For my prior macabre post, I looked at this Wikipedia article on Día de los Muertos.
The following description of the feast that people set out for their deceased loved ones totally reminded me of what people jokingly say about sweets, such as "Oh, it's only half a cookie, so the calories don't count" or "Calories don't count on Fridays."
"Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrendas food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."
I say we designate days of the week or hours of the day for ghosts to consume the spiritual essence of cookies, brownies, cake, chocolate, candy, etc. I'm totally into that.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The macabre and resurrection
I happened upon the origin of the word macabre the other day, and I'm amazed by how it apparently came about.
According to dictionaries, the most commonly accepted tale is during the horrors of Black Death, monks wanted to help the populace understand the inevitability of death for all persons. They created these, well, macabre, morality plays something like Tetzel used to sell indulgences as depicted in the movie Luther.
Evidently one of the originals portrayed the torture and ritual execution of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees. This was known in Old French as "danse macabre," the dance of death, or perhaps the dance of the Maccabees. Throughout the Middle Ages, this kind of reminder of death cropped up often. It may have even been used on feast days honoring the deceased. (Think Día de los Muertos.) The theme entered the decor of places such as ossuaries and sarcophagi as skulls and skeletons.
What I find so interesting is while the Maccabean martyrs were being dismembered, they were talking about resurrection, almost mocking their torturers. They weren't the slightest bit concerned about the inevitability of death. But they were certain of the inevitability of resurrection. How would life be different if we saw it (and death) this way? We don't seem too concerned with skullish representations of death in America, but we seem to be even less aware of resurrection. What would it take to come up with an iconography of resurrection, rather than skulls and skeletons?
According to dictionaries, the most commonly accepted tale is during the horrors of Black Death, monks wanted to help the populace understand the inevitability of death for all persons. They created these, well, macabre, morality plays something like Tetzel used to sell indulgences as depicted in the movie Luther.
Evidently one of the originals portrayed the torture and ritual execution of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees. This was known in Old French as "danse macabre," the dance of death, or perhaps the dance of the Maccabees. Throughout the Middle Ages, this kind of reminder of death cropped up often. It may have even been used on feast days honoring the deceased. (Think Día de los Muertos.) The theme entered the decor of places such as ossuaries and sarcophagi as skulls and skeletons.
What I find so interesting is while the Maccabean martyrs were being dismembered, they were talking about resurrection, almost mocking their torturers. They weren't the slightest bit concerned about the inevitability of death. But they were certain of the inevitability of resurrection. How would life be different if we saw it (and death) this way? We don't seem too concerned with skullish representations of death in America, but we seem to be even less aware of resurrection. What would it take to come up with an iconography of resurrection, rather than skulls and skeletons?
Monday, March 19, 2012
Antichrist
I remember so much talk about the antichrist when I was growing up. He was to be a key player in end times scenarios. However, I started to get skeptical when I discovered that the only place such a person is mentioned is in John's letters, referring to someone who denied that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ). And there were multiple antichrists.
In my study of what Jesus's Messiahship really meant (largely from NT Wright's work), it seems that he was the one who was the last great prophet to warn Israel of her impending doom. As Messiah, of course, he was Israel's king, but he offered a stark warning, and then he even bore his people's punishment on the cross. He offered the whole nation forgiveness from sin and return from exile in the sense of the absence of God's tangible presence. However, his warning was of what felt like a much more devastating exile: destruction of the entire countryside, including the holy city of Jerusalem and its temple.
If Jesus's first-level purpose before salvation of the world and restoration of creation was to warn people of imminent punishment, exactly in the spirit of Jeremiah, then who would be the antichrist? Paul sets the stage in 1 Thessalonians: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (NIV). It's those people saying, "There's nothing to worry about! What? There was a prophet who said to repent? Nah." They are the ones contravening the Messiah's prophecy. They are the ones deceiving their loved ones into dying a horrible death at the hands of the Romans rather than listening to Jesus's warning to "run for the hills!"
I always thought John's letters were a bit rambly and circumlocutory. Now I see that his letters really intended to use circumlocution: "the use of many words where fewer would do, esp. in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive." There's an apocalyptic feel to the way he says, "Don't entertain people who come to town saying that this Jesus stuff is bunk and that we need to placate the Romans, because Romans will be Romans. You must live in love by serving the real King of the world, Jesus." Oh, that's a message the ruling powers don't like to hear, and you have to be careful how you say it.
In my study of what Jesus's Messiahship really meant (largely from NT Wright's work), it seems that he was the one who was the last great prophet to warn Israel of her impending doom. As Messiah, of course, he was Israel's king, but he offered a stark warning, and then he even bore his people's punishment on the cross. He offered the whole nation forgiveness from sin and return from exile in the sense of the absence of God's tangible presence. However, his warning was of what felt like a much more devastating exile: destruction of the entire countryside, including the holy city of Jerusalem and its temple.
If Jesus's first-level purpose before salvation of the world and restoration of creation was to warn people of imminent punishment, exactly in the spirit of Jeremiah, then who would be the antichrist? Paul sets the stage in 1 Thessalonians: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (NIV). It's those people saying, "There's nothing to worry about! What? There was a prophet who said to repent? Nah." They are the ones contravening the Messiah's prophecy. They are the ones deceiving their loved ones into dying a horrible death at the hands of the Romans rather than listening to Jesus's warning to "run for the hills!"
I always thought John's letters were a bit rambly and circumlocutory. Now I see that his letters really intended to use circumlocution: "the use of many words where fewer would do, esp. in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive." There's an apocalyptic feel to the way he says, "Don't entertain people who come to town saying that this Jesus stuff is bunk and that we need to placate the Romans, because Romans will be Romans. You must live in love by serving the real King of the world, Jesus." Oh, that's a message the ruling powers don't like to hear, and you have to be careful how you say it.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tarshish
Nope, this isn't about Jonah. This is about trading ships. It seems throughout Hebrew Scripture that ships were originally referred to as "ships that could go to Tarshish." It makes more sense to us to say "trading ships."
But that's not the point either.
In both Samuel–Kings and Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah, the text recounts that Jehoshaphat built a fleet of trading ships but they were wrecked before they set sail. A prophet noted that this was because he had made the ship-building alliance with Ahaziah king of Israel "who was guilty of wickedness."
It makes sense that God wouldn't be keen on an evil king. More sense that he would prefer a good king to not ally himself with an evil king. But I think the point may be one step deeper.
Jehoshaphat oversaw one of the most amazing military victories ever. Judah defeated three nations by trusting in YHWH and singing his praises. They crested the hill overlooking the battlefield, and God had already made the nations destroy one another. The only remaining task was to fetch the plunder. Again, this was all about trust in God, and he blessed Judah for it.
Now a nation must be prosperous to afford a fleet of ships. And God was indeed prospering Judah. But Jehoshaphat did not trust YHWH to provide the ships; he signed a contract with someone who had explicitly turned away from YHWH. That's a good reason to wreck the ships.
A final detail is that this was an apparent imitation of Solomon. Solomon was so enormously prosperous that his fleet of ships anchored in the same harbor generations before Jehoshaphat's wasn't really necessary, but God blessed Israel with it. In effect, Jehoshaphat was trying to say that he was as great as Solomon. Only it was YHWH who made Solomon great, and anyone who tries to measure up to that sort of greatness by allying with an enemy of YHWH is doomed to fail.
But that's not the point either.
In both Samuel–Kings and Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah, the text recounts that Jehoshaphat built a fleet of trading ships but they were wrecked before they set sail. A prophet noted that this was because he had made the ship-building alliance with Ahaziah king of Israel "who was guilty of wickedness."
It makes sense that God wouldn't be keen on an evil king. More sense that he would prefer a good king to not ally himself with an evil king. But I think the point may be one step deeper.
Jehoshaphat oversaw one of the most amazing military victories ever. Judah defeated three nations by trusting in YHWH and singing his praises. They crested the hill overlooking the battlefield, and God had already made the nations destroy one another. The only remaining task was to fetch the plunder. Again, this was all about trust in God, and he blessed Judah for it.
Now a nation must be prosperous to afford a fleet of ships. And God was indeed prospering Judah. But Jehoshaphat did not trust YHWH to provide the ships; he signed a contract with someone who had explicitly turned away from YHWH. That's a good reason to wreck the ships.
A final detail is that this was an apparent imitation of Solomon. Solomon was so enormously prosperous that his fleet of ships anchored in the same harbor generations before Jehoshaphat's wasn't really necessary, but God blessed Israel with it. In effect, Jehoshaphat was trying to say that he was as great as Solomon. Only it was YHWH who made Solomon great, and anyone who tries to measure up to that sort of greatness by allying with an enemy of YHWH is doomed to fail.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Image and rest
The ancient Near Eastern myths about creation are so interesting, mainly because they portray their deities as petty junior highers. It's hard for me to believe that people would tell such stories about their gods. But as Michael Moore (not that one), my Pentateuch professor, says, a significant, overlooked portion of these myths is often how political, economic, and social structures found their form. It's not just about how the physical world found its form (as we often assume with the Bible). Further, the myths themselves served to subvert the structures as they stood at the time.
The Atrahasis myth gives the account of the creation of humans. For some reason, it was essential for canals to be dug in Mesopotamia, and lesser gods were assigned this task. After a while, they got sick of the labor and revolted, and humans were created to do this work. The gods were able to rest indefinitely now, which seems to be a part of their goal all along. However, the humans got noisy, preventing the gods from resting, so this led to the flood. (That's a pretty spare summary. You can read more commentary that I found on a lazy Google search.)
According to the Bible, when God (Elohim) created the cosmos, he made humans in his image to tend and care for the earth. And in the creation poem, he also rested. However, God rested on the seventh day, implying that he still works 86 percent of the time. Later on, he gives his people the command to rest on the seventh day as well. So God invites humanity to do his work with him and to partake in the same benefits of rest.
This is a huge social polemic against the Mesopotamian myths. While the flesh and blood of one of the lesser gods was mixed with clay in order to create the slave race humanity in Atrahasis, this is nowhere close to God creating us in his image, giving us a noble task in creation, and breathing his very breath or Spirit into us.
The Atrahasis myth gives the account of the creation of humans. For some reason, it was essential for canals to be dug in Mesopotamia, and lesser gods were assigned this task. After a while, they got sick of the labor and revolted, and humans were created to do this work. The gods were able to rest indefinitely now, which seems to be a part of their goal all along. However, the humans got noisy, preventing the gods from resting, so this led to the flood. (That's a pretty spare summary. You can read more commentary that I found on a lazy Google search.)
According to the Bible, when God (Elohim) created the cosmos, he made humans in his image to tend and care for the earth. And in the creation poem, he also rested. However, God rested on the seventh day, implying that he still works 86 percent of the time. Later on, he gives his people the command to rest on the seventh day as well. So God invites humanity to do his work with him and to partake in the same benefits of rest.
This is a huge social polemic against the Mesopotamian myths. While the flesh and blood of one of the lesser gods was mixed with clay in order to create the slave race humanity in Atrahasis, this is nowhere close to God creating us in his image, giving us a noble task in creation, and breathing his very breath or Spirit into us.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Today is the day of salvation
My heart has been burdened with the idea of "being right" lately. Holy Spirit has been doing a mighty work over the past couple of years to save me from this way of death. While the strength of my reactions to "wrong" ideas has mercifully waned, I still need reformation to be merciful in my responses to what seems to me inconsonant with the truth of God's story.
I talked with a barista at Starbucks a couple of months ago, and her religious approach horrified my Self of Yesteryear. She was raised a Catholic and wandered in high school and college somehow landing back in Catholicism. But her landing pad has more to do with Buddhism than anything. I think she mainly attends Mass for the beauty of the theatrics (respectfully stated).
Back in the day, I would have heard the words "today is the day of salvation" from Paul in 2 Corinthians echoing in my head as I tried to convince her that she needed to become a Christian. But I was just struck with the idea that what was bouncing around in my head was actually "right now is the time to pray the sinner's prayer."
From a more holistic perspective, Paul's statement of the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is "we have reached the climax of history when God himself has come to rescue his people—indeed all of humanity—from sin and its resultant exile/estrangement and from death, the previously ultimate exile." That's how I interpret what Paul is saying in context.
But what do we do if this steals the urgency of conversion? I think my own journey away from "wrong thinking search and destroy" is a good illustration. Holy Spirit has taken his sweet time in healing me from this dysfunction. Why would I think that a conversation in an afternoon would change my life and actions? God's Spirit is active in making the practical presence of the reality of salvation present throughout the world and in people's lives. Today I trust that he will use me to gently and powerfully bring salvation in his creation, both human and not.
I talked with a barista at Starbucks a couple of months ago, and her religious approach horrified my Self of Yesteryear. She was raised a Catholic and wandered in high school and college somehow landing back in Catholicism. But her landing pad has more to do with Buddhism than anything. I think she mainly attends Mass for the beauty of the theatrics (respectfully stated).
Back in the day, I would have heard the words "today is the day of salvation" from Paul in 2 Corinthians echoing in my head as I tried to convince her that she needed to become a Christian. But I was just struck with the idea that what was bouncing around in my head was actually "right now is the time to pray the sinner's prayer."
From a more holistic perspective, Paul's statement of the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is "we have reached the climax of history when God himself has come to rescue his people—indeed all of humanity—from sin and its resultant exile/estrangement and from death, the previously ultimate exile." That's how I interpret what Paul is saying in context.
But what do we do if this steals the urgency of conversion? I think my own journey away from "wrong thinking search and destroy" is a good illustration. Holy Spirit has taken his sweet time in healing me from this dysfunction. Why would I think that a conversation in an afternoon would change my life and actions? God's Spirit is active in making the practical presence of the reality of salvation present throughout the world and in people's lives. Today I trust that he will use me to gently and powerfully bring salvation in his creation, both human and not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)