Every Theologian Loves a Good Parallel

Parallels are always interesting finds in the study of comparative theology. They allow us to speculate on the kinds of theological cross-pollination that occurs between religions and cultures, see who is influencing whom, and make educated guesses about why such imitation occurred. The four passages below illustrate this well. One parallel is features Luke  on the birth of Jesus and a latter  medieval Jewish work on the birth of the attributed writer of the Zohar, Isaac Luria. The second parallel features a passage from Mark and a passage from the Zohar.

Luke 1:26-38

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her,

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God.

And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Now let’s look at a medieval Jewish work:

Sefer HaKavanot U'Ma'aseh Nissim records that one day Isaac Luria's father remained in the beth kneset alone, studying, when Eliyahu HaNavi appeared to him and said, "I have been sent to you by the Almighty to bring you tidings that your holy wife shall conceive and bear a child, and that you must call him Yitzchak. He shall begin to deliver Israel from the Klipot [husks, forces of evil]. Through him, numerous souls will receive their tikkun. He is also destined to reveal many hidden mysteries in the Torah and to expound on the Zohar. His fame will spread throughout the world. Take care therefore that you not circumcise him before I come to be the Sandak [who holds the child during the Brit Milah ceremony]."

Or how about this one?

Mark  9:42

If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.  (see also Matthew 18:6, Luke 17:2.

Here, the Greek ahofobi may be translated as a deep place or an abyss. Now let’s look at the Jewish Zohar.

Zohar 1:48a

All evil spirits and demons, indeed, the entire Realm of Defilement [Sitra ‘Ahra’], hide within the eye of the millstone of the Cavern of the Great Abyss. For when the spirit of holiness spreads over the world, the spirit of defilement cannot remain…The entire world is under the [shelter] of the supernal Peace. (with regard to Shabbat)

Clearly the anonymous Jewish writer of the Zohar knew his Christian scriptures quite well….

 

 

So Why Does it Seem that Traditional Church Communities do not Celebrate Infant Baptisms as an Overcoming of Sin and Death?

I have only attended two infant baptisms in a handful of years in traditional Christian communities. The first was at a Roman Catholic Church and the second at an Episcopal Church. Both experiences were very similar but both were very revealing about what we believe and what we say.

At the Roman Catholic service, the priest told the congregation how there is no evidence in the Bible that infant baptism exists and furthermore that the purpose of infant baptism was introduction into the community. While it is certainly true that there is no evidence of infant baptism in the scriptures, there is no official doctrinaire statement that baptism in Roman Catholicism is about entrance or introduction into the community as a primary meaning of the sacrament. It certainly sounds great and certainly it is the effect of baptism, but the notion of original sin was simply bumped out of the ceremony.

 

 

In the second infant baptism, the church leader giving the sermon was more specific and expressed to the family whose infant was being baptized that no infant has done anything wrong to invite God’s judgment. Such an interpretation clearly challenges the traditional understanding of the 39 articles in Episcopal circles. And it depends upon whether you see these as doctrines or guidelines or something in between.

In both, the theme was clear: there was a palpable discomfort in talking about original sin or the effects of sin in the world. What was present were cute little infants dressed in their flowing white dresses, smiling faces beaming at the infant, and a general atmosphere of happiness. And why shouldn’t there be happiness? But was it based on the introduction of an infant into a religious community, or was there pure joy that these infants, separated from God, are now joined in salvation. Is there a true understanding and happiness that what was once lost (even if for 6 months of life) is now found? I don’t think so. And I think we understand this instinctually. Certainly, there are more opportunities to celebrate an individual’s salvation who comes to such a place after a long and painful journey. We see this in the story of the prodigal son. It is a story that has all the Aristotelian elements drama that are necessary to hold our attention. Someone raised in the church…not so much. Their salvation seems cultural, not radical. And so the narrative for these little ones has to be different in scope and essence.

A Few Thoughts on the Racial Divide, Millennials, and Declining Church Populations

Though his article is a bit dated (2013),[1] Steve McSwain couldn’t be more incorrect about one of his seven causes why churches are not filling. He writes:

“You cannot tell Millennials that your church welcomes everybody – that all can come to Jesus – and then, when they come, what they find are few mixed races or no mixed couples.  You cannot say, “Everybody is welcome here if, by that, you really mean, so long as you’re like the rest of us, straight and in a traditional family.”

There are a couple of issues here, but I’ll address one of the obvious ones, the issue having to do with race. As late as the 1970s, Martin Luther King Jr. said the most segregated day in the United States is Sunday. Why? There are a number of reasons, but I’ll provide two that I think are tenable: People feel more comfortable with people who look like them and the socio-economic divide has unfairly divided communities, so that with so many churches available in their own communities, whites are not flocking to leave suburbia on Sunday and blacks, who may not have the means to get out of their communities.

So when the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church  and Milledge Avenue Baptist Church started in 2012 to advertise “experiments” regarding  race mixing where black and white congregations come together to celebrate one another’s styles, I have to wonder if this is a genuine expression that has staying power or simply a  bandage addressing a much larger wound that started some time ago (one may say even in the New Testament itself).[2]

See, in the New Testament, Paul was regularly confronted by manufactured crises in mixed communities in which Jews or Romans or Greeks were upset that such and such a group was getting preferential treatment over another.

So I question if all of this is a failure on the part of churches to “welcome everybody,” or if it isn’t imbedded deep in our human psyche, something that not even the New Testament could resolve. A typical Christian, socially economically divided from his white brethren may not feel the need to walk into an all-white community and vice versa. Perhaps challenging Millennials who have a better relationship in between races is the key necessary to shame the churches where the gray-haired population has dutiful attended church but not understood the radicality of Jesus’ message whose “Hellenizing tendencies” in welcoming his Jewish oppressors (the Romans) to the table of salvation was unwelcomed in his day by the majority.

The problem is that youth are often considered second-class citizens, and where they are not, pastors most likely have a hard time handing over the reigns while balancing the needs of their older clientele as well. And what has been the response you ask? Divide the church even more, for example, into a traditional and contemporary worship service. I don’t have the answer, and I’m not sure there is one, because I’ve been in many churches, both contemporary and traditional, and my own neighborhood is more racially intermingled than my churches, both conservative and liberal.

---

[1] “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore, The Huffington Post, 10/14/2014

[2] http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2014-01-20/black-and-white-athens-churches-combine-congregations-see-kings-dream-come