harmful to human life.
Everyone knows religion as a bloody affair: the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, the Inquisition, and the Salem trials easily come to mind. But, science, itself, has a bloody history.

It was science that carried out the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. It was science that developed the Zyklon B gas used in the Nazi ovens. It was science that developed the atomic bomb wiping out the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was science that developed the shock-and-awe over Bagdad. It is science whose efforts have led to plant, animal and environmental degradation and toxification.

The actual number of people killed by science in the twentieth century far exceeds by many times the number killed by religion during the preceding centuries, but that is due to the far larger number of people in the world and the far more effective means developed for mass killing.

The siblings, science and religion, have provided so many benefits to the human race. They both have also found a common way to take what are truly awesomely exciting fields of investigation into human experience and the world around and bore people. They have also found ways to be awesomely destructive.

Only in the same sense that, for example, George W. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth,
… and no one ever asks whether the spoon was sterling or silver plate.
No one asks that question because we all know that ‘silver spoon’ is a figure of speech. Its point is that Bush was born into privilege and wealth.
Virgin birth is an ancient figure of speech, a way of pointing, not to privilege and wealth, but to extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual. For example, Alexander the Great was said to be virgin-born—more than three hundred years before Jesus’ birth. The same was said of the great Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus who died in 14 C.E., about sixteen years before Jesus’ death. His father was the god Apollo who conceived him in his mother, Atia.
These great, but pre-Christian, historical figures were just two of numerous virgin-born humans. A number of great religious figures were also virgin-born. That should tell us that a virgin birth in the ancient world was not a literal belief. People used the term ‘virgin birth’ not because they believed in miracles, but because it was an attempt to say something about the greatness of a person.
It is a modern arrogance to impute such incredulous ignorance to the ancients concerning human reproduction. Of course they were aware of human intercourse producing pregnancy, and counting to nine was not rocket science for them.
Yet, for some reason the story of the virgin birth of Jesus, more than any other doctrine, has become a litmus test for much of fundamentalist Christianity.
The virgin birth is found only in Matthew and Luke, and is totally absent from the earliest New Testament writers Paul and Mark and, also, from all the later writers following Matthew and Luke. Two and a quarter centuries after the writing of the New Testament, this metaphor/story became enshrined in the Nicene Creed. Scholars have long pointed out that the Isaiah ‘prophecy,’ on which the virgin birth is based, is a misreading of the Isaiah passage. Matthew and Luke wrote in Greek and quoted Isaiah 7:12-16 from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament completed about 200 years before Jesus appeared on the scene). The Greek Septuagint uses a Greek work which specifically means ‘virgin,’ whereas the Hebrew work it translates has the broader meaning of ‘young woman,’ who may or may not be a virgin.
Awareness of such textual misunderstandings has not deterred people, even today, from affirming a miraculous birth for Jesus. Nor has such belief been dismissed, even when it is pointed out that there have been any number of virgin birth stories that were part of the Middle Eastern religious and political scene prior to Jesus.
Although, today, we do not use the expression virgin-born to describe an outstanding person, we still cannot trace with exactitude the cause of the extraordinary talent of an individual, talent far exceeding what we expect from humans. Birth and culture may hint at greatness, but they cannot totally encompass it. How do we understand Mozart composing good music at the age of five? How do we understand Albert Einstein, working in a Swiss patent office, envisioning such counter-intuitive views of time and space? We can study their early lives and gain some understanding but we cannot, out of that study, predict their greatness.
In the Zen tradition, a student is warned not to confuse the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself. In the same way the expression ‘virgin-born,’ pointing to the greatness of a person, ought not be confused with the literal birth-origin of that person.
Was Jesus born of a virgin? No, there is no need to literalize a miraculous ‘who done it’ story. However, keepimg in mind  that a virgin birth is a figure of speech the ancients used to to point to an extraordinary human being, one could still sing of such a birth at Christmas and affirm that statement in a creed. Many Christians today choose to do neither.
An afterword
At times, if my mood is light, I might whimsically play out a scenario with a fundamentalist. I will say that we could, if we so wanted, use virgin-born today as a metaphor, nor for greatness, but for uniqueness. With that understanding, we could say that our children, each of whom we agree has unique characteristics, are virgin-born. Using the same logic, we could take the next step and acknowledge that each one of us is virgin-born. And since Bible verses are important,  I then top off my playfulness with a quote from the Gospel of John, first chapter, verses 12 and 13, as a way to stir the imagination.
But to all who did receive him, to those who have yielded him their allegiance, he gave the right to become children of God, not born of any human stock, or by the fleshly desire of a human father, but the offspring of God himself.
Bob Tucker

Two reports on child abuse in the Catholic Church arrived on my desk today. Incredibly, as bad as one was, the second was even worse. The first report was from Chicago and the second from Ireland.

The Archdiocese of Chicago this week agreed to pay $3.9 million to settle six sexual abuse cases. Along with the money was a bishop’s deposition that the church had failed to report the crimes in order to keep them secret. An attorney for the victims said, “What emerges here is that the interests of the institution come first, then the man, the perpetrator of crime, and somewhere in the distance the victims of the crime. Their priorities are in the wrong order.” The archdiocese had moved serial predators from parish to parish without informing the congregations receiving the predators. From June 2001 to June 2008, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has paid $80.2 million in claims.

If you think that church sexual abuse can’t get any worse that that, you are not aware of what has, and is, happening in Ireland. A second report has just been issued detailing the sexual abuse of 450 children. This follows a previous report (the Ryan Commission Report) of systematic sexual, physical and emotional abuse of hundreds of thousands of children in institutions run by various religious orders. Again, the report shows how bishops sought to cover up by moving priests from parish to parish. The arrest and conviction of one priest who, over forty years, abused children in Dublin, Belfast, and the United States led to the collapse of the Irish Government.

In my own half century of ministry, there was the initial time in the fifties when no one spoke of being sexually abused. Beginning in the sixties a few women started to speak out hesitantly and only in assured strict confidentiality. Then in the nineties, three men spoke with me of their being abused. In all those years, no one spoke casually of what happened. Each person had been scarred. Yet, each had also picked up the pieces from their past and created a life for themselves.

Rare courage is shown not just in news accounts of dramatic acts but also in the lives of many we meet day-by-day.

Bob Tucker

Sources

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-catholic-sex-abuse-settle-22jul22,0,5067268.storyhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6722491.ece

As memorable as any passage of scripture or words of Lincoln or King is the familiar statement of Lord Action written as an oppositional response to the declaration on papal infallibility made by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Acton wrote,  “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With that sentence in mind, much destructive human behavior—self-administered or imposed on others—becomes quite clear.

That absolute power corrupts we readily see in the ‘captains of banking’ who brought about a national financial collapse, who received billions of public money in a bailout, and who, on having a recovery, are ready to dole out millions in bonuses to corporate executives while unemployment rises half a million each month. Arrogance goes with power, and corruption proceeds from such arrogance. We can also see corruption beginning to seep out of the seams in the current administration, following the rampant corruption in the previous administration. Given the shortness of time the current administration has been in power, the word ‘blatant’ cannot be used for it—yet. But, I fully expect that Lord Acton’s Dictum will continue to work its way.

One need not think only of political and corporate power. Heads of non-profits have carved out fiefdoms, too often taking perks under the guise of ‘since I’m doing so much for which I am not getting the compensation I deserve, certainly this first class-flight to this plush resort is only my due.’

However, Lord Action also wrote that everyday, ordinary power ‘tends’ to corrupt. Of course he is right. It is not just elected figures and appointed executives who find corruption going hand-in-hand with their power. Professionals, because of education, training and experience, too often take on the aura of infallibility with their patients and clients. Ministers, with their ‘bully’ pulpits, are certainly not immune.

Although it’s more subtle, one can often see the rise of self-importance, the eroding of humility, the dismissal of criticism and others’ ideas in those elected to the position of presiding officers in voluntary organizations, in community and church.

Where the ‘power tends to corrupt’ is so physically and mentally destructive is in the power of big parents in the lives of small children and minors. Due to my membership on the Board of the Woman’s Center (rape crisis counseling, women’s shelter, etc.), working as a Child Advocate, and serving on the Board of Justice for Children, I have found my awareness of the sheer amount of abuse of children hellish. Starvation, broken bones, imprisonment, sexual exploitation, and death itself are reported in the multiple daily emails I receive. But, even in a ‘good’ home, what frustrated or angry parent has not, at one time or another, lashed out with word or hand or both on the child over whom that person has power?

Fortunately, the ordinary power and authority we have is not always corrupted and not exercised all the time. However, as Acton points out, the more power a person has, the easier it is to self-justify its abusive use.

Some self-examination of the areas in which each of us exercises power and authority is in order.

Bob Tucker
July 2009

Garrison Keillor in his daily blog notes that 18 July is the anniversary of the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council in 1870. There has always been much confusion about this doctrine, even among Roman Catholics. Papal Infallibility does not state that everything the Pope says is divine truth. Nor does it claim that the Pope is a sinless person.  The official statement (next paragraph) states that only when the Pope is speaking ‘from Peter’s chair’ and only when speaking on matters of faith or morals is a doctrine to be held by the whole church. In fact, the only use of papal infallibility since the 1870 Council was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was, like Jesus, born without original sin and was taken up body and soul into heaven. There was an assumption at the time that soon would follow a similar doctrine making Mary ‘co-redemtrix of the human race.’ However events in the world and in the church make the future promulgation of that doctrine quite unlikely.

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

The Vatican Council also was the cause of a statement that has been a cardinal principle on my journey through this less-that-perfect life: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This was spoken by the British Roman Catholic Lord Acton, 1834-1902, in opposition to the work of the Council.

Acton’s words following the “Dictum” are also worth noting. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

When people I know have been selected or elected to positions of authority and power, I will write my congratulations, and also include a prayerful note of personal concern. More on the pervasiveness in human life (and in our personal lives) of Lord Acton’s Dictum will appear in a future blog.

Bob Tucker
18 July 2009

On vacation in a place without an internet connection. Blogs will return at the end of July.

May these summer days entice you into them with anticipation and joy.

Bob Tucker

Does a Minister Need to believe in God?

Apparently not … at least not in the Netherlands.

Pastor Klaas Hendrikse is a self-confessed atheist.

He has been a Protestant minister in the Netherlands for more than 20 years, serving churches of the combined Lutheran and Reformed denominations. Two issues of interest strike me: the response of church authorities to his declaration of atheism and the rationale for atheism by the minister himself.

The church authorities decided to opt out of any disciplinary action. They said that such proceedings would likely lead to “a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity.” Their statement also noted that people have debated the issue of  ‘God’s existence’ throughout time.

The authorities’ unwillingness, or inability, to delve into this issue is understandable, for indeed, debating ‘God’s existence’ seems almost an exercise in futility. The authorities may have felt that their time, and the attention of their churches, needed to be focused on more pressing matters. I wonder, too, if church leaders may have considered that they would be seen, once more, discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For whatever reason, church officials backed off.

Hendrikse’s atheism, though, is not as cleanly anti-God as the word atheist usually conveys. In his book, published in 2007, he wrote that it was not necessary to believe in God’s existence in order to believe in ‘God.’ “The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer … God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, “I will not abandon you,” and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God.”

Actually, such ‘clarification’ makes his atheism not that strange.

Theologian Paul Tillich wrote: ” The name of this infinite and inexhaustible depth is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word does not have much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation.”

What initially may have appeared to be scandalous turns out to be a pretty straightforward contemporary theology, at least for the author of this commentary.

This story was found on the ENI Daily News Service Web site www.eni.ch.