The Bible: A Biography by Karen Armstrong

A while back, way before I ever even knew what a blog was, I began to read books about the Bible.  I'm an avid reader, and usually stick to nonfiction.  I love God and the Bible, but have always felt I could learn more about both. 

In particular, I always felt ignorant about the Bible.  When I was younger, Southern Baptist churches were the ones I attended most because of my family and friends.  But I didn't attend regularly and when I did go, I always felt like I had missed some basic lessons and didn't know as much as everyone else who were memorizing Bible verses like crazy.  I've never been good at rote memorization, so that never worked for me anyhow. 

I'm also more of a big picture learner.  It is hard for me to make sense of something when all I have is information on the micro, not macro, level.  So a while back, I began to pick up books on the Bible which helped give me more of a big picture understanding of the Bible.  It was really helpful.  And I think that is a good place for us to start here, as I take a step back and ask us to consider what Christianity is.

One of the first books I read in this genre was a terrific book whose name and author I unfortunately did not take time to write down.  Urgh!  I've gotten much better about that sort of thing since then, but I vaguely recall that the book was named something like A Biography of the Bible.

I've done some internet research and am not quite sure which book it was that I read, but I think it might have been Karen Armstrong's 2007 book, The Bible: A Biography.  I found a blurb about it on the NPR website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16220762.  I encourage you to take a read.

Whether it was Ms. Armstrong's "biography" or some author's book, a couple things in particular struck me as I read this mystery book whose title and author I don't recall with precision.

First, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament have not been the same static documents over time.  The excerpt from the link above states:

"The Jewish scriptures and the New Testament both began as oral proclamations and even after they were committed to writing, there often remained a bias towards the spoken word that is also present in other traditions. From the very beginning, people feared that a written scripture encouraged inflexibility and unrealistic, strident certainty. Religious knowledge cannot be imparted like other information, simply by scanning the sacred page. Documents became 'scripture' not, initially, because they were thought to be divinely inspired but because people started to treat them differently. This was certainly true of the early texts of the Bible, which became holy only when approached in a ritual context that set them apart from ordinary life and secular modes of thought." 

Later, the excerpt continues,

"From the very beginning, the Bible had no single message. When the editors fixed the canons of both the Jewish and Christian testaments, they included competing visions and placed them, without comment, side by side. From the first, biblical authors felt free to revise the texts they had inherited and give them entirely different meaning. Later exegetes held up the Bible as a template for the problems of their time. Sometimes they allowed it to shape their world-view but they also felt free to change it and make it speak to contemporary conditions. They were not usually interested in discovering the original meaning of a biblical passage. The Bible 'proved' that it was holy because people continually discovered fresh ways to interpret it and found that this difficult, ancient set of documents cast light on situations that their authors could never have imagined. Revelation was an ongoing process; it had not been confined to a distant theophany on Mount Sinai; exegetes continued to make the Word of God audible in each generation."

A second major point I took from the book is related to the first: judging the factual truth of the Bible is not something that has been of interest to our spiritual forbearers.  As the excerpt at the link above notes:

"When their sacred texts tell stories, people have generally believed them to be true, but until recently literal or historical accuracy has never been the point.  The truth of scripture cannot be assessed unless it is--ritually or ethically--put into practice." 

The excerpt goes on to state,

"It is, for example, crucial to note that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter of Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable. They have rewritten biblical history, replaced Bible stories with new myths, and interpreted the first chapter of Genesis in surprisingly different ways." 

Aren't these points fascinating?  That blew my mind that the Bible was written and frequently rewritten as new understandings arose.  Wow.

We fight so much about literalism these days.  It impacts bitter theological arguments, as well as legal and political battles over school curriculum, foreign policy, and the rights of women, sexual minorities and others.  But maybe this focus on literalism misses the point. 

Maybe when we insist on literal interpretations we are copping out and looking for easy answers.  However, no one said being a person of faith--or a Christ follower in particular--was easy. 

I believe that Jesus came to earth in part to put into human language important teachings our Heavenly Father wanted us to learn.  Human language is an important tool to impart information and meaning.  But it is imperfect.  Whenever I read the Gospels in the New Testament, I am continually amazed--and frankly comforted--at how even Jesus's closest disciples who lived with, worked alongside and learned from him directly did not understand his words. 

This is not easy stuff.  I wish I had a magic wand to make it all crystal clear, but I don't.  I don't think anyone does.  However, I can appreciate wishing that literal interpretations make it all clear.  Based on my study--which I'll explain more in future posts--I don't think literalism makes everything clear and simple.  It leads to plenty of contradictions that then require lots of creativity to resolve.  More on that later.

But a second thought concerns me about this apparent modern focus on literalism.  Perhaps when we insist on literal interpretations of Scripture, we are not just being lazy and refusing to do the heavy lifting necessary to find the truth of God's Word.  Maybe we insist on literal interpretations--at least in part--to justify our own prejudices and hardened hearts.  After all, if we assert that God is on our side in verbally condemning, systematically oppressing, or outright physically harming people, that can seem to give legitimacy to actions that otherwise might seem clearly wrong and cruel, or even outright un-Christian. 

I don't like to think the worst of people, but the more I study, the more I worry that this type of justification is one reason for the insistence on Bible literalism.  This is frankly a scary thought to me.  I find it horrifying to think that people might distort the gift of Scripture to serve ungodly and even evil ends. 

But maybe if that is what is going on, it is not done consciously.  Perhaps no one goes around thinking, "I know that God loves all his children equally, but I'm going to come up with arguments based on literal interpretations of passages taken out of context to justify finger wagging and discriminatory policy."  I suspect that people who insist on literalism in ways that harm others do so earnestly believing that is God's will. 

In life, I find we mere mortals are often not fully aware of our own motivations in how we react to different situations.  As a result, I think it is important for us to focus on examining our own lives.  I think that was one reason at least for Jesus's teaching on the Mote and the Beam in Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37-42.  Terrific food for thought.

I also find the following passage from the above excerpt fascinating and relevant to today's debates:

"Some of the most important biblical authorities insisted that charity must be the guiding principle of exegesis: any interpretation that spread hatred or disdain was illegitimate. All the world faiths claim that compassion is not only the prime virtue and the test of true religiosity but that it actually introduces us to Nirvana, God or the Dao. But sadly the biography of the Bible represents the failures as well as the triumphs of the religious quest. The biblical authors and their interpreters have all too often succumbed to the violence, unkindness and exclusivity that is rife in their societies."

Source of Our Faith

I've written before that in my faith journey, I've spent time with different denominations and non-denominational churches.  My husband and I were Roman Catholic for a very long time, but have journeyed on for the last decade.  We've been a part of an Episcopal church for the past four plus years now. 

When we were thinking about putting down roots at the local Episcopal church, the pastor had a "what we believe" reception for those who were interested in possibly joining.  The pastor began by explaining the roots of Episcopal faith.  She noted that Evangelicals look solely to the Bible to inform their faith, and Roman Catholics rely on the Bible plus tradition.  She said that Episcopal tradition builds on that--the denomination's theology is based on the Bible, tradition and also reason.  She then noted that John Wesley added one more source; the Methodists rely on the Bible, tradition, reason and experience.

Over the years, I've thought often about those different sources that inform the faith of Christians.  The commonality to all Christians is, of course, the Bible.  But what is really interesting to me is that even those of us who study the Bible frequently and with much vigor rarely understand what the Bible is.  Many of us have no idea where it came from.  Some of us think it fell from the sky or someone found it laying around in the desert.

I've heard Christians cite verses as if they were a well-drafted legal code presented intact, in English for us to simply follow without the need to struggle over interpretations.  I wish it were that easy.  As I understand, in the Muslim tradition and in the LDS tradition, respectively, the Koran and Book of Mormon were essentially handed over in one piece to the followers of those religious traditions.  Not so for the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament. 

Moreover, I've been to churches where both laypeople and pastors quote verses out of Scriptural context and without much, if any, cultural or historical context to inform the words.  I've also heard Christians focus on the precise wording of a particular translation, without recognizing that the meaning that translation seems to give in English is very different from other well-respected translations. 

These things all trouble me greatly.  To me, they signify a tragic disconnect as to the source of our faith.

When I began this blog, I wanted it to be ecumenical.  I wanted it to be a place where anyone, regardless of their brand of Christianity or their interpretation of Jesus's teachings, would be welcome.  (I also aspired that people who are agnostic, atheist or adherents of other religions might be interested to take a read as well.)  Because of this aim, I've tried to avoid theology.  My real interest in writing this blog is not to convert anyone to my denomination or my personal views on Scripture.  I'm not a pastor or a Bible scholar, that is not my place.  But in the reading and reflecting I've done over the years, I've come to realize that because the umbrella of Christianity is so vast, it is not possible to avoid theology entirely. 

I recently read an excellent book by journalist Jeff Chu who did a year long "pilgrimage" and study of different churches' approach to the topic of homosexuality.  In the book, Mr. Chu writes several times that there is so much variation in what we, who embrace the term "Christian," actually believe that it can be impossible to reconcile our differences.  He even goes so far as to characterize different Christians as embracing different religions.  I appreciate his point.  And it goes way beyond the issue of homosexuality, it goes to much broader, even more basic religious beliefs.  These end up manifesting themselves in different positions on hot button issues.  Moreover, these different positions then get carried over into the political landscape when people cite their Christian faith as justification for various political positions they advocate.

Because of this dynamic, I've come to the conclusion that before I go any farther in this blog, I need to back up a bit.  Before I can discuss the intersection of Christianity and the secular law, I need to go back to what Christianity is.  That may seem obvious to some, and thus unnecessary.  I think that was my initial view.  But I no longer feel that way. 

So, in coming posts, I will share and discuss some resources for understanding what the Bible is (and is not).  As that document is the common source that informs all Christians' faith, we need to spend some time considering what it is and even what it says.  I'm looking forward to this series and hope you do too.

Open-mindedness

Democracy predates Christianity.  The Ancient Greeks developed a system of political self-determination in the 5th century BCE.  So, we have to be careful when mixing our faith as Christians with debates over legal policy.  Christ did not invent democracy and he did not champion it. 

Over the centuries, there have been absolute monarchs who professed to be devout Christians.  Christian lay people and clerics have earnestly supported dictatorial regimes in their countries--even in recent memory.  Thus, a democracy is not the only political system a Christ follower can endorse. 

Nonetheless, like most Americans, I personally do believe that democracy is the best way to ensure human rights and to avoid tyranny.  I've read and traveled enough that I really appreciate living in a country where average people can participate in determining our nation's laws--at least indirectly through elected representatives. 

But we should be careful to not try to make our political process into a religion.  Again, it did not emanate with Christ.  And democracy is not perfect.  It is messy.  Frankly, it can be unpleasant.  It requires listening to others despite our own passionate opinions, finding common ground, and negotiation to make decisions jointly for the good of our country and its inhabitants.  The political process is not a good context for absolutes and inflexibility. 

The basic thrust of democracy is that we have the responsibility to convince others to join our cause, but we cannot expect to get everything we champion every time.  Prior to becoming president, George W. Bush famously commented on the nature of democracy: "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."  There is a lot of truth in that statement. 

In a democracy, to some extent everyone ends up disappointed with the end result because rarely does anyone get 100% of what they sought in the political process.  But the alternative is concentrating power in the hands of one or a few individuals who are unaccountable to those who are ruled.  As we see in the cases of North Korea, the PRC, Syria, among others, such concentration and lack of accountability leads (more so than in a democracy) to human rights abuses. 

As a result, regardless of our theology, I believe that as Americans, we need to be concerned about the health of our democracy and be ever vigilant to keep it strong.  We don't want it to degrade and become less democratic. 

And frankly I believe that as the oldest modern democracy, we in some sense have a responsibility to the world to demonstrate what representational government looks like and how it functions best.  I believe that in recent years, we have been failing at this.  In a sense, I think that this has come to a fever pitch this week with the shut-down of the federal government.

Before I get some amens and hear choruses of "let's throw the bums out," let me say that I don't think the politicians are completely to blame.  In a democracy, we are all accountable.  As voters (or people who were eligible to vote but did not), we must share responsibility for our current state of political dysfunction.  We elected the men and women who have gotten us into this mess. 

Politicians merely reflect the will of their constituents.  Indeed, they often put aside their own values for political expediency.  If a candidate wants to raise taxes or increase military funding, but those positions are unpopular in his/her district, the candidate is highly unlikely to embrace those positions and be elected.  To the extent we have politicians who are inflexible and unwilling to negotiate, they are reflecting the will of the majority of their constituents.  The problem is not just the politicians, the problem is us. 

This is not unlike other social problems plaguing our country.  We aren't suffering the ills of meth and greasy burgers SOLELY because of unscrupulous drug dealers and evil corporate marketing.  The dealers and corporate food sellers would not be doing what they are doing if there were not a huge demand for their products.  Until we quash our appetites for meth and cheap fast food, lives will continue to be ruined by drug addiction and health will be impaired by childhood obesity, respectively.

We need to stop being self-righteous about our problems in this country and recognize our own culpability.  It helps no one to believe our self perfect and without fault while the other guy is entirely to blame for every problem.  Playing the blame game may feel good for a while, but it is counterproductive and lazy.  It shifts responsibility away from ourselves and on to others.  One of the costs of democracy is that we are all responsible for how our nation is run.  In a dictatorship, we could legitimately whine about the unaccountable leaders with whom we disagree.  Not so in a democracy.

In that vein, I've been very disheartened by some of the rhetoric of average folks this week as Americans have debated and griped over the shut-down of the federal government.  I appreciate good faith attempts to discuss ideas and debate policy.  But a lot of what I've read and heard this week don't fit that description.

Here are a couple things that I have observed this week to be particularly destructive as we struggle with the current political impasse:

(1) Name calling and insults.  In a democracy, we have to use what we parents often describe to our kids as "big boy words" or "big girl words."  We have to take the effort to communicate concerns, fears, objections and other ideas to our compatriots--particularly those who disagree with us.  Just calling someone with a different perspective "dumb" or "crazy" or a "moron" is a cop out.  It is lazy and incredibly destructive.  It demeans the other person and makes it very unlikely they will want to have a serious discussion with you.  It also, in my experience, denotes a sense of superiority that is often coextensive with class and educational privilege.  In a democracy, at least in the political realm, we're supposed to be equals.  Democracy requires respecting people even if you disagree with them.

(2)  Dismissing others due to the mechanics of their communication.  Yikes.  I've seen a lot of this in electronic media this week.  When people don't know how to debate ideas or they're too lazy to do so, they sometimes gripe at each other's grammar, spelling and punctuation.  In my observation, this is related to the first item I described above.  However, political debate is neither the time nor the place for lessons on the mechanics of the English language.  In a democracy, we need to be open and try to consider the ideas of our compatriots, not attempting to dismiss them on the basis that we believe they did not master the curriculum of English 101. 

I've noticed that people who do this kind of nit-picking tend to be well-educated.  In my observation, even if they have a bleeding liberal heart, they are on some level elitist and do not really respect those who are less educated if they have a different perspective.  The most nauseating example I saw of this phenomenon this week was one person who took another to task for not properly using the subjunctive mood and the other person responded to that criticism in Latin.  Most people don't even know what the subjunctive mood is, and few people in the 21st century United States have studied Latin.  The whole thing was clearly about nothing more than stroking one's own ego as intellectual elites.  Go stroke your ego on your own time, not during a political debate.

Look, my mom was an English teacher, and as a lawyer/professor/parent, I am second to none in wanting people to write better and use proper grammar, spelling and punctuation.  But I also recognize that most Americans have not had the educational advantages that I have.  I have been very privileged in that sense.  That privilege does not mean that my political views should carry more weight than anyone else's.  People with less education have just as much right to participate in the political process as I.  I have no right to demean them for their lack of knowledge or mastery of the rules of the English language.  If they don't catch a typo, that doesn't mean my position is substantively better.

(3) Clinging only to labels.  So much of what currently passes for modern political debate is actually just the regurgitation of labels, the actual definitions of which we've often lost sight over time.  Using terms like "progressive," "conservative," "radical," "socialist," "Nazi," etc. can be a helpful short-hand to condense big ideas into more manageable speech.  But if we over-rely on such labels, they can be blinding.  We need to look past simplistic labels, which may not even be accurate, to listen and consider the actual beliefs and concerns of the other person.

(4) Only playing with those who are likeminded.  One of the most demoralizing things I've seen this week is when some person goes a bit off their normal topic to share their views on the government shut-down, but then some of their followers or readers on social media retaliate by disassociating with them.  They refuse to listen to someone on any topic if they disagree with them on hot button issues.  That is so sad.  Democracy can't function properly if I pack up my toys and move to another part of the playground if you don't agree with me 100%.

Like most folks, I am a busy person.  There are only so many hours in the day.  There are so many things competing for our attention.  I completely appreciate that we have to be judicious with our time, and prune away things that are not bearing fruit.  But if you have been reading someone's posts and had in the past found them to be a good use of your time, it breaks my heart that you would drop them because they espouse a different view point--even on a huge political event like the federal shut-down. 

We are both a democracy and a diverse society.  For those two aspects of our country to co-exist peacefully and productively, we must seek out different perspectives and try to understand people who have beliefs distinct from our own.  One of the most dangerous threats to our democracy is the modern tendency due to the wider availability of technology to associate only with those who are like-minded.  We need to resist that tendency.  We need to seek out and befriend people who have different opinions.  Often they aren't as different as we think. 

I have a dear relative who posts to social media political memes that frankly just horrify me though I love her very much.  (I'm quite certain she feels the same way about most of the things I share!)  But then she'll go and shock me by hitting the "like" button on something I share on a social justice topic.  It is always a good reminder to me to not assume that everyone in a particular party or embracing a particular label is in agreement on every issue.  Even within parties and labels, there are divergent views.

So what does all this have to do with the focus of this blog?  Glad you asked. 

Our habits with regard to our religious beliefs are often similar to our habits in the political context.  If someone shares information or ideas about our religion that are new and perhaps different from what we've known in the past, we often call them names, saddle them with labels instead of really considering their ideas, and/or we refuse to listen to what they have to say.  In short, just as we tend to be close-minded in the political context, we tend to do the same thing in our faith life.  I don't think that is healthy or productive, however.

As I've flagged before, it is arrogant folly for us to assume we fully understand God and his will.  Indeed, most Christians agree that Bible Study is an important part of our faith journey.  We need to constantly work to better understand his Word to grow closer to God and better live out his will for our lives. 

However, many of us are only willing to engage in such study to the extent it enables us to continue down a set path of understanding.  Any ideas that contradict our prior understanding are shunned. 

This has been the case throughout the history of Christianity.  Early Christian communities kicked out those who were deemed to espouse heretical teaching.  Later Christians went farther, torturing and killing those considered to be heretics.  Now days, we fancy that we're more enlightened and more tolerant than that.  However, we still tend to stick to our echo chambers.  We seek out only pastors and teachers who teach what is comfortable and with which we already agree.  But that is not really learning, that is mere reinforcement of previously held beliefs.  To truly learn, we must be open.  Learning is about accepting information and understanding from others.  It is not about building a stronger case to justify our previously entrenched perspective.

Indeed, it is important to remember that over the years, we Christians have not always gotten it right.  Galileo and Martin Luther were each considered heretics in their day, but most would agree today they were on the right side of history.  (I've even heard Martin Luther quoted and praised by Catholic priests in sermons!) 

In the 19th century, many devout and sincere Christians believed that the enslavement of African people was not only morally acceptable but was biblically sanctioned.  Such a belief is virtually unheard of today except perhaps as embraced by a few radical white supremacist groups. 

History can be an insightful reminder that our collective understanding of Christianity has not been static, but has changed over time.  What may seem unacceptable to some at one point in time may become the prevalent view later on.

"i repent" Post From "Our Exceeding Joy" Blog

I love blogs.  I love writing them.  And I love reading them.  I've got a list of a few I like on the right side of this page.  But it is certainly not an exhaustive list.  Time is limited.  I don't have time to read 100% of each blog that piques my interest.  I don't have time to read any on a regular basis.  From time to time, if I have a few minutes, I go to one of the blogs I've bookmarked to catch up.

This morning I had such a little break in my day and wandered over to "Our Exceeding Joy."  It is a blog by a woman named Sarah in Austin, Texas.  I went to college and met my husband in Austin.  I know first hand what a great town that is.  But what initially got my attention is that Sarah is an adoptive mom like me. 

I love the description of her blog.  She describes herself first and foremost as "an avid reader and writer."  She says her blog is an outlet where she writes "about the things that stir my soul" such as "Jesus, adoption, or human-trafficking."  What a woman! 

I read a lovely post that Sarah wrote earlier this summer on June 8th.  It was entitled "i repent."  Take a read of what she wrote.  I wanted to share it because it is beautiful and inspiring.  But I also thought it was very apropos of the new focus of my own blog.

In this post, Sarah explored her former hard-heartedness and judgmental tendencies towards people unlike her.  I particularly loved the following passages:

It never crossed my mind that I could be wrong.
 

Maybe this response is because I grew up in a culture where there was this prevalent fear of being invaded by the homosexuals and the abortionists. We talked a big game, but when it actually came to believing that God could love all these sinners, we battened down the hatches and only let in like-minded people.
 

Maybe it’s because I was taught that it was more important to be right than to love.
 

Or maybe it’s just a symptom of being a fallen, broken person.

 

Sarah really hits the nail on the head.  In our modern culture, it seems like everyone is yelling at everyone who disagrees with them.  We don't listen to others who are different.  We are not open to learning.  We think we're always right, like we have a monopoly on truth.  How arrogant.  Even the disciples were continually misunderstanding Jesus's teachings though they were with him 24/7 for several years.

And as Sarah points out so eloquently, we've tragically adopted the attitude that being right is more important than loving.  What a powerful statement.  As Christ followers, we can't fault nonbelievers from embracing and living that attitude.  But those of us who purport to have read and accepted the Gospels, we should know better.  Being right is NOT more important than loving God's people, whomever they might be.

Take a read of the whole blog post, which is available at the link below.  Meditate on it and keep it in your heart as you go through the day.  Beautiful sentiments.  Yeah, Sarah!

http://www.sarahdrinka.com/?p=572

More on Shopping Addiction

There was a particular aspect of the Diane Rehm show on shopping addiction that got my attention.  The discussion included the concept that a person’s worth as a human being is reflected by their possessions.

At one point, one of the guests said: “We may feel not very good about ourselves and not very self-accepting, but we want to feel differently and we want the world to think of us differently. So if we dress to look that part, if we buy cars to look that part, then we think that we'll become that part.”

A different guest commented, “Yes, and that's exactly why somebody who knew better than I suggested I come to Debtors Anonymous and find a spiritual solution because the gap that April talked about between who I wanted to be and who I thought I somehow could get to be could never be filled with a purchase. But that was what I was thinking would work.”

One guest spoke of shopping addiction as involving “[i]nstant gratification surrounded by a profound sense of emptiness.”

From a Christian world view, these comments describe a deeply distressing perspective. 

In the Old Testament, there was not a correlation between one’s inherent worth to God and one’s place in human society.  Over and over, the Old Testament describes ordinary, even lowly folks that society dismissed, but whom God treasured.  Joseph, Samuel, David, Ruth and Esther are examples.  God blesses those whom human beings overlook.  God’s priorities are not those of human society. 

In the New Testament, this same pattern emerges even more prominently.  God chooses Mary of Nazareth, a poor young girl, a real nobody in her culture, to bring the Son of God into this world.  God’s only son is born in a barn for animals, never has any material wealth or earthly power.  He apparently led a pretty quiet life as a poor carpenter for the first few decades of his life, then began his ministry not in a place of honor but by roaming the countryside ministering to people his culture thought were losers.  Jesus chooses Peter, a blowhard fisherman with little education, to become the “rock” of his ministry. 

Mary Magdalene was not only a woman, which meant she was pretty low in the pecking order in the base case, but she was also an outcast for other reasons.  In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, it is described that Jesus cleansed her of “demons.”  There is debate about what this means; some modern scholars believe this is a reference to a healing from some sort of serious physical ailment like epilepsy or schizophrenia.   Regardless of the meaning of “demons,” it seems a safe bet she was not welcomed in elite social circles.  Yet Mary Magdalene was apparently a very close friend and devoted follower of Jesus to the end of his life.  She stayed with him though his crucifixion, and in three of the four Gospels she is said to have been chosen as the first person to witness Jesus in his resurrected form.  That is quite amazing because women in that society were not considered to even be reliable enough to give witness in legal proceedings.  Again, Jesus chose whom humankind rejected.

So, to me, as a Christ follower, it is so abundantly clear that what one owns or possesses does not reflect one’s worth to God.  When the Prodigal Son returned home, his father ran to him rejoicing though he no longer owned anything and was in rags.

I’ve been a Christian for over 20 years now.  So this understanding is pretty deeply ingrained.  On one level, it is hard for me to conceptualize that people would feel better about themselves—even briefly—because of possessions.  To my mind, that is as nutty and nonsensical as saying bananas are purple and llamas are scaly. 

Yet, on another level, I can understand a bit what these folks have experienced.  Consider the following quote from the same show:

“It's just being able to walk into a store -- I see this a lot with lower income folks who then start to attain some level of financial stability. Now they can go out and do things that they weren't able to do before in many cases. And so there's a lot of different things that go into this and I don't believe that there's any one right answer. But certainly what the emailer conveyed is something that we see at all income levels. It has, again, nothing to do with that. And I think it's very similar to what Bill was describing as far as that emotional gap, wanting to be able to have the things that you want to feel the way that you want to feel.”

 

My husband and I did not grow up with a lot of money, but we did not suffer extreme poverty.  I have known people, however, that did grow up with great material deprivation.  Vicariously, I have come to know that was very difficult for them on many levels.  Beyond not having basic needs met, e.g., suffering hunger, not having heat in the winter, sleeping on the floor, seemingly less dire things are endured.  I’ve heard many people who grew up in poverty talk about the shame they felt amongst their peers.  What would the neighbors think of the family with no curtains on the windows and no car in the driveway?  What would the kids at school say about the high water pants, the patched dress, the lack of a winter coat? 

 

Oprah Winfrey has spoken publicly about such matters, e.g., how she dreaded going back to school after Christmas because everyone else would be bragging about their presents when she had not received any.  Ms. Winfrey is one of the richest women in the world and she has been on this planet for over half a century, but she still remembers the pain of such experiences vividly. 

 

The late Frank McCourt in Angela’s Ashes describes growing up in poverty in Ireland.  Though everyone around him was poor, he too describes the shame of having even less than some of those around him.  Though everyone in his social circle experienced material deprivation to some degree, those who went without food or shoes also felt the added pain of shame from others’ judgment.

 

I have personally known other adults who also still carry that sort of pain with them despite having climbed out of poverty and attained a measure of financial comfort.  I hurt for folks who’ve known such pain.  I think that pain is caused by destructive societal attitudes, to which we’re all susceptible. 

 

My husband and I really try to raise our children in a way that they will understand what is lasting and important in this world, while not getting seduced by the shallow consumer culture all around us.  It is so hard!  Regardless of their parents' jobs, their friends seem to all have handheld gaming devices, cell phones, TVs and computers in their rooms.  At Girl Scouts, the troop leader has to tell the girls to put away their smart phones before each meeting starts.  Our daughters do not have these things, are unlikely to have them for many years.  It is difficult for them to wrap their minds around that when their peers seem to have an abundance of electronics so early.  My husband and I talk with our kids all the time about the choices we have when it comes to money. We discuss how indulging now can have repercussions later on.  We talk about using our money for fun things v. sharing our blessings with others. 

 

Yet even though I’ve been a Christ follower a long time and I’m trying to raise my kids to reject the empty values of a consumer society, I too am not immune to the destructiveness of that culture.  Recently, my older daughter has started participating in a local basketball league for the first time.  We had to get her new shoes for this sport, but my husband bargain hunted and got some good shoes that weren’t overpriced.  Though I was grateful for his frugality, I have found myself at basketball games noting the shoes that these ten and eleven-year olds are wearing on the court.  Most are very expensive brands, some with three digit price tags.  And though I know better and should be unconcerned, I sometimes find myself worrying at the games if people will look down on our family—or worse, on my daughter—because she doesn’t have expensive shoes on her feet.  Will they think poorly of my husband and me because they think we’re not “providing” for my daughter?  Will the other kids look down on my daughter for having non-flashy shoes?  In my head, I know I shouldn’t care.  I know it is absolutely absurd to worry about being accepted for what one has on one’s feet.  I know it is pathetic to worry about social judgment when we should just be tremendously grateful for the abundant blessings and material luxuries that God has provided.  I know people go to bed hungry at night in Uganda, Thailand and in our own community.  Yet these thoughts pop into my head at every basketball game. 

 

It is tough.  We all want to be accepted by other people.  If society says that having certain stuff makes us worthy or important, then even if our faith tells us that is nonsense, it is hard to fully reject those societal values.  It is hard to be different and walk to the beat of a different drummer.  So, I can in some small way understand what the guests quoted above are describing.  There but for the grace of God go I.

 

 

James 2:1-13

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.  Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

 

Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

 

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,  because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Jesus and Gender Roles

This is a blog about the intersection of secular law and Christianity.  Over the past several months, I’ve spent a lot of time on gender issues.  Gender issues in our culture (whether shaped by religion or secular influences) are reflected in our nation’s laws.  So the relevance of gender issues to secular law is pretty obvious, but the relevance to Christianity may not be.

Indeed, many believe Christianity to be a sexist religion.  Some even believe it to be patriarchal and misogynist.  I can understand why that might be the case.  Jesus lived at a time and in a culture, in which women were very low on the totem pole.  Some Christians incorporate to varying degrees the attitudes of Jesus’s culture in their understanding of his message.

But it is important to remember that Christianity is not a homogenous faith.  The meaning of Christ’s life and teachings are interpreted differently by various groups.  From Roman Catholics to Mennonites, from Appalachian snake handlers to Christian Scientists, from Eastern Orthodox to Southern Baptists, not to mention the growing movement of independent, unaffiliated, Evangelical-leaning Christian churches.  We Christians have different understandings of what it is to “follow Jesus.”

I come from a family that was composed of people from a variety of different Protestant sects, as well as non-believers.  When I became a Christian, the Roman Catholic church was the right fit.  We were active, ardent Catholics for most of our adult years, but eventually my husband and I grew spiritually to a point that that church was no longer a good home for us.  We spent several years as regular attenders at different independent Evangelical churches.  But we eventually settled down and became members of an Episcopalian church. 

I mention this faith journey briefly because it has taught me to be humble and open in the discernment of Christ’s message.  I deeply believe faith is a journey and that we humans must constantly be seeking a fuller understanding of God’s truth.  My own journey and study has given me a better appreciation for Jesus’s attitude on gender issues.  This was not something I had as a child.  It is not something I appreciated immediately when I became a Christian.  It is something I’ve come to understand better over time with much study.  But I would certainly never claim to be an expert or to have a complete understanding of the issue.

Last summer I read a book called Living In Sin? By John Shelby Spong, which explores Christian sexual ethics.  Bishop Spong deals with the church’s attitudes towards homosexuality and premarital sex.  With a deep, scholarly understanding of the Bible and the cultures that shaped that tome, he explains in detail how the role of women was much maligned.  Reading that book has been very eye-opening.

But even before reading that book, I myself did not really understand how Jesus could be viewed as supportive of patriarchy or as being misogynist.  Those words were descriptive of his culture for sure.  But not the Jesus described in the New Testament.

My savior was not a big tough manly man.  In our gendered cultural perspective, one might say he was in touch with his feminine side.  I’m not sure that is quite how I’d put it.  To me, Jesus was simply fully human in every sense.  He did not hide behind a cloak of machismo. 

For example, we know that Jesus had female friends.  We have every reason to understand these were Platonic friends and not lovers.  He hung out with Mary and Martha in their home.  Moreover, he thought highly enough of them that he took time to teach them about the Kingdom of God.  When he traveled, there were women in his group.  At the end of his earthly life, only the women remained.  He was executed as a common criminal and seemingly exposed as a fraud.  But those ladies stuck by him and ministered to him until the end.  In my opinion, that demonstrated a deep love.  One would not have stuck by him like that unless such love was there.  Finally, he was close enough to Mary Magdalene that she became the first person to whom Jesus revealed his resurrection. 

I think it is important to take these facts in context.  It is remarkable that Jesus had such female friends at all.  That just wasn’t done in those days.  Women were reviled nobodies.  The men who wrote the Gospels didn’t even feel the need to tell us the names of some of these women.  But Jesus not only believed women worthy of his teaching and healing, he apparently had deep personal relationships with them as well.  Amazing.

Beyond the esteem he had for women, Jesus was notably not afraid to show what some might call his “softer side.”  He demonstrated emotion and tenderness.  He was not a stoic guy who never flinched.  When he arrived after Lazarus’s death, he cried.  Moreover, he did so publicly.  He didn’t try to hide it.  He was not ashamed.  Because Jesus then raised Lazarus from the dead, my interpretation of the crying is that Jesus was not weeping because Lazarus was gone.  He had the power to raise Lazarus from the dead, so Jesus had no reason to mourn his passing.  Instead, I believe that Jesus was deeply moved by the grief and sorrow his friends Mary and Martha were experiencing.  He loved them so much that he felt their pain, shared it and expressed it through tears.  In our culture, many people look down on men who express their feelings, who cry or who are empathetic.  Why on earth?  With Jesus as a role model, those are perfectly acceptable things for us to do—regardless of gender.

In reading the Gospels, I also see Jesus as a caregiver of sorts.  When I read about his interaction with the twelve, it strikes me as very parental.  Time after time, those dear fellas just didn’t get it.  They literalized figurative language, and they missed his central points.  He taught that the world’s values were the opposite of God’s, yet they still made dumb requests like having honored places above the other disciples in heaven.  Yet, Jesus kept teaching.  He didn’t give up on them.  Like a good parent doesn’t kick their kid to the curb when they have trouble committing their times tables to memory, Jesus didn’t kick any of the twelve out of the group for asking dumb questions and not understanding his teachings.  He loved them and kept on teaching.

After he was risen, Jesus cooked a meal for his disciples.  Cooking was lowly woman’s work.  But Jesus didn’t care.  His friends needed food, he prepared it for them.  He was concerned about their needs.  Jesus had just overcome the grave and changed human history.  But he then made time to fix breakfast for his friends.

I don’t intend for this post to be an exhaustive explanation of the relevance of gender issues to Christianity.  Whole books have been written on the subject.  But I note these few examples from Jesus’s life because some might argue that my blog’s focus last summer on fathering de-masculized men.  The same people might also argue the more recent focus on gender equality and “feminist” issues are misplaced in a Christian blog. 

Last summer I emphasized examples of men displaying traits that our culture through its gendered lens calls “feminine”: encouragement, devotion, vulnerability and caregiving.  But I think that gendered lens is simply an outdated cultural relic.  It prevents men from being fully human and engaged in their families. 

More recently, I’ve focused on cultural and structural issues that prevent women from succeeding in the work place.  Those issues impede women from fully utilizing all their God-given talents and from achieving a level of economic security for themselves and their families.

Per my reading and understanding of the New Testament, neither of those situations is desirable if one attempts to follow Jesus’s teachings.

 

 

1 Corinthians 12:17-26

If the whole body were an eye, what would happen to the hearing? And if the whole body were an ear, what would happen to the sense of smell?  But as it is, God has placed each one of the parts in the body just like he wanted. If all were one and the same body part, what would happen to the body? But as it is, there are many parts but one body. So the eye can’t say to the hand, “I don’t need you,” or in turn, the head can’t say to the feet, “I don’t need you.” Instead, the parts of the body that people think are the weakest are the most necessary.  The parts of the body that we think are less honorable are the ones we honor the most. The private parts of our body that aren’t presentable are the ones that are given the most dignity. The parts of our body that are presentable don’t need this. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the part with less honor so that there won’t be division in the body and so the parts might have mutual concern for each other.  If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part gets the glory, all the parts celebrate with it.

The Election of Rev. Fred Luter, Jr.

I recently came across an article about the election of Reverend Fred Luter, Jr. to lead the Southern Baptist Convention:

http://news.yahoo.com/southern-baptists-elect-1st-black-president-200546902.html

The headline read: “Southern Baptists elect 1^st black president.”  I had heard several months ago that this was a possibility, so this news did not really surprise me.  But it was interesting nonetheless. 

More so than some other mainline Christian denominations, I actually have a relatively close connection to the Southern Baptists.  I’m from the South, so I’ve certainly had plenty of friends and acquaintances who were Southern Baptists, but my connection is closer than just that.  A lot of my family and many of my closest childhood friends are Southern Baptist.  I’ve attended Southern Baptist churches all my life.  As a teenager, I even worked at the day care center of a Southern Baptist congregation in the neighborhood where I lived. 

Based on these experiences, I can say honestly that the Southern Baptist denomination is not my cup of tea. I never felt led to be baptized in that denomination or even attend one of its churches regularly.  That is ok.  Everyone is different.  I mean no disrespect in saying the Southern Baptist Church is not for me.  I respect that lots of fine folks are Southern Baptists and the Church does a lot of great work. 

One of the reasons I was never real comfortable in the Southern Baptist churches I attended was my sense of its homogeneity.  Pretty much everyone was white and middle class.  They were also very conservative politically; “Reagan” was a name folks liked, “Jane Fonda” was not.  When they went to church, the Southern Baptists I knew wore their Sunday best.  Many of the ladies had the same floral patterned cloth Bible covers.  Everyone was good at rote memorization and could rattle off Bible verses.  I never felt like I fit in with any of that.

I think I was always familiar to some degree with the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.  But more than the reason it was formed in the 19^th century, as a kid I always had a sense of the modern, on-going implicit racism. 

My own Southern Baptist grandparents were white Southerners of a generation pretty warped by bigotry and poverty.  The “n word” was certainly a part of their vocabulary, which horrified and confused me even as a little child.  I knew that was a vile word you were not supposed to ever say.  So, it always stunned me when my Southern Baptist grandparents muttered it. 

And it really confused me because that set of grandparents were the most religious ones in my family.  How could my most religious relatives also be the most racist?  That never jived in my little brain.  I didn’t understand how people who seemed to take Jesus so seriously would be so racist.  Even as a kid, the little I knew about Jesus led me to think he would not have been uttering racial epithets or supporting second-class treatment of people of a different race or ethnicity.  I did not understand. 

What’s more, I was particularly confused when we went to my grandparents’ huge church and the only non-white faces were the row of gentleman in the back row in traditional African garb.  Their presence was evidence of the church’s enthusiastic support of foreign missions.  It didn’t make sense to me that my grandparents’ church would seem inhospitable towards people of African descent when they were born on American soil, but would go out of their way to bring people from Africa across an ocean to Texas.  That really seemed like a contradiction my little brain couldn’t comprehend.

But I know the Southern Baptists have made great strides over the years. 

My Dad’s church (which is the same one where my grandparents were members) is much more diverse now.  They have a very vibrant ministry to Laotian immigrants, and the church does extensive work to help the immigrants get settled into homes and find jobs in the community. 

One of my close friends is on the board of the congregation where I worked as a teen in the day care center.  That Southern Baptist church hired a pastor a few years ago who is a woman and African American.  Their congregation also has a strong ministry in the Latino community and has learned to do quinciñeras. 

When I was in law school, my husband used his extra free time by teaching in an ESL ministry of a local Southern Baptist church.  They taught hundreds of Latino immigrants practical language skills regardless of their religious affiliation.

Because I know Southern Baptists have made great strides, I wasn’t surprised by the headline of this article.  It simply seemed like a good thing.  What actually got my attention in reading this article was a point very relevant to the recent posts of this blog.  Per the article, Reverend Luter grew up with “a divorced mother and no father in the house.”  As a result, he prayed that he would be the role model for his own son that he himself never had. 

Apparently, Reverend Luter’s ministry has involved an “intensive outreach to men” in his hometown of New Orleans.  He has also expressed “concern that men in his inner-city neighborhood were not taking responsibility for their children.”  I’m not even sure what his ministry does exactly, but it sounds good to me. 

I think more churches need to minister to men.  It is confusing in this day and age as to what is expected and appropriate of men.  For the past century or more, the role of father in the family has consisted almost exclusively of breadwinner.  Dads left the home to earn money to support the family.  Period.  That model doesn’t really work in the 21^st century when many women outperform men in terms of educational attainment and earn a paycheck. 

Moreover, in many economically depressed and isolated communities, there are few if any legal means to earn a paycheck.  Not being able to provide for one’s family can be such a crippling blow to a man’s self-respect due to society’s expectations.  “Demoralizing” doesn’t begin to describe the impact.  I certainly don’t condone but can perhaps understand to some degree why men in such situations might withdraw from their families when they cannot provide for them financially.  I’ve seen in happen in families I know.  It is heartbreaking on many levels.  The church may not be able to provide jobs to men in such situations, but we can certainly help men cope with that sort of challenge.

Job 29:16

I was a father to the poor and assisted strangers who needed help.

A Good Man: Rediscovering My Father, Sargent Shriver by Mark K. Shriver

Mark K. Shriver has apparently written a memoir of his dad: A Good Man: Rediscovering My Father, Sargent Shriver.  NPR interviewed Mark Shriver recently and the book sounds fascinating:

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/16/155026881/a-shriver-learns-its-harder-to-be-good-than-great

For those who are not familiar with him, Sargent Shriver was married for 56 years to Eunice Kennedy.  He was a deeply religious Catholic Christian who attended daily mass.  He is well-known for running Special Olympics and the Peace Corps.  He also founded Head Start, Job Corps, Foster Grandparents and Neighborhood Health Services.  But his son’s book focuses apparently on the elder Mr. Shriver’s parenting and what he was like outside of the spotlight.  The younger Mr. Shriver describes his father as giving his five children “unconditional love.”

The title of the younger Mr. Shriver’s book apparently comes from his observation that “great” people have power, prestige and money, but “when the lights are turned off and no one’s paying attention, they’re not good.”  His son describes his father as being kind to everyone from waitresses to presidents or cardinals. 

There were two anecdotes from the interview that really moved me.

The first involved Sargent Shriver in his later years when he had Alzheimer’s.  The Messieurs Shriver were at a lacrosse game of Mark Shriver’s daughter.  Mark Shriver was yelling at her and encouraging her to be more competitive.  Sargent Shriver asked his son, “Did I yell at you like that, too?”  Mark Shriver was stunned at his father’s question and realized that at that moment, despite his disease, Sargent Shriver was still fathering him.

The other anecdote involved Mark Shriver’s brother falling down and crying when he was a kid.  Their uncle, Bobby Kennedy, was around at the time, and reportedly said “Don’t cry.  Kennedys don’t cry.”  In response, Sargent Shriver scooped up the little boy and said, “That’s OK, you’re a Shriver, you can cry.” 

1 Samuel 24:17

And he said to David, “You are a better man than I am, for you have repaid me good for evil.

Mark 6:20

[F]or Herod respected John; and knowing that he was a good and holy man, he protected him. Herod was greatly disturbed whenever he talked with John, but even so, he liked to listen to him.

The Reason for the Debate on Oral Contraceptives

Some politicians have tried to win points with religious conservatives by trying to frame this issue of employer mandated coverage of oral contraceptives as an Obama administration war against people of faith.   This is an incredible distortion of reality.  Shame on them.  I’m not sure why politicians making such assertions haven’t experienced tremendous, rapid growth of their olfactory organs.

Let’s call a spade a spade.  I’ve listened to the debate carefully, and I have not yet identified any religious group other than the Roman Catholic Church that objects to the provision of oral contraceptives as part of an employer provided health plan.  Despite following the debate carefully, I have never heard of any other Christian denomination or any other non-Christian religion opposed to the secular law in question.  If there is another faith group who is also opposed, please let me know.

Perhaps it is politically incorrect, but the media doesn’t seem to be noting the reality of the debate’s genesis.  That failure subtly implies that many people of faith—many Christians, for example—also are opposed to birth control.  That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The current debate centers around an issue of Catholic teaching that is now having secular policy implications. 

And let’s be clear about who in the Catholic Church is opposing this employer mandate.  Strangely, that is not getting much media attention either.  It is the hierarchy, not the members of the Church, who are opposing the employer mandate in question.  This is an extremely significant point, but members of other Christian denominations and other religions may not immediately recognize why. 

Unlike many religious institutions, the Roman Catholic Church is monarchical and undemocratic in terms of its decision-making structure.  This is not a criticism, it is a fact.  What I mean in using these adjectives is that Catholics in the pews don’t vote to determine the bishop of their diocese, or the members of the College of Cardinals or other Church groups that set policy.  Those decisions are made by the Pope in Vatican City.  But he also is not elected by the Catholics in the pews. 

As women are banned from the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, women’s voices are simply not present when policy is decided by Church leaders.  Moreover, women’s voices are not even indirectly heard because the decision-makers are men who are barred from marriage.  Thus, the decision-makers do not even have the benefit of insight from a wife (or daughter).

These facts are important to recognize because when the Church hierarchy speaks out against the employer mandate in question, it is very unlikely that they are speaking for many American Catholic lay people.  There are several reasons to have such doubt.

First, despite some cruel accusations to the contrary, the Catholic Church is not a cult.  As I have mentioned previously, I was a Catholic most of my Christian walk.  My fellow parishioners and I did not just blindly follow what the priests and other ordained leaders told us.  We had minds of our own and we used them.

Second, it has been well-documented that the overwhelming majority of American Catholics reject the Church’s teaching on birth control.  For example, the link below takes you to a report indicating that 98% of sexually active American Catholic women have used contraceptives that the Church hierarchy has deemed to be incompatible with Church teaching.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/14/us-most-catholic-women-us-use-birth-cont-idUSTRE73D4SZ20110414

Such data certainly is consistent with my own experience as a devout Catholic.  I have had countless Catholic friends who just shake their heads in disbelief at that teaching and ignore it without a second thought.  Significantly, these have been friends who agree with and follow the Church’s teachings on other issues.  For example, these friends tend to be very strongly against induced abortions.  (Perhaps because they are so strongly opposed to abortion, they take the prevention of pregnancy very seriously.)

I was particularly struck by this disconnect between the Church hierarchy and its parishioners many years ago when my husband and I were in pre-marriage classes at our home parish to prepare for a sacramental wedding.  The class met for several weeks to discuss various topics of great importance to a strong marriage (e.g., finances, child rearing, division of household chores).  During the last class of the series, the topic for our discussion was the role of sex in marriage.  That topic was part of the official curriculum for the course.

The course my then-fiancé and I took was taught by a long-married couple.  They were pillars of the parish and active in a variety of ministries.  They were close to the church’s pastor.  The wife was even a teacher at the parish school.

Though this couple had been leaders in the parish’s pre-marriage education program for a long time and had prepared countless couples for sacramental marriage, I was stunned when they began the last class by admitting they had never understood the Church’s teaching on contraception.  Indeed, they even strongly insinuated they had used artificial family planning to space their children’s births. 

The couple teaching the class asked if anyone else could explain the Church’s teaching on contraception.  In a group of over thirty people, I was the only one who raised her hand.  I had actually studied the Church’s teaching and tried to explain it neutrally to the group.  It was almost comical because people just stared blankly at the explanation.  No one expressed any reaction.  Though we had openly discussed a number of personal subjects with the group, and many of us had shared very personal struggles, no one wanted to try to discuss the Church’s teaching on contraceptives.  After hearing the Church’s rationale for prohibiting artificial family planning, I got the strong sense everyone was just thinking: “That’s nuts.”  Everyone was polite and quiet until someone changed the subject to a less awkward topic.

Matthew 5:5

Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

Acts 10:38

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.