The Collected Essays of

Richard A. Stanford

Issues in Theology and Religion

Richard A. Stanford

Professor of Economics, Emeritus

Furman University

Greenville, SC 29613

CONTENTS

        Introduction

        1. Metaphor and Myth
        2. Myths and Metaphors
        3. Anthropomorphization
        4. Avatar
        5. Afterlife
        6. Dying
        7. Worshiping Christ, Following Jesus
        8. Altruism and Greed
        9. Name Changes
     10. Rewriting the Jesus Story
     11. Rewriting My Story
     12. A New Theology for the Postmodern Era
     13. Post-Christian
     14. Theocracy vs. Democracy
     15. The Sanctity of Democracy
     16. Petitionary Prayer
     17. Names
     18. Will
     19. Virgin Birth
     20. Lineage
     21. Ministry
     21. Crucifixion
     23. Resurrection
     24. Lessons and Carols

<Blog Post Essays>

NOTE: You may click on the symbol <> at the end of any section to return to the CONTENTS.

Introduction

I am an economist with no formal training in the natural sciences, philosophy, or theology, and thus no standing to comment on theological matters. I retired in 2008 after teaching economics for forty years at an American liberal arts college.

As a regular church goer I had always considered myself to be religious in a conventional sense, even though upon occasion I found the rational economic behavior that I taught to be at odds with theological dictums focused upon selflessness. Intrigued by this apparent incompatibility, I have devoted a substantial portion of my newfound freedom to delving into theological literature, mostly written by American theologians and biblical historians. I have also explored some of the critical literature advanced by self-styled atheists.

These literatures have enabled me to glimpse behind the veil of "consumer theology" that has been retailed to me from childhood onward through my adult life. These literatures also have caused me to struggle with the Christian faith that churches have instilled in me through my lifetime. I have become both skeptical and a bit cynical as I age into my 80s.

In my perception, archaic aspects of orthodox Christian theology include a multitude of Old Testament oral campfire stories that were progressively-embellished with successive retellings; the minutiae of Mosaic law; the Trinity, atonement, election, and sola fide doctrines; the messiah obsession; the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection narratives; the sin-confession-repentance-forgiveness axis; and the exclusivity of the only-way mandate.

A theological transformation is unlikely to come from within the professional theological establishment. Those most resistant to such transformation may be theologians, religion professors, and ministers who are deeply invested in interpreting ancient scriptural matter to their students and preaching to their congregants.

I have told my economics students that each must become his/her own economist to make their way successfully through life. In similar vein, each human must become his or her own theologian in a personal quest to understand deity and relate to it. So, I shall claim personal theological privilege to offer my thoughts about theology and religion.

<>

1. Metaphor and Myth

The Cambridge Dictionary describes metaphor as "an expression, often found in literature, that describes a person or object by referring to something that is considered to have similar characteristics to that person or object" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/metaphor).
In his Church Chat devotion on Sunday, June 21, 2020, Jim Dant referred to the Trinity and Atonement doctrines as metaphors for understanding the natures and divinity of God and Jesus.

Ignorance and Uncertainty

Pre-scientific humans needed explanations and attributions of natural phenomena that they did not understand. Ignorance and uncertainty of causation spawned myths out of which metaphors emerged.

Uncertainty about the identity of Jesus' father led to the virgin birth myth. In Mark 6:3 Jesus is teaching at the synagogue in his hometown. Incredulous at the authority that he seems to exhibit, people ask, "Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?" (NIV) Since Hebrew males usually were identified as sons of their fathers even if they were deceased, this question may imply the significance of matrilineage in Jesus' case since his birth father was unknown to locals who suspected illegitimacy. The idea of "virgin birth" may have emerged as a myth to displace a popular perception of Jesus' illegitimacy.

Bart Ehrman argues that soon after his death, Jesus was no longer present and his body was missing, so his followers jumped to the conclusion that he was exalted by God to divine status (How Jesus Became God, HarperCollins, 2014). The resurrection narrative thus was born out of ignorance and uncertainty concerning the absence of Jesus' body after the crucifixion.

Although neither can be verified as historically and literally true, the virgin birth and resurrection narratives are metaphors for the divinity of Jesus.

Myth as Ideology

Perhaps the most common perception of "myth" today is that of a story about an imaginary character that may have derived from some ancient context, but that no one expects actually to be true—a "fairy tale" character. A more sophisticated concept of myth, and one that often is found in religion and sociological discussions, is that of an ethos story which is retold through the generations and conveys the fundamental nature of a society and the relationships among its members. But the two concepts may merge, for example in Aesop's Fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales in which the stories employ mythical characters to relate moralisms.

The term "ethos myth" may be understood as the underlying ideology that governs the way in which society members relate to one-another. In Western cultures the ethos story myths or underlying ideologies have included individualism, democracy, capitalism, the free market, and Christianity. But of course, the ethos stories gradually change with their retellings as great social transformations ensue. Lately in American culture, the ideology of democracy has been yielding to "progressivism," individualism is being supplanted by "communitarianism," capitalism is being threatened by "statism" (a veiled term for fascism), and the free market myth is gradually succumbing to regulatory and authoritarian control. What has happened to the ethos myths of Christianity?

Dictionary definitions of myth include (1) "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence," (2) "an unfounded or false notion," and (3) "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" (Miriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth). The most fundamental question about Jesus is whether he existed at all, or was his story only a Jewish version of legends transliterated from various ancient cultures (e.g., the Egyptian goddess Isis and her son Horus)? This may suggest that Jesus is an example of definition (1).

Most of what is known about Jesus is found in the New Testament Gospels and in the writings of the Apostle Paul. A startling fact is that corroborating references to Jesus are virtually absent from the records and writings of non-biblical authors of the first century, C.E. With so little corroborating commentary, the Jesus story might comply with definition (2).

Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers, in their 1988 book The Power of Myth, note that myths are stories told in all societies out of their ethos, and that all myths are essentially the same at the core, but differ only in details specific to their respective societies (Doubleday, 1988, p. 14). Moyers says that "Myths are stories of our search through the ages for truth, for meaning, for significance. .... We need for life to signify, to touch the eternal, to understand the mysterious, and to find out who we are." Campbell says that "What the myths are for is to bring us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual." On this concept of myth, the Jesus story fits with definition (3).

History, Myth, and Theology

Robert Price maintains that the Jesus story began as a myth that was historicized (The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems, American Atheist Press, 2012). Michael Baigent argues that early Christian church leaders mythologized the Jesus narratives, with the effects both of creating an object of faith and of establishing the locus and line of authority over the emerging Christian church (The Jesus Papers, HarperSanFrancisco, 2006). Taken together, these two views imply the historization of a myth followed by the mythologization of the history, i.e., myth to history to myth.

The idea that Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection was a divine plan to absolve humanity of sin was an element of the early Christian church's rationalization of Jesus' death and mythologization of the Jesus story. The myths surrounding the Jesus story eventually became theologized, i.e., accepted as religious orthodoxy. By the fourth century of the Common Era, Paul's Christ of faith bore little resemblance either to the Jesus of the Gospels or to the ancient myths that preceded the Jesus narratives. We can add another step in the progression outlined in the previous paragraph: myth to history to myth to orthodoxy.

The Christian faith and doctrine based upon them are an ethos myth story that according to Bill Moyers serves to "bring us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual." As noted by Karen Armstrong in her book The Case for God, myths are means for conveying essential truths even if they are not factual (Alfred A. Knopf, 2009). They have been important vehicles through the ages in helping humans to discern the meanings of what is transpiring in their lives. The Jesus birth, death, and resurrection stories may be theologized myths, but Jesus' moral philosophy is compelling and may be revered as an authentic code for ethical social behavior (love one's neighbor…, do unto others…, care for the poor).

The Trinity and Atonement Metaphors

By the fourth century of the Common Era, Jesus' references to a holy spirit presence had become personified into a divine entity on par with God and Jesus. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged as a compromise among the 318 bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The compromise that they reached in the Nicene Creed attempted to incorporate divergent views of the nature of Jesus into a deity figure that would include all things divine to the bishops attending the Nicaea council.

The emergence of the Atonement doctrine can be seen in two books by Jack Miles. In his first book, God: A Biography, Miles examines the "person" of God from the literary perspective of character development (Alfred A. Knopf, 1995). Using the chronological book order of the Hebrew Tanakh (rather than the non-chronological order of the Christian "Old Testament"), Miles reveals a sequence in the transition of God's character from initial almighty creator of the world through stages of naivete of the human creation, intimate conversationalist, wrathful evictor from the garden, destroyer of wicked humanity, exile liberator, law dictator, disobedience punisher, mighty warrior who destroys his people's enemies and perpetrates genocide, and capricious manipulator of a human subject. After God speaks to Job, we see a gradual waning of God's direct involvement in the world as God no longer speaks with humans but communicates to them only through "prophets." Toward the end of the Tanakh we see a distant and receding "Ancient of Days" figure who doesn't engage with humanity for four hundred years.

In a sequel, Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God, Miles, harking back to the story line in his first book, perceives God to have brooded over the "mistake" of eliminating eternal life for all humans after Adam and Eve sinned by eating the prohibited fruit in the Garden of Eden (Alfred A. Knopf, 2001). But in the Christian myth story, God devised a means of correcting this mistake by coming to earth in the guise of a human named Yeshua (Jesus). In this ethos myth, the literary character of Jesus is God Incarnate, i.e., God in the flesh. By allowing God's self as Jesus to be "killed" by humans as a blood sacrifice to God's self as God in order to atone for the sinfulness of all humanity, God created a means by which humans again could achieve eternal life. In the so-called Atonement doctrine, humans who believe that Jesus is God’s own Son, who believe that Jesus died for their sins, and who confess and repent of their sins can enjoy heavenly eternal life beyond earthly mortal life. From the literary perspective of character development, Jesus as God Incarnate is a divine being who preexisted time, who lived as a human, died, and rose from the dead, and who continues to live in judgment of the world.

The convoluted logic of the Atonement doctrine is an early rationalization of the death of Jesus that has persisted into the twenty-first century. But it has fallen out of favor with many congregations as evidenced by the fact that so-called "blood hymns" have become less popular for congregational singing. Even so, the Atonement doctrine continues to serve for some as a metaphor of God's love for humanity as expressed in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (NIV)

Examples

Essay 2, lists examples of myths and metaphors in economics, political science, and theology.

<>

2. Myths and Metaphors

This essay employs the concepts outlined in Essay 1, "Metaphor and Myth."

When I participated in a faculty seminar in southern Russia in 2002, one of our academic hosts at the university in Krosnodar asked us to write statements identifying myths that prevented harmonious engagement between our societies and governments. As I began to write, my list became ever-longer until I came to the realization that myths are pervasive of discourse in human societies.

Myths are ideal-types of situations or conditions described, alluded to, or desired by humans. In a broad sense, any contention that is widely believed but unsubstantiated by oral or physical evidence is a myth.

Realities are experienced by humans as sub-ideal diversions from ideal-type myths. Metaphors, negative as well as positive, are effected in human realities to represent or imply the myths.

In science, all as-yet untested or untestable hypotheses (theories) are, in effect, myths. Once supported by empirical evidence derived by conducting experiments, they may be called "laws." In economics, untested myths are subject to modeling. When supported by empirical evidence they are called "principles."

A non-exhaustive list of examples of ideal-type but unsubstantiated myths that are taught in economics courses include:

the free market;
product demand exhibiting inverse variation of price and quantity;
perfect competition in markets;
profit maximization by business managers;
cost minimization by producers;
utility maximization by consumers;
diminishing marginal utility in consumer behavior;
diminishing returns in production;
yield rates varying inversely with bond prices in financial analysis;
yield curves exhibiting normal term behavior in financial markets;
interest rates determined by a banking authority;
comparative advantage specialization and free trade enabling global welfare maximization;
the natural tendency for international payments to balance when exchange rates are free to vary;
perfect authoritarian knowledge enabling determination of what to produce, how, by whom, and to whom output is to be distributed;
benevolent monarchy or dictatorship specifying equitable responses to the what, how, by whom, and to whom questions;
income earned by work to purchase goods and services needed to sustain life;
income receipt corresponding to amount of work provided;
income levels varying directly with education, training, and industriousness;
welfare increasing with growth ("growth lifts all boats");
"happiness" (utility) varying directly with income receipt; and
others that the reader may identify.

Much of economic analysis is devoted to modeling sub-ideal realities pertaining to these myths in order to test deduced conclusions with empirical evidence gleaned from natural processes. They are, in effect, negative metaphors for the ideal-types. When validated by empirical evidence, they may be called principles:

markets exhibiting rigidities, failures;
attainment of market position and control (e.g., "cornering" a market) that distorts market outcomes;
pure monopoly, imperfect competition, and oligopolistic competition, yielding non-competitive outcomes;
businesses pursuit of goals other than profit;
technological advances that shift or warp production functions;
yield curves that invert;
authoritarian (central bank, treasury) manipulation of financial markets that causes inflation, unemployment;
authoritarian setting of unrealistic interest rates that distort production and distribution patterns;
authoritarian specification of prices or interest rates that causes inventory depletion or accumulation;
consumers engaging in behavior other than utility maximization;
production subsidies and barriers to free trade that prevent comparative advantage specialization, distort trade patterns, diminish global welfare;
international payments that become imbalanced with trade barriers, fixed exchange rates, currency manipulation;
growth that becomes inconsistent with sustainability of human life on the planet;
development that may deplete physical resources;
technological advancementshat conserve or extend extant physical resources;
space exploration that may access new sources of physical resources; and
others that the reader may identify.

In the political arena, a non-exhaustive list of widely-held beliefs (myths) that cannot be substantiated with oral or physical evidence includes:

democratic election of governing officials superior to authoritarian appointment;
democracy superior to theocracy;
republican governance superior to parliamentary democracy, monarchy, and dictatorship;
branches of government serving to check each other's exercise of power;
two-party politics superior to multiparty politics;
the "West" superior to the "Orient";
American exceptionalism;
the invincibility of the American military;
income distribution equitable;
private healthcare superior to public healthcare, universal healthcare;
public education superior to private education;
private education superior to public education;
ethnic purity superior to ethnic diversity;
white nationalism superior to multi-racial diversity; and
others that the reader may identify.

Original and subsequently rewritten historical accounts serve as metaphors for political myths. Policy regimes are metaphors that reflect unsubstantiated political myths:

containment;
globalization;
America First;
tariff regimes to counter or reverse globalization;
nationalization;
income redistribution;
social security;
private retirement funds;
private healthcare insurance;
universal healthcare provision;
universal free education;
busing to achieve racial balance;
private education to preserve racial segregation; and
others that the reader may identify.

Also, failure of political institutions may be negative metaphors that reflect political myths:

democratic institutions may fail to function;
democratic elections may enable attainment of authoritarian control;
authorities may be ignorant of economic relationships or conditions;
authorities may engage in self-dealing;
administration staffs may capture control over an elected official, monarch, or dictator; and
others that the reader may identify.

In theology, a non-exhaustive list of ideal-type myths include:

one (or more) deities exist;
the deity is eternal, with no beginning or ending;
the deity created the world (the universe, the "multiverse");
the deity has a plan for the universe;
the deity causes and controls all events that occur in the universe;
the deity engages personally with humans;
the deity may be in communication with any human who wishes to communicate with the deity;
the deity is knowledgeable of all human needs, thoughts, desires, and intents;
the deity may choose whether or not to fulfill specific human petitions;
the deity may judge the behavior of humans and choose whether to forgive or punish human "sins";
the deity may manifest itself in multiple forms including physical human form;
the deity confers upon humans "souls" that preexisted physical human life and will continue to exist through all eternity, even after the end of physical human life;
human souls may ascend to a heavenly "paradise" or descend to a "hell" at the end of human physical life;
Jesus is coincident with deity, or the deity deified the human Jesus; and
others that the reader may identify.

Unlike in science, none of the theological myths are testable. None can be regarded as "laws" in a scientific sense or as "principles" in an economic sense. Humans have indulged in pseudo metaphors to represent or allude to certain of the myths. They are "pseudo" in the sense that their occurrences cannot be documented in realities. A theological myth may emanate from a single, central event (e.g., resurrection), but pseudo metaphors reflecting the event may accrete to the event over the course of centuries. Nonetheless, when invoked in discussion, these pseudo metaphors recall the underlying myths:

the human idea of deity
human anthropomorphized characteristics of deity;
absent knowledge of the name of deity, human appropriation of common nouns to serve as deity names, e.g., "God," "Dios," "Dieu," "Gott," "El," "Allah";
human attribution of causation to deity;
the virgin birth;
healing;
resurrection;
the trinity doctrine;
the substitutionary atonement doctrine;
sin punishment, forgiveness;
petitionary prayer fulfillment;
existence of souls;
soul survival through eternity;
heaven, hell, purgatory; and
others that the reader may identify.

There are some actual reality event metaphors that reflect and recall divinity myths:

Lent;
Easter;
Advent;
Christmas;
Hanukkah;
Passover;
Rosh Hashanah;
Yom Kippur;
Ramadan;
and others that the reader may identify.

3. Anthropomorphization

God is thought to be ineffable, i.e., incapable of being described with mere human language. Ancient writers often subjected the idea of god to anthropomorphization, i.e., imputation of human characteristics. Old Testament writers certainly did this, and it is not uncommon today for humans to anthropomorphize human characteristics to a perceived divine entity. Most assumptions about the nature of a god are anthropomorphisms. Reza Aslan, in his book God: A Human History, makes this case using the term “humanize” rather than “anthropomorphize”:

We are the lense through which we understand the universe and everything in it. We apply our personal experience to all that we encounter, whether human or not. In doing so, we not only humanize the world; we humanize the gods we think created it. (Reza Aslan, God: A Human History, Random House, 2017, Kindle e-book location 843)

Old Testament writers characterized their god as lonely and in need of company, needy of human adoration and worship, and surprised by human infidelity when accorded free will. Jim Vincent, in his book Should the Church Abandon the Bible?, describes the Old Testament perception of God:

The God of the Old Testament is a primitive, supernatural, anthropomorphic being who experiences a wide range of human emotions: love, jealousy, vindictiveness, anger, pride; a God who is often ruthless and unforgiving, savage, petty, irrational and vainglorious; in effect, a magnified image of the sort of despotic tyrant that would have been familiar to many in ancient times, either by repute or from bitter experience. (aSys Publishing, 2018, Kindle e-book location 709)

These characterizations are human anthropomorphisms that are unseemly of a presumed divine creator of the universe. In his final chapter, Vincent says,

The primitive, anthropomorphic and supernatural God of the Bible is, I believe, a stumbling block for many. The abandonment of such an image of God would allow the church to develop an adult view of the divine. (Kindle e-book location 4808)

Anthropomorphization has a long history, and not just with respect to divine entities. Human characteristics were imputed to animals in Aesop's Fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales. Modern humans may be influenced to regard anthropomorphization of a god as appropriate since Disney, Warner Brothers, Hannah-Barbera, and other animation studios regularly anthropomorphized their animal characters.

Although there is a natural tendency to humanize (i.e., to anthropomorphize) God, Aslan professes in his concluding chapter that

For me, and for countless others, ‘The One’ is what I call God. But the God I believe in is not a personalized God. It is a dehumanized God: a God with no material form; a god who is pure existence, without name, essence, or personality. (Kindle e-book location 4679)

This may indeed be the true nature of God, but anthropomorphization may be the only way that many can attempt to gain even a partial understanding of the divine entity that they worship. Even so, the anthropomorphic characteristics ascribed to God are prime candidates to be subjected to the marginal principle in applying Ockham’s razor to the margins of a Christianity for the Postmodern era.

4. Avatar

In her book A History of God, Karen Armstrong suggests that when humans impute human characteristics to a divine entity, they create avatars of the divine entity that they may worship and to which they may pray. (Grammercy Books, 1993) When worshiped, avatars of the divine entity become idols. In their inability to grasp the ultimate nature of a divine entity, most humans worship anthropomorphized avatars of a divine entity that they then may refer to as "God." Rather than bronze or wooden statues, anthropomorphized concepts of a god are the idols of the twenty-first century.

Since each human's god avatar is a unique collection of anthropomorphized characteristics, there may be as many unique avatars of divine entities as there are humans, but there may be shared characteristics among the avatars. Humans organize themselves into religions and denominations based upon the shared avatar characteristics.

An avatar of a god can mean whatever the avatar creator needs for the avatar to mean. Edgar McKnight, in his book Jesus Christ Today, asserts that the reader of scripture can be an active participant in the interpretation of the meaning of scriptural texts. (Mercer University Press, 2009) McKnight concludes that Jesus can mean whatever the reader of scripture needs for him to mean, and by extension (mine, not McKnight's) this must also apply to god avatars.

Each of our personal god avatars may be a collection of wishful thinkings about what we would like for our god to be or to do for us. I can take my god to be my buddy, my friend, my co-pilot, my personal god, the lord of my life. I can ask my god to feed me, clothe me, shield me from harm, bless me ("give me a Mercedes Benz"), give me success in all of my endeavors, and direct my every step.

But is human life really like this? As an economist, I recognize that one's fortunes in life are pretty much what one makes of them, given inherited characteristics and wealth, social situation of childhood, educational experiences and opportunities, and plain good or bad luck.

These are some of the characteristics of the god avatar that I have envisioned:

I have thought God to be "omni-," e.g., omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. While these properties may be implied in some scriptural passages (particularly in certain Psalms), these terms are not explicit in any biblical passages. Jim Dant reminds us that these terms are "hardly descriptive of the God we find in scripture.... They probably describe the kind of God we think we want, but not necessarily the God we've actually got." (Jim Dant, Finding your Voice: How to Speak Your Heart's True Faith, Faithlab, 2013, Kindle e-book location 783)

Concerning omnipresent, Marcus Borg argues in The God We Never Knew that God is not a supernatural being apart from the universe, but indeed is everywhere, including "right here," what he calls a panentheistic view. (The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith, HarperCollins, 1998) This accords with John Dominic Crossan's argument that Jesus' ministry taught that the Kingdom of God is near ("in the here and now") rather than something that will happen in the future. (The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1992)

I perceive God to be omnibenevolent in the sense that God's grace and mercy may extend to all humans without limit. "Fair" and "unfair," "deserving" and "undeserving," are purely human judgments that are trumped by God's grace and mercy.

God imbues humans with innate empathy with other humans, but God does not prevent failure of human empathy when they perpetrate harm, physical or emotional, upon other humans.

"Good" and "bad" human behaviors are human specifications that are culturally-determined and time-bound. Although some atheists have argued that God is not good, most theists (believers) understand God to be good without qualification.

God neither rewards good human behavior nor punishes bad or evil human behavior during human material life. Any rewards or punishments are levied by God upon human souls beyond the ends of the humans' material lives.

Evil as well as goodness is inherent in human nature, i.e., there is no diabolical entity external to humans or on a par with the divine entity. We are our own "devils." Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

God is "no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Good and bad things happen to humans, irrespective of whether they are good or bad during their material lives. God is not biased in favor of or prejudiced against any humans during their material lives. God does not "bless" or "damn" some humans to the exclusion of other humans. Nor does God choose ("elect") some human souls to an afterlife or reward or punish them during their material lives. Humans may choose to worship and petition God for admission to a rewarding afterlife.

God is thought to "love" all beings of the universe (an obvious anthropomorphism), including both sub-human and human beings, and is assumed by believers to hope for their reciprocal love, honor, reverence, and respect.

God may have the ability to "appear" to humans in any guise chosen by God, including those specific to religions other than Judaism and Christianity.

It cannot be ruled out that God may have appeared to first-century Palestinian Jews in the guise of a human with the Hebrew name Yeshua. God may commission selected humans ("prophets") during their material lives to convey messages to humans from the divine.

5. Afterlife

In addition to life itself, humans possess intellect to varying degrees. Life comes to an end when a human dies, at which time it may be presumed that his or her intellect also expires.

It cannot be ruled out that humans may be imbued by a divine entity with souls that exist apart from physical life and intellect. Souls are thought to be non-material essences of being that are coexistent with human physical life, may have preexisted human life, and may continue to exist beyond the end of human life, i.e., in an "afterlife." It is not clear whether intellect might survive along with the soul to an afterlife.

Ancient writings in nearly all cultural traditions make some reference to a "soul" concept. Some religions, e.g., Jainism and Hinduism, teach that all biological organisms have souls. Some religious traditions even suggest that non-biological entities (such as rivers and mountains) have souls. Medieval Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas attributed soul to all organisms but argued that only human souls are immortal. ("Soul," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul)

It cannot be known whether souls are sentient (i.e., possess the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) or have any ability to act in either the physical world or in an afterlife once human physical life comes to an end. Whether humans indeed have souls with any of these properties can be known with certainty only when humans depart their physical lives, only by the departing humans, and only if they do survive to an afterlife.

If humans do have souls that survive their physical lives, I would be surprised to learn that the souls have physical mass. One of Dan Brown's characters in his novel The Lost Symbol (Random House, 2009, pp. 391-395) is depicted as attempting to prove the existence of a soul by weighing the physical mass of a dying colleague in a sealed compartment immediately before and after death. A lesser weight after death would imply the existence of a soul that departs the physical body at death. To my knowledge, this fictional process has not yet been accomplished, or even attempted. Without physical mass, their physical locations cannot be ascertained, i.e., the locus of an afterlife ("heaven" or "hell") is unspecifiable and unknowable to humans during their physical lives.

Many cultural traditions include the concept of "ghosts" or "spirits" that survive physical life in some sense, and that may present to still living beings some ephemeral representation of the souls of the departed. Ghosts are presumed by some to be able to act in the physical world as well as in the spirit world. C. S. Lewis in his book The Great Divorce describes a dream in which angels entreat the ghosts of recently deceased humans to move toward and accept an angelic heavenly afterlife. (Macmillan Publishing Company, 1947) Lewis' ghosts seem to be both sentient and able to act, at least in the spirit world.

If humans do not have souls, then this can never be known with certainty by living humans. Finding no physical evidence of the existence of souls, some scientists have concluded that there is no afterlife, i.e., "when you're dead, you're dead," full stop. The message of a recent beer commercial is predicated upon this belief: "You only go around once, so get all the gusto you can!" A credit card solicitation reads, “Life is such a short little visit. We get one chance to do it well. Which is why everything that we do should be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.” As argued by John Dominic Crossan in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, Jesus taught that "The Kingdom of God is near" or "at hand," with implication that it pertains to this life, whether or not souls or an afterlife exist. (HarperCollins, 1992)

But there are other possible dimensions of afterlife. Until scientists discover how to extend life indefinitely, it is inevitable that human physical life must end. However, each of us lives on in the DNA that we confer upon our progeny. We also continue to live in the memories of our families and those who have known us or have learned about us even if they have not known us. And we also may continue to live in the form of any artistic expression or printed legacy that we have left for subsequent generations to encounter. These other dimensions of afterlife may influence those who continue in physical life, but they cannot otherwise be sentient or have any ability to act.

The promise of an afterlife is a critical component of classical Christian theology, but it is a belief that some people today may find difficult to accept. Many are convinced that “this life” is all that there is, and they intend to live it to the fullest. This view accords with Jesus’ teaching that the “Kingdom of God is at hand,” whether or not an afterlife exists.

6. Heaven and Hell

Heaven and Hell are myths in search of metaphors.

As I age into my 80s, my remaining time on earth is short unless science develops and perfects a means to "upload" my being into a digital environ before I die.

Here are some questions in re dying, death, and afterlife, and my tentative responses:

Will I die? Yes, everyone who ever has lived has died; it is inevitable. However, modern science offers hints that technology may advance to enable uploading one's being (intellect, soul, spirit) into a digital environment to be stored for eternity (or until electrical power fails). Whether a digital uploaded being might be conscious and sentient is unknown.

Do I fear death? I try not to be fearful of death, but I must admit to FOMO, i.e., fear of missing out on the future life experiences of my loved ones. I have attempted to provide for my loved ones and prepare essential information for them after I depart.

Am I anxious about the prospect of dying? Yes, in the sense that I don't expect ever to be ready to pass on, and in the uncertainty of when it will happen. My greatest anxiety is about the process of dying. I attended the long declines and suffering of both of my parents during their final years. It would be such a gift to go quietly in my sleep or suddenly without suffering a long decline. When my physical body deteriorates far enough that I am unaware or can no longer enjoy physical existence, my anxiety may evaporate and I may look forward to passing.

Will I go to hell when I die? I doubt it because I subscribe to Jesus' teaching that the wicked will be exterminated, and to Socrates' teaching that I will no longer exist after death and thus have no consciousness.

Will I go to heaven when I die? I believe that the Kingdom of God (or Heaven) exists all around us in real time, e.g., as an "overlay" to physical life for those who become aware of it. We are already here in the Kingdom of God. We are living in the paradise of this earth although humans are despoiling it at a rapid clip. This life is all that there is, but I can indulge the hope that there may be a heavenly life in a paradise after physical death.

Did my soul preexist my physical life; will it survive my physical life? I think that it is unlikely on both counts. I am unsure even of the existence of a "soul" apart from intellect.

Do my ancestors inhabit a "spirit world" that can view and engage my physical life? I doubt it and have no experience of it.

After I die will I become a spirit or ghost who can view and engage with my ancestors and my descendants? I think that this is a fantasy.

Can my earthly existence have an effect on or influence future generations? I will live on in the DNA that I confer on my progeny. Any legacy writings that I leave may be encountered by my descendants and other people, and so may influence their understanding and thinking. However, I do not expect such matter to be sentient in the sense of observing, feeling, or otherwise engaging with people in the future.

7. Religion and Church

Some Christians today harbor the view that Jesus was a Christian who was commissioned by God to found a new religion and establish a church.

Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jewish Pharisee who asserted that he came to fulfill the law, not to replace it.

Barrie Wilson, in his book How Jesus Became Christian (St. Martin's Press, 2008), notes that although the religion called "Christianity" derives from the Jewish figure of Jesus (the Greek version of the Hebrew name "Yeshua" or "Joshua"), it does not even bear his name.

Wilson distinguishes between the "Jesus movement" and the "Christ movement," both of which emerged during the latter half of the first century, A.D. The Jesus movement focused on the teachings of Jesus that stressed service to the poor; it attempted to remain within Judaism by observing the requirements of the Hebrew Torah.

"Christos" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for "messiah" that means "the anointed one." "Christ" is the Anglicization of "Christos." It is a title, not a name (certainly not Jesus' surname). Several Hebrew kings were regarded as a messiah, i.e., one who is anointed by God. The title also was taken by some of the Roman emperors.

The Christ movement followed from a vision of Jesus as a mystical "Christ" figure experienced by a Jewish Pharisee named Saul during a trip to Damascus, and from subsequent revelations by the Christ to Paul (Saul renamed). Developing apart from Judaism, the Christ movement was based on "letters" that Paul wrote to congregations comprised of Jews and Gentiles ("God fearers") in the Jewish diaspora of Asia Minor.

Paul's letters make only passing references to the historical Jesus and his teachings, and many of the passages in Paul's letters to churches in Asia Minor argue against the teachings of the Jesus movement. The evolving Christ movement rejected the requisites of the Torah and stressed faith in Christ rather than good works as taught by Jesus and required by the Torah. In the aftermath of the crucifixion, adherents of the Jesus movement (a.k.a. "the Way") were persecuted by both orthodox Jews and Pagans.

With Paul's missionary travels and letters, the Christ movement effectively escaped Judaism and gradually became a Gentile movement. The Jewish Jesus movement waned, but the Gentile Christ movement evolved into what today is called "Christianity." Wilson suggests that Christianity really should be called "Paulinity."

The subtitle of a twenty-first century book by Robin Meyers reflects the first-century rift between the Christ movement and the Jesus movement: Saving Jesus From the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus. (HarperCollins, 2009)

The worship styles of many twenty-first century liturgical churches may reflect the Christ movement approach. The greater emphasis of latter-day evangelical churches on the life and teachings of Jesus and the oft-asked question "WWJD?" ("What would Jesus do?") imply that elements of the Jesus movement have survived to the present day.

8. Altruism and Greed

The Bible speaks both to altruism and to greed which stand at opposite ends of the span of human behavior. Dictionary definitions:

altruism: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (as opposed to egoism).
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism)

greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed)

Critics of capitalism may take "greed" and "self-interest" to be synonyms, but they prefer the language of "greed" to that of "self-interest." Self-interest is an objective or clinical term, whereas greed is value laden. Greed might be understood as self-interest in the extreme, that is, without regard to the interests of others.

We might imagine a continuum with perfect altruism at one end, extreme greed at the other, and varying degrees of self-interest in between.

Jesus, the epitome of ultimate selflessness, would define the ALTRUISM extreme. Toward this end of the continuum would be people of conscience who are generous and who deliberately attempt to practice selflessness. Toward the extreme of perfect GREED would be egocentric people who may upon occasion engage in "random acts of kindness."

A "normal distribution" of something across a population could be illustrated like this:

This is an illustration of a "bell curve" fitted to a normal distribution:

Here is the statistical interpretation of a normal distribution bell curve:

In this interpretation, the lower-case Greek letter mu (μ) stands for the mean (i.e., the average) of the items included in the distribution. The lower-case Greek letter sigma (σ) represents a standard deviation from the mean μ. The range from the mean minus one standard deviation to the mean plus one standard deviation includes about 68 percent of the items. The range from the mean minus two standard deviations to the mean plus two standard deviations includes about 95 percent of the items. The range from the mean minus three standard deviations to the mean plus three standard deviations includes 99.7 percent of the items.

For an ideal society the ALTRUISM-GREED continuum might be characterized as a normal distribution with a bell-shaped graph for a typical population. Around the middle of the continuum would be the majority of the population (the ninety-five percent who fall within two standard deviations of the mean) consisting of normal people who are rationally self-interested but who occasionally engage in altruistic acts. Most of us probably fall into this middle range.

But if more people are selfless and engage more often in altruistic acts, the mean will be higher, and the bell curve may be taller and narrower with crowding toward the altruism end of the continuum.

Or if more people are selfish and engage less often in altruistic acts, the mean will be lower, and the bell curve may be taller and narrower with crowding toward the greed end of the continuum.

It cannot be denied that greed may be the driving force of some who are engaged in entrepreneurial, marketing, and financial activities. But it would not be appropriate to jump to the conclusion that all market dealings are characterized by greed. Greed as a universal motivation would be destructive of the functioning of market economy because it would lead each market participant to cynicism and distrust of other parties to market transactions.

Economists recognize that personal satisfaction depends upon a number of deterministic variables, one or more of which may represent the well-being of family members, neighbors, or the humanity as a whole. This means that it is perfectly rational for self-interested people to act in the interest of others. Why? Because acting in the interest of others may provide personal satisfaction.*

Most humans normally expect quid pro quo when they give up something, e.g., when they pay money to buy something they expect satisfaction from what they purchase. It may be economically rational to engage in altruistic acts that involve foregone consumption possibilities. "Compensation" for such acts may be in the form of a "feel-good" effect after the fact.

Ministers may admonish congregants to “Give until it hurts!" But perhaps the admonitions would be more effective if they were to acknowledge the baser economic reality of the human condition: “Give until you feel good about your generosity!”

We Christians may not have done a good enough job in transmitting to successive generations the force of Jesus' teachings relative to the well-being of fellow humans. People have not been led (by whom? family? clergy? academy? government?) adequately to value the benefits of altruism relative to the opportunity cost of what they might have bought with the amounts given.

Suppose that one’s level of altruism is indicated by a position like point P₁ to the left of the mean vertical on a normal-distribution bell curve. The mission of church and clergy is to encourage greater altruism (lesser self-interest or greed) so that his or her indicator moves to a point like P₂ that is farther to the right along the continuum.

Where along its continuum does American society fall today? My guess is that if altruism-greed ratios could be measured across the entire population, the early twenty-first century American bell curve would be skewed to the left of a normal distribution.

9. Name Changes

The Bible notes a number of name changes, some by God, others by Jesus, one by Luke. God changed the names of two Old Testament patriarchs, Abram to Abraham (Genesis 17:5) and Jacob to Israel (Genesis 32:28).

A popular misconception is that Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul on the Road to Damascus, but a careful reading of Acts 9 confirms that this is not true. The change from “Saul” to “Paul” occurs once Paul sets off on his missionary journeys away from Jerusalem as described in Acts 13:13: “Now Paul and his companions set sail.” It is Luke who changes Saul's name, not Jesus. (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/no-saul-the-persecutor-did-not-become-paul-the-apostle/)

Jesus often gave his followers nicknames. He called Simon "Cephas," the rock. He referred to apostles James and John as "Boanerges," sons of thunder. He may have called Mary, his most devoted female follower, the Hebrew word "Magdal" meaning "watch-tower" in English.

Tribal gods in ancient times went by various names associated with their tribes, but it has been conjectured that some of these names may actually have referred to the same god worshiped by the ancient Hebrews. One of the names that ancient Hebrews used to refer to their god was "Y_hw_h" (Yahweh), but in fear and reverence were reluctant to pronounce this name.

The deity that we call "God" even changed his own name and used various aliases to different tribes and at different times. After Moses killed an Egyptian overseer, he fled Egypt to the "Land of Midian" (probably south of Canaan in the Sinai or trans-Jordan area) where he encountered a Midianite priest for whom he went to work and whose daughter he married. The Midianite god Yahweh instructed Moses to return to Egypt and lead the Israelites out of Egypt to a new "promised land." Since the Israelites in Egypt worshiped El and did not know Yahweh, Moses had to introduce them to Yahweh and convince them to follow him out of Egypt into the Sinai desert (the land of Midian) enroute to the Promised Land. In Exodus 6:2-3 God says, "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai [God of the Mountain], but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

Biblical scholars have identified four principal sources for Old Testament literature: the Elohist (pertaining to the god El who was worshiped by Canaanites), the Yahwist (pertaining to the god Yahweh who was worshiped by Midianites), the Priestly, and the Deuteronomic sources. The first two were written before the Babylonian exile; the last two were written during or soon after the exile. English language translations of Old Testament literature usually represent El as "God" and Yahweh as "LORD" (all caps). A Priestly writer attempted to merge the Elohist and Yahwist identities of God by introducing the term "Yahweh El," i.e., "LORD God," that we see in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament.

Christians today don't use a specific name for our deity. On the assumption that there is only one divine entity, English-speaking Christians have appropriated the English language common noun "god" and made it into a proper name, "God," to refer to the divine entity. Speakers of other languages likewise have made the generic word for god a proper name, e.g., Dieu in French, Gott in German, Dios in Spanish.

It is perhaps regrettable that today we do not refer to our deity by a given name or one of his ancient names because the common noun "god" converted to the proper name "God" has been adulterated by its use in common parlance expletives "Oh God!", "My God!", and similar phrases to register shock or indicate that something bad is happening or has happened. Also, the phrase "OMG!" ("Oh my God!") has become used in text messaging to indicate surprise or joy. These expletives rarely are intended to evoke anything having to do with a divine entity.

Reza Aslan, in his book God: A Human History, says that as a Sufi he worships deity without name, "...a god with no material form; a god who is pure existence, without name, essence, or personality." (Random House, 2017, Kindle e-book location 4679)

Jesus' name was changed, but not by Jesus himself. Jesus' Hebrew birth name was Yeshua ben Yossef, or in English transliteration, "Joshua son of Joseph." His (adopted) father's name was Yossef ben Jacob. The male naming convention in Palestine during the first century was to follow the given name by "ben" (son of) father's name. Females usually were identified as given name "bat" (daughter of) father's name, e.g., Myriam bat Heli.

The letter "J" did not exist in ancient Hebrew. Ari Mermelstein, a practicing Orthodox Jew, says

(https://www.quora.com/Did-the-letter-J-exist-in-the-Hebrew-alphabet)

This likely happened in early translations of the Bible into English, including the translation commissioned in 1603 by King James VI and published in 1611. Where it appears in English translations of Hebrew texts, the "j" should be given a soft sound as if "y", similar to the sound of "j" in modern German.

Jesus is the Greek name by which we know him today, but he likely was not called by the name "Jesus" during his lifetime. He was known as Yeshua (English transliteration "Joshua"), or within his circle by a more familiar nickname "Yesu" which may have become transliterated into the Greek name "Jesus."

Christians today commonly use his Greek name rather than his Hebrew birth name because the convention likely was established in early gospels and non-canonical texts, many of which were written in Greek or translated into Greek from other languages. Johann Franck and Johann Sebastian Bach used the German poetic form "Jesu" in a number of their compositions (e.g., Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring").

"Christ" is not a name, but rather a title meaning "messiah." It would be more appropriate to refer to him in English as "Jesus, the Christ" rather than "Jesus Christ" which implies that Christ is his surname (which it is not). We often end a prayer with "In Christ's name" with the implied understanding that the messiah's name is Jesus, not Christ. It might be more appropriate to say "in Jesus' name" (or "in Yeshua's name") since Christ is only a title, not a name.

The title "messiah," meaning "anointed by God," was applied to Hebrew kings who served to guide Israel in times of crisis. The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on "messiah":

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism)

The messiah title is not unique to Judaism. Other religions with a messiah concept include Zoroastrianism (Saoshyant), Buddhism (Maitreya), Hinduism (Kalki), Taoism (Li Hong), and Bábism (He whom God shall make manifest). The term messiah was even appropriated by Romans and applied to certain emperors, e.g., Vespasian who became Emperor in 67 AD (https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-14-vespasian/).

10. Rewriting the Jesus Story

Early Rewrites

Dant notes that the rewriting process started during Jesus' lifetime with his disciple Peter. In Matthew 16, Jesus tells (actually, foretells) the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to be killed. Peter attempts to alter Jesus' story, saying, "This shall never happen to you." (NIV) But Jesus retains control of his own story by rebuking Peter, telling him to "get behind me, Satan. You are a stumbling block to me."

After Peter, the Apostle Paul was one of the earliest to rewrite the Jesus story. On the Road to Damascus to arrest adherents of "the Way," Paul had a vision of encountering the resurrected Jesus. But Paul did not otherwise know Jesus personally. In writing his "letters" to the Gentile gatherings ("churches") in Asia Minor, Paul contrived a Jesus story that abstracted from both his teachings and life events. In so doing, Paul initiated a new religion that we know today as "Christianity."

Some of Paul's contemporaries wrote "gospels" decades after Paul wrote his letters. These included Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and various other gospel writers whose accounts did not make it into the New Testament canon. Some of these writers may have been Jesus' disciples or otherwise may have known Jesus personally. But each wrote and rewrote the Jesus story in pursuit of specific agendas and for particular clienteles.

The Jesus story writers wrote with retrospective knowledge of what had happened during Jesus' ministry, his execution, and his resurrection. Recognition of this fact invokes the suspicion that the Gospel writers may have imbued the human Jesus with implied foreknowledge with the intention of affirming that he was in possession of divine omniscience. If so, this may constitute another rewrite of the Jesus story.

Matthew 16:21 implies Jesus' divinity when he foretells his impending arrest, torture, and execution in Jerusalem. Such foreknowledge could have been a matter of Jesus' divinity, but this begs a question debated by church fathers at the Council of Nicaea nearly three centuries after Jesus' death. Was Jesus fully divine, fully human, or both simultaneously. Some latter-day skeptics even have proposed that the Jesus story was nothing more than a Persian, Greek, or Egyptian dying-rising savior myth clothed in Jewish culture and language. The bishops gathered at Nicaea in 325 AD rewrote the Jesus story by adopting a trinitarian understanding of the divinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

The conventional wisdom of the first century AD was that a Jewish messiah must have descended from the House of David in the Judah tribe, but this too may have led to a rewrite of the Jesus story. Joseph Raymond, in his 2010 book Herodian Messiah: Case for Jesus as Grandson of Herod (https://www.amazon.com/Herodian-Messiah-Jesus-Grandson-Herod/dp/0615355080), contends that Jesus was the son of Antipater ben Herod ("the Great"), an Idumean, and Myriam bat Antigonus, a Hasmonean princess descended from the Levi tribe. Raymond's rewrite of the Jesus story contradicts the expectation that a messiah must descend from the House of David in the Judah tribe.

When the Israelites finally secured the "Promised Land" (Canaan) after wandering for 40 years in the wilderness, the land was apportioned among eleven of the twelve Israelite tribes, but none was allocated to the Levi tribe because Levites served as priests who would be supported by the eleven landed tribes. In Matthew 8:20 and 9:58, Jesus says, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." (NIV) This saying often is interpreted as referring to Jesus' poverty, but an alternate interpretation is that it is an implicit acknowledgement by Jesus that he may have descended from the Levi tribe rather than from King David. As a Levite, Jesus had no tribal land to call his home. In Matthew 22, Mark 10, and Luke 20, Jesus rewrote his own story by implicitly rejecting the contention that a messiah must have descended only from the tribe of Judah.

It would be nice to read Jesus' autobiography in order to discern his own story. But, unfortunately, no Jesus autobiography has been found, and there is no evidence that Jesus either wrote one himself or dictated his story to a scribe.

Modern Era Rewrites

In the nineteenth century, Thomas Jefferson undertook a Jesus story rewrite. He used a razor to cut passages from a copy of the New Testament and pasted them to sheets of paper to compile his perceived statement of Jesus' teachings. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was completed in 1820. Today it is known more commonly as "The Jefferson Bible." Jefferson's compilation excluded all passages that implied divinity or suggested the supernatural, including the accounts of Jesus' miracles and the resurrection.

Prior to the turn of the twentieth century a number of Jesus story rewrites had been published with title variations on the theme of "the life of Jesus." In 1906 Albert Schweitzer wrote a historical criticism of these prior works, pointing out various shortcomings in the research approaches used. Schweitzer's book, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, was translated into English by William Montgomery in 1910 and published under the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer's book sparked a second quest in the 1950s and a third quest in the 1980s that introduced newer methods of analysis into the question of the historicity of Jesus. All of these quests were rewrites of the Jesus story.

Twentieth century writers continued efforts to rewrite the Jesus story. Building upon recent biblical scholarship, Stephen Mitchell, in his 1991 book The Gospel According to Jesus (HarperCollins), followed Jefferson's approach. But he applied modern word-smithing technology to strip off what he identified as the Gospel writers' accretions to reveal a Jesus story that presents his essential message. It is more of a gospel cleansing than a biographical rewrite.

Around the turn of the twenty-first century, Jack Miles analyzed both God and Jesus as literary characters. In his 1995 book God, A Biography, and his 2001 sequel, Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God (Alfred A. Knopf), Miles rewrote both the God story** and the Jesus story. Miles perceived God to have brooded over the "mistake" of eliminating eternal life for all humans after Adam and Eve sinned by eating the prohibited fruit in the Garden of Eden. But God devised a means of correcting this mistake by coming to earth in the guise of a human with the Hebrew name Yeshua (Jesus). In this view, the literary character of Jesus is God Incarnate, i.e., God in the flesh. By allowing God’s self as Jesus to be "killed" by humans as a blood sacrifice to God’s self as God in order to atone for the sinfulness of all humanity, God created a means by which humans again could achieve eternal life. Humans who confess and repent of their sins and who believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is God’s own Son can enjoy heavenly eternal life beyond earthly mortal life. This atonement rewrite of the Jesus story is integral to latter-day Christian doctrine, but many modern (or postmodern) Christians may no longer find it credible.

Edgar McKnight, in his 2009 book Jesus Christ Today (Mercer University Press), asserts that the reader of scripture can be an active participant in the interpretation of the meaning of scriptural texts. McKnight concludes that, within limits, Jesus can mean whatever the reader of scripture needs for him to mean. This is implicit permission for the reader of scripture to rewrite the Jesus story as needed to facilitate understanding of his message and life example.

My Rewrite

So, I too have rewritten the Jesus story. In my Jesus story rewrite, he was a fully human teacher and philosopher who may have been tapped by God to serve as his prophet in conveying to humanity a message of universal love. He also taught that the Kingdom of God is near. Americans fought a revolution to escape a kingdom, so the term "realm" may be preferable to "kingdom." I take the Realm of God to be coextensive with my physical reality. A twenty-first century analogy is that the Realm of God is like a computer operating system that underpins and enables the apps that I am using.

In my Jesus story rewrite, Jesus survived the crucifixion and recovered enough to be seen on the Road to Emmaus, by his disciples in the upper-room and on the Galilean shore, and by several hundred other people. But even if Jesus was fully human, I cannot rule out the possibility that God may have exalted him to divine status after his execution and recovery.

In my Jesus story rewrite, he married Mary Magdalene and fathered a daughter whom they named Sarah. After Jesus' execution, Mary and Sarah escaped persecution in Jerusalem and made their way to the south of France where Sarah met and married Antenor IV, king of the Sicambrian Franks, and my 60th-great grandfather.

That's my Jesus story rewrite, and I'm stickin' to it. Dick Stanford

*First Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina, August 30, 2020

**In his first book, God: A Biography, Miles examines the "person" of God from the literary perspective of character development. Using the chronological book order of the Hebrew Tanakh (rather than the non-chronological order of the Christian "Old Testament"), Miles reveals a sequence in the transition of God's character from initial almighty creator of the universe through stages of naivete of the human creation, intimate conversationalist, wrathful evictor from the garden, destroyer of wicked humanity, exile liberator, law dictator, disobedience punisher, mighty warrior who destroys his people's enemies and perpetrates genocide, and capricious manipulator of a human subject. After God speaks to Job, we see a gradual waning of God's direct involvement in the world as God no longer speaks with humans but communicates to them only through "prophets." Toward the end of the Tanakh we see a distant and receding "Ancient of Days" figure who doesn't engage with humanity for four hundred years.

11. Rewriting My Story

Jim Dant recently preached a sermon in which he observed that people have been rewriting the Jesus story now for a couple thousand years.* Every sermon or Sunday School lesson that purports to apply Jesus' teachings or the example of his life to current situations is a de facto rewrite of the Jesus story. On a personal level, in our prayers we try to rewrite the Jesus story to fit our own perceived needs and wants.

The point of Jim's sermon was his final admonition: Let Jesus rewrite your story. I had an immediate and negative reaction to this admonition. Why should I surrender control of my own story to anyone else, even to Jesus? Jesus set the example. He didn't surrender control of his story to any other human, not to Peter, not to the Pharisees, not to the Roman authorities, not to the Sanhedrin.

Only to the Father, as related by the writer of Matthew: "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.'" (Matthew 26:39, NIV)

But the words and tune to Frances J. Crosby's 1873 hymn, "Blessed Assurance," began to creep into my mind:

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.

Refrain:
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long;
This is my story, this is my song,
Praising my Savior all the day long.

Perfect submission, perfect delight,
Visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
Angels, descending, bring from above
Echoes of mercy, whispers of love.

Perfect submission, all is at rest,
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
Watching and waiting, looking above,
Filled with His goodness, lost in His love.

The first lines of the second and third stanzas, "Perfect submission, ...", are what kept playing on my mind. This was a favorite hymn of my childhood. Surrendering control over my story to Jesus or God or the Holy Spirit requires "perfect submission," to whom? Not to Jesus (unless Jesus was in fact God), but to "the will of God."

Ah! The will of God! New Testament references to God's will are fairly sparse. In Acts 20:27 Luke quotes Paul as saying to the elders of the Ephesus church, "For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God" (NIV), but he does not reveal how he discerned "the whole will of God." In 1 Corinthians 1:1 and 2 Timothy 1:1, Paul speaks of being an apostle by the will of God. John quotes Jesus as saying in chapter 7:17, "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own," but there is no guidance here on discovering God's will. In the "Lord's Prayer" (Matthew 6:9-13), Jesus entreats the Father to let "your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven," but the nature of this will is unspecified. Does God have a generic will with respect to all of humankind, or is it specific to individual humans?

A Calvinist view is that God predestines all cosmic and human events, and that God "elects" chosen human individuals for a heavenly destination. A corollary view is that God has a discrete will and plan for the life of every individual who must discover this will for his or her life and then comply with it.

I've always had a hard time with the Calvinist world view. I have adopted an Arminian view, i.e., that humans possess free will to choose and act as they wish. And I had come to believe that free will was a divine gift from God to humans, although I know of no scripture that affirms this gift. If a god has the ability to intervene in the knowledge, wisdom, emotions, or motives of humans (e.g., to "move" humans to certain beliefs or actions), any such intervention would seem to conflict with the belief that God allows humans the gift of free will.

The belief that God has a will and a plan for each and every individual human's life often leads to anguished searches for direction with no clear criteria of discovery. Later in life there may be feelings of guilt and remorse that God's will for one's life may not have been found or followed ("I missed my calling"). My sense is that if God exists, he (she?) must have a generic hope that all humans will come to recognize, honor, respect, and love God, but that God leaves it to individuals to find their own ways in life, i.e., to write their own stories.

This view accords with the economist's theory that humans are driven to discover their "comparative advantages," i.e., the productive activities that they can perform at least cost in terms of what must be given up. If all were to discover and specialize in their comparative advantages and then trade the fruits of their labors with one another, the material welfare of society would undoubtedly increase.

A twenty-first century economist might recognize Paul's idea of "gifts" (Romans 12) as a first century predecessor of the modern concept of comparative advantage. Members of the "body of Christ" have different gifts, each of which contributes to the well-being of the whole Christian community. And each member can contribute the most by discovering his or her gift and practicing it to the benefit of the whole group. It is plausible to an economist that the process of discovering one's comparative advantages may serve as a vehicle for effecting divine will with respect to individual life paths.

So, does discovering God's will for my life require "perfect submission," or does God leave me to my own devices to find my way in life, perhaps by discovering my comparative advantage, or otherwise just by stumbling along? Does Jesus need to write or rewrite my story, or has God already been working in my subconscious, i.e., intervening in my thoughts, "to move me" in the direction of his will? God's intervention in one's life may be more subtle than "perfect submission" or "I surrender all" (Judson Van DeVenter's 1896 hymn).

Now that I'm 80+ years old, my life story is pretty much completed, and in retrospect I can imagine points at which God may have engaged in subtle interventions to redirect my life, i.e., to rewrite my story. During the summers of my high school years, I worked at the wholesale hardware warehouse where my father was an employee. I became a pretty good hardware merchandiser during those short summers, and I contemplated a career as a wholesale hardware salesman.

During my high school years I fell under the influence of Dr. C. Earl Cooper, pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1958, Dr. Cooper was called to Riverside from the Earle Street Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina. It was Cooper who influenced me to apply to Furman University. By the time that I matriculated at Furman University in 1961, my intent was to major in religion and pursue a suitable career. But once I started taking courses at Furman I found economics to be more to my interest than religion, and I declared an economics and business administration major during my sophomore year. This life-story rewrite was affirmed in 1965 when I was granted a National Defense Education Act (NDEA) fellowship to pursue a Ph.D. degree in economics at the University of times new roman.

I probably could have been a successful hardware salesman, at least until the big-box stores rendered independent wholesale and retail hardware distribution unprofitable. I probably would have made a terrible theologian, preacher, or missionary. I have served passably as a college-level economics professor, and this surely was my greater advantage compared to careers in religion or hardware sales. Teaching economics at the college level allowed me to rise to my level of incompetence (the Peter Principle), even if it was my comparative advantage relative to hardware and theology.

Unbeknownst to me at those times, was God rewriting my life story?

*August 30, 2020, First Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina.

12. A New Theology for the Postmodern Era

Jim Vincent calls for a new theology for the twenty-first century:

. . . unless the Christian church is able to develop a new theology that is compatible with educated, modern thought and intellectual progress, it will inevitably find itself in terminal decline. To develop such a theology the church must re-examine unflinchingly the doctrines that it has hitherto taken as 'gospel', e.g. the concept of the Trinity; the atonement for sin; justification by faith; and the exclusivity of Christianity. If necessary all of these, and more, must be abandoned. (Should the Church Abandon the Bible?, aSys Publications, 2018, Kindle e-book location 4971)

I have told my economics students that each must become his/her own economist to make their way successfully through life. In similar vein, each human must become his or her own theologian in a personal quest to understand deity and relate to it. So, I shall claim personal theological privilege to offer my vision of what, in Vincent’s words, “a new theology that is compatible with educated, modern thought and intellectual progress,” might look like.

Ockham's Razor is the principle that the simplest answer to a problem often is the true or the best solution, i.e., let the razor “cut-off” the redundant complexity. The economist’s criterion for applying Ockham’s Razor is the marginal principle. What might a new theology look like if Ockham's Razor were applied to the margins of the Christian theology complex to carve away extraneous matter, i.e., the clutter that distracts from the core of Christian theology and may entail greater costs than benefits in the postmodern perception?

In my perception, the archaic candidates that might be cut from the Christian theology complex include a multitude of Old Testament oral campfire stories that were embellished with successive retellings; the minutiae of Mosaic law; the Trinity, atonement, election, and sola fide doctrines; the messiah obsession; the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection narratives; the sin-confession-repentance-forgiveness axis; and the exclusivity of the only-way mandate.

Pre-postmodern Christians often focus their personal theologies on Jesus’ lineage or the circumstances of his birth or death. The lineage, virgin birth, burial, and resurrection narratives should be understood as distractions from the message of universal love that God commissioned his Jewish prophet Yeshua to bring to humanity.

My vision of a new theology that is trimmed down to essentials to meet Vincent’s specification for the twenty-first-century postmodern intellect would include the following tenets:

human reverence of a formless, non-anthropomorphic deity who may have played a role in creation of the universe but who is not constrained by the known universe or even the greater multiverse;

awe and wonder of the multiverse with human acquisition of ever more scientific knowledge of it, whether provided by deity or discovered independently;

the possibility of human communion with the creator deity;

the humanity (i.e., non-divinity) of a Jewish prophet named Yeshua (Jesus) who was commissioned by deity to bring a message to humankind;

an ethos myth story based upon the teachings and life example of Yeshua;

a sole doctrine derived from the Yeshua message: to revere the deity and love fellow humans (neighbors);

following upon this doctrine, a requisite to treat individual humans and the larger humanity with non-discriminatory acceptance, tolerance, and respect;

also following upon this doctrine, a mission to assist and be of service to other humans; and

a Christology that regards “resurrection” as a figurative process of transformation to a new personal outlook characterized by universal love.

Rather than a “salvation gospel,” this theology would entail a “social gospel” that may have been Yeshua’s original intent. It would not presume “justification by faith alone,” but it would insist that adherents “do good works” to and for their fellow humans. It would not turn upon confession and repentance of sin or require belief in a blood sacrifice as a condition for forgiveness of sin. It would not be based upon the death and resurrection of a savior figure. It would not insist upon being an exclusive channel to the divine. It would not promise the possibility of an afterlife to serve as an object of human hope, but it would emphasize the prospects for joy and happiness in this life.

Following Vincent’s assessment, this theology would understand much of the Old Testament matter as cherished mythological literature rather than sacred scripture. It would regard much of the New Testament matter as a contrived “Christology” that is not authentic to the life and teachings of Yeshua. And it would be largely devoid of pre-Postmodern Christian ethos myths that already have been dismissed by many postmoderns.

Such a non-exclusive theology need not entail evangelical compulsion to proselytize or share the ideology with other humans, but it should invite other humans to share its beliefs and practices. And it should include a social mission requisite for adherents to reach out with generosity to less fortunate humans in providing assistance and service to them.

A concern is whether postmodern humans would be able to revere, love, and worship such a formless deity without wanting something from the deity (i.e., a quid pro quo relationship). Petitioning a divine entity that rarely intervenes in the world may not have the desired result, i.e., prayers may appear not to be answered; coincidental with natural processes and human activity, some prayers may only appear to be answered.

It is difficult to envision how a religion that incorporates such a theology might be practiced. Without reliance upon pre-Postmodern Christian ethos myths and the promise of an afterlife, the theological substance and social mission compulsion of a new theology may be insufficient to sustain religious organizations and corporate deity worship. Such a theology may be more suitable for individual communion experience than for corporate worship experience unless corporate worship can be adapted to enable guided personal meditation in lieu of public prayer. Indeed, a personal communion experience (“oneness” with deity) seems to be what many twenty-first century postmoderns are seeking. This begs the question of whether organized churches are becoming obsolete in the Postmodern era.

Great social transformations often are not completed within a generation. The transition from the archaic Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions to new theologies would be difficult and may involve the passing of generations who cling to archaic religious traditions, concepts, and worship modes.

A postmodern theological transformation is unlikely to come from within the professional theological establishment. Those most resistant to such transformation may be theologians, religion professors, and ministers who are deeply invested in interpreting ancient scriptural matter to their students and preaching to their congregants.

How might transition to a new theology come about? Changing postmodern perceptions of deity and the threat of institutional obsolescence and irrelevance may prompt transformation, but I think that a wholesale transition to a new theology to be unlikely. A postmodern Christian theology might emerge gradually as successive generations of pastors deemphasize and eventually drop archaic components from worship modes in their churches. If such a gradual transition occurs too slowly to forestall flight of postmoderns from the churches, the church as an organized mode of religious observance may become obsolete.

It is September 2022 at this writing. In nine more years my church, will have survived for two hundred years from its founding in 1831. Will it still be here in another two hundred years? Given the latter-day American propensity to tear-down and rebuild after a few decades, the steel, brick, and mortar of the present buildings may not still be standing in 2231.

But a church exists over time in its ever-changing congregations who may build, occupy, and replace several physical facilities. I won’t be here to witness it, so it remains to be seen by my descendants whether the church’s congregations and ministers adapted successfully to postmodern and “post-postmodern” cultural and technological changes, whatever they may be.

If not, the church buildings, if they are still standing, may have become a museum (like so many churches in Europe), a school, a civic meeting venue, or perhaps housing for a digital archive of historical religious mythology.

13. Post-Christian

I was raised as a Christian, a Protestant, a Baptist. I was (and still am) a member of a Baptist church, but my perspectives on theology, religion, and church have changed in the past few years. I would identify a "Men's Bible Study" at my church as being most instrumental in clarifying my views and changing my perspectives.

I no longer subscribe to 2000+ year-old myths that are scientifically impossible (e.g., creation by speaking, virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, physical healing by touch or speech, substitutionary atonement of sin, trinity theism, deistic incarnation, etc.).

Religious establishment "union card holders" (theologians, professors, pastors, chaplains, rabbis, mullahs, etc.) have vested interests in promoting and advancing ancient mythological ideas. These ideas are their "stock in trade" upon which they base their theological and social programs.

A historical objective of religions has been achievement and maintenance of power over constituents (parishioners, congregants, caliphates) to control populations and physical resources, wage wars, etc.

Religious institutions through the ages have absorbed great amounts of physical and human resources, the opportunity costs of which could have been improving the physical welfare of humans.

The principal attraction of religious organizations (churches, synagogues, mosques) is community of like-minded people. But non-religious organizations compete in offering community, e.g., employment settings, clubs, pubs, gyms, sports facilities, alumni associations, retirement facilities, etc.

Religious organizations tend to impede membership diversification by attracting mainly middle-to-upper income community seekers who can afford to make monetary contributions. Lower-income people may shy from religious organizations which seek monetary contributions that they cannot afford. Jessica Grose, writing in the last part of a five-part series in The New York Times on dechurching in America*, quotes Jim Davis, Michael Graham, and Ryan Burge, authors of The Great Dechurching: Who’s Leaving, Why Are They Going and What Will It Take to Bring Them Back? (Zondervan, 2023):

Modern American churches are financially incentivized to target the wealthy and create a space where those on track feel comfortable. Biblical hospitality, though, is so much more than just throwing money at a problem, and the net result is that the average American church is not truly hospitable to the less fortunate, making them feel like outsiders in our midst.

Religious organizations tend to be elitist because of their attraction of upper-income people with similar views. Religious organizations tend to preserve ethnic and racial homogeneity because they are self-sorting, i.e., people search for and join religious organizations populated by people with similar life situations, views, and beliefs.

Although these emerging perceptions have caused me to withdraw from my church and disavow the theology underlying them, I remain conditioned morally and socially to the goals of my religious background. I still support my church's social mission to the poorer community surrounding it. In this sense, I claim to have a post-Christian perspective on my world.

*What Churches Offer that 'Nones' Still Long For

14. Theocracy vs. Democracy

Rule by a central authority (e.g., a "strong man" or a tribal chieftain) is phenomenon dating from earliest human interaction. Democratic self-governance as envisioned by ancient Greek philosophers became dominant during the 20th century in Europe and North America. But during the early 21st century it appears that a drift away from democratic governance and toward authoritarianism is occurring on global scale.

It has been suggested (don't remember by whom) that the drift away from democracy may have been abetted by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) that have conditioned adherents through the ages to believe in, follow, and obey authoritarian figures. Such authoritarian figures have included Yahweh (El, Allah, "God"), Moses, David, Yeshua ("Jesus"), Peter/popes, kings, Mohammad, imams, ayatollahs, parish priests, and even congregational pastors.

Religious authoritarian conditioning through the centuries has enabled divine-right monarchies and caliphates to establish theocracies as their preferred political systems. Theocracy is dictatorship by a religious authority. In the twentieth century, such authoritarian conditioning may have contributed to the emergence of secular dictators (Mussolini and Hitler were practicing Roman Catholics; Putin is a practicing Russian Orthodox).

Democracy is a political system implemented to replace authoritarian monarchial rule by the self-governance of a population. Rather than universal democracy, the "Founding Fathers" favored a representative form of democracy that would enable their class and ethnicity to retain dominance in North America. A republican form of democracy was introduced by the Founding Fathers to replace rule by a monarch with a presidential/legislative/judicial political system that implements rule by law (e.g., a constitution).

Capitalism is an economic system that entails the private ownership and accumulation of capital used to produce goods and services for profit. Capitalism usually is coupled to market economy in that resources are allocated and product is distributed via markets, and product mix is determined by product profitability. Latter-day incarnations of capitalism have become ever-more financial in character (market trading of financial instruments for profit) and divorced from actual output production.

Fascism, a.k.a. "authoritarian capitalism," is a hybrid economic system characterized by private allocation of resources and ownership of the means of production coupled to dictatorial determination of product mix (usually by letting contracts to approved private producers) and distribution of product (typically by rationing).

Lately in North America, religious authoritarian conditioning may have been instrumental in producing religio-fascistic manifestations of cult leaders who cultivate nationalistic fears by dwindling ethnic minorities who contrive conspiracy theories about ethnic replacement.

The Bible appears to presume the existence of primitive capitalism (e.g., wealthy ownership of vineyards), market economy (for resource allocation and product distribution), and theocracy (divine authority delegated to individuals, judges, kings, prophets, emperors). The fact that the Bible says virtually nothing about the possibility of democratic self-governance may imply that theocracy is sacred but democracy is not. Since theocracy and democracy are mutually incompatible, modern-day subscribers to Abrahamic religions face a choice between dictatorship (theocratic or secular) or democracy as the preferred form of political organization for their societies.

In the U.S., a substantial portion of the electorate consists of conservative Christian Evangelicals who appear to prefer a theocratic form of authoritarian governance coupled with a fascistic form of economic organization. If they achieve dominance of the three branches of the U.S. government, a fear among proponents of democracy is that U.S. governance may evolve into what has been termed "Christo-fascism" with rule by a pseudo-Christian dictator and his party rather than by law under a constitution.
___________

The editorial board of The New York Times has published an index of 12 categories that track democracy vs. autocracy in the United States. The index reveals that the U.S. has suffered significant erosion of democratic norms. The Board recently (February, 2026) moved its assessment of "stifling speech and dissent" a notch toward autocracy. The Board indicates that "The wide-ranging abuses in Minnesota are the main reason for the change." (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/06/opinion/ice-minnesota-democracy-america.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20260206&instance_id=170693&nl=from-the-times®i_id=74240569&segment_id=214886&user_id=86b0d837dd357b2a6e0e749321f6ed7f)

15. The Sanctity of Democracy

Hierarchical religious organizations tend to be authoritarian in governance because the ancient scriptures underlying them prescribe authority by deities, prophets, judges, popes, priests, pastors, etc. Authoritarian governance in the guise of theocracy appears to be ordained in sacred Judaic scriptures underlying the Abrahamic religions, i.e., Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Various concepts of direct democracy were envisioned and implemented by ancient Greek city-states:

During the Classical era and Hellenistic era of Classical Antiquity, many Hellenic city-states had adopted democratic forms of government, in which free (non-slave), native (non-foreigner) adult male citizens of the city took a major and direct part in the management of the affairs of state, such as declaring war, voting supplies, dispatching diplomatic missions and ratifying treaties. These activities were often handled by a form of direct democracy, based on a popular assembly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_democracy)

Theocracy may be ordained in sacred scriptures as a preferred form of governance, but democracy is a human perception of governance that is not ordained in scripture. Its intellectual foundation lay in philosophical discussion. As noted by George Thomas writing in The Atlantic, the characteristics of representative democracy are contained in the Constitution of the United States of America even though the word "democracy" does not appear in the Constitution. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/) Does the Constitution rise to the level of scripture for American citizens? If so, is democracy sacred to the American experiment begun in 1779?

This matter is of great current (October, 2023) urgency because a president of the United States (#47, Donald J. Trump) has been undermining the very foundations of democracy in the United States.

Five crucial requisites of democracy are that

(1) all adult citizens can participate either directly or through elected representatives in determination of public policy,

(2) all voting citizens have the right for their votes to be counted,

(3) the collective will of the citizens is acknowledged as a majority of votes cast,

(4) transfer of power from a former executive to his/her successor must be peaceful, and

(5) it must be possible to adjudicate disputes in a system based on rule of law.

The alternative to rule of law is rule by a man or woman as in fascism or authoritarian communism. Alberto Gonzales, a former Attorney General of the United States, describes rule of law in a Washington Post opinion column:

Our system of government and way of life are based on the rule of law, which is the principle that every defendant in this country is judged according to proven evidence, a known and accepted set of rules, equally enforced and independently adjudicated by a neutral judge or jury. I have often reminded the public that facts drive the outcome in every prosecution. A prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence affects decisions on whether to charge on a set of known facts, and government officials under investigation, such as Clinton, often cooperate with prosecutors to address potential wrongdoing. By all accounts, Trump has refused to cooperate. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/08/justice-department-bias-against-republicans/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_opinions&utm_campaign=wp_opinions)

American democracy is flawed by the selection of the executive by an electoral college whose votes may not represent the majority of the citizens, by "gerrymandering" in states to prevent or minimize the votes of ethnic minorities, by efforts of an executive and attempts by electoral boards in various states to submit false slates of electors, and by an executive who has conspired with others to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor.

Colbert King, writing an opinion column in The Washington Post, says that American democracy has been found strong in the transfer of power from President Trump to his successor, President Biden, in spite of all efforts by the former to prevent that from happening:

The country had been tested. A violent threat to the peaceful transfer of power had been met and defeated. The Capitol stood strong on its foundation. The Constitution held. On that Inauguration Day, democracy prevailed. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/04/trump-indictments-campaign-test-democracy/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_opinions&utm_campaign=wp_opinions)

But King notes that American democracy again will be tested as the former president runs for reelection while under multiple indictments for criminal activity. "Trump’s not-guilty pleas only add to this historic moment of crisis. The wheels of justice will now get road-tested in a court of law. As they should be."

In an opinion column the Editorial Board of The New York Times writes

Bedrock. It’s an apt word for a sacred responsibility of every president: to honor the peaceful transfer of power through the free and fair elections that distinguish the United States. Counting and certifying the vote, Mr. [special council Jack] Smith said [in the indictment of former President Donald Trump], “is foundational to the United States democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,” since electoral counting rules were codified. Until Mr. Trump lost, at which point, the indictment makes clear, he used “dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat” that cornerstone of democracy. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-jan-6-indictment.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20230803&instance_id=99112&nl=opinion-today&regi_id=74240569&segment_id=140987&te=1&user_id=86b0d837dd357b2a6e0e749321f6ed7f)

Following the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. James McHenry wrote that a lady asked Benjamin Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?" McHenry recorded Franklin's reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it." A similar question might be posed as to the form of public policy decision making in the American republic—authoritarian or democratic?—the response being "Democratic, if democracy is respected by its citizens."

In January 1933, German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolph Hitler to be Chancellor of Germany. In August 1934, Hitler was elected President of Germany in a democratic process; subsequently he was able to manipulate the democratic process to achieve authoritarian (dictatorial) control of Germany and launch a world war. It remains to be seen whether Americans respect its democratic processes sufficiently to avert the advent of authoritarian control (fascism) in the United States of America with the election of Donald J. Trump to a second term as President.

The crucial question is whether democracy is sufficiently sacred to enough of the citizens of the United States to warrant its defense and preservation in the court cases that will ensue.

As reported by New York Times columnist David French, Thomas Kidd, a church history professor at Baylor, says that Christian nationalism is an emotional or spiritual phenomenon rather than an intellectual or theological process:

“Actual Christian nationalism,” Kidd argues, “is more a visceral reaction than a rationally chosen stance.” He’s right. Essays and books about philosophy and theology are important for determining the ultimate health of the church, but on the ground or in the pews? They’re much less important than emotion, prophecy and spiritualism. ....
... arguments over the proper balance between order and liberty are helpless in the face of prophecies, like the declarations from Christian “apostles” that Donald Trump is God’s appointed leader, destined to save the nation from destruction. ....
That’s why the Trump fever won’t break. That’s why even the most biblically based arguments against Trump fall on deaf ears. That’s why the very act of Christian opposition to Trump is often seen as a grave betrayal of Christ himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/01/opinion/christian-nationalism-trump-renew-america.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20231002&instance_id=104192&nl=opinion-today&regi_id=74240569&segment_id=146264&te=1&user_id=86b0d837dd357b2a6e0e749321f6ed7f

So, if David French is right, it appears that the 2024 presidential election will be a contest between Americans who regard the Constitution and its implied preference for republican governance and democratic choice as sacred, and those who hold an authoritarian and fascist belief that Trump is God's appointed leader to save America from destruction.

How serious is this matter? Washington Post columnist Amber Phillips writes in the "The 5-Minute Fix" newsletter on October 4, 2023, that "people who study systems of government ... say that the American system is not representative enough or responsive enough and that as the Jan. 6 insurrection showed, it can be bent — and possibly broken. They warn that Americans’ attachment to democracy is actually weak and that it may be only a matter of time before enough people are persuaded that there is another form of government that resonates with them." The alarming possibility is that another form of government might be Trumpian fascism.
___________

The editorial board of The New York Times has published an index of 12 categories that track democracy vs. autocracy in the United States. The index reveals that the U.S. has suffered significant erosion of democratic norms. The Board recently (February, 2026) moved its assessment of "stifling speech and dissent" a notch toward autocracy. The Board indicates that "The wide-ranging abuses in Minnesota are the main reason for the change." (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/06/opinion/ice-minnesota-democracy-america.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20260206&instance_id=170693&nl=from-the-times®i_id=74240569&segment_id=214886&user_id=86b0d837dd357b2a6e0e749321f6ed7f)

<>

16. Petitionary Prayer
As noted in Essay 1, metaphors may accrete to religious myths over time as different thinkers have imagined characteristics of a deity. One such characteristic, fulfillment of petitionary prayer, has parallels in economic analysis.

Petitionary prayer is also known as "intercessory prayer," i.e., a request that God intercede on behalf of the petitioner or others. A perception of intercessory prayer is that the petitioner is asking a recalcitrant God to "get with the program," MY program of course, and do what I think is right. George Will, in a Washington Post column, January 3, 2026, cites an aphorism: "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.” ...or tell him what you want him to do!

Another perception of petitionary prayer is that it is like an order on Amazon that the party placing the order wishes for Amazon to fulfill. Amazon of course is not a god, but another difference is that a petitionary prayer may be lodged with God in hopes that the petition will be fulfilled free of charge. The party placing the order on Amazon must pay for it before the order can be shipped. Does God require a quid pro quo before fulfilling a prayer request?

The on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, article on "Petitionary Prayer," leads to the inference that if God is omniscient, petitionary prayer may not be a valid concept:

According to traditional monotheism, God knows everything that can be known, is perfectly good, impassible (unable to be affected by an outside source), immutable (unchanging), and free. God is also able to do anything compatible with the possession of the qualities just enumerated. .... If God already knows the future, for instance, then how can petitionary prayer make a difference? The future, after all, is just the set of things that will happen. If God knows the future in all of its detail, then it seems that there is no room for petitionary prayers to be effective: either the thing requested in prayer is something that God already knows will be done, or it isn’t, and either way, it looks like the prayer can make no difference.
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/petitionary-prayer/#DivImmImp)

The article goes on to describe various positions that philosophers have taken in efforts to authenticate petitionary prayer. It is the last section of this article that focuses on epistemology (the study of knowledge) which parallels a problem that we face in economics: the attribution problem.

Would it ever be possible to know or reasonably believe that God has answered a particular petitionary prayer? As one might expect, philosophers disagree about this question. Some theists think that for all we know, for any particular event that happens, God may have had independent reasons for bringing that event about, so we cannot know whether or not God brought it about because of a prayer (as opposed to bringing it about for other reasons....)

The attribution problem shows up in the economics analysis of the demand for an item. Here is an edited excerpt from my Managerial Economics text (https://dickstanfordlegacy.blogspot.com/2025/11/metext.html#c1):

The demand for any good or service is actually determined by many factors in addition to the price of the good or service. For some items the price may be a lesser-significant determinant of its demand. A more general specification of a demand curve may be given by

(1) Q_x = f ( P_x, I, T, B, ... , P_y, P_z, ... ),

where Q_x is the quantity demanded of the item, P_x is the price of the item, I is the income of the consumer, T stands for "tastes and preferences," B is the consumer's current level of indebtedness, P_y is the price of a relevant substitute good, and P_z is the price of a related complement good. The ellipsis symbols ( ... ) between B and P_y suggest that there are other non-price demand determinants that have not yet been specified (or even identified). Those following P_z allow for prices of yet other substitute and complement goods.

The attribution problem in demand analysis is the question, "To which determinant(s) of demand should a change of quantity demanded be attributed?"

In order to draw a two-dimensional representation of a demand curve in P-Q coordinate space, it is necessary to treat all of the non-own-price demand determinants as if they were constant, even if they in fact were not constant. A revision of equation (1) to represent this specification is given by

(2) Q_x = f ( P_x / I, T, D, ... , P_y, P_z, ... ),

where the slash (/) is used to separate the single demand determinant that is presumed to be variable (P_x) from all the rest that are assumed not to change. Indeed, if any of the other determinants vary, it is technically not even possible to draw a discrete locus for a demand curve in the two-dimensional space of the P-Q coordinate axes.

Statistical analyses of data for the demand for an item may be conducted to assess the contributions of the "assumed constant" variables in the demand function, i.e., to identify attributions.

In like fashion, as noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, statistical analyses of petitionary prayers have been conducted:

A number of people have tried to conduct statistical studies to determine whether or not petitionary prayer is effective. These studies try to measure the differences between groups of people, one of which is the subject of petitionary prayers, and the other of which is not. .... recent studies have suggested that the offering of petitionary prayer (and the knowledge that such prayers were offered) is not positively correlated with patient recovery.... This means that even if a study showed some statistically significant difference between the two groups of people, we could not be sure that it was due to the offering of petitionary prayers alone, as opposed to some other factor or factors.

The moral of this story is that it is no more appropriate to believe that a petitionary prayer has been fulfilled by God whose attention spans many things in addition to a particular petitionary request, than that a change of the quantity demanded of an item was caused by a change of the item price when there are other possible causes of change. In either case, the event may have occurred for some other reason that was ignored or unknown, or in the analysis of demand was assumed constant.

<>

17. Names

Many names have been used through the ages by peoples of different cultures to refer to the divine entities that were associated with their tribes. One of the names that ancient Hebrews used to refer to their god was Yahweh, but in fear and reverence were reluctant to pronounce this name.

Bible scholars have identified four principal sources for Old Testament literature: the Elohist (pertaining to the god El who was worshiped by Canaanites), the Yahwist (pertaining to the god Yahweh who was worshiped by Midianites), the Priestly, and the Deuteronomic sources. The first two were written before the Babylonian exile; the last two were written during or soon after the exile. English language translations of Old Testament literature usually represent El as "God" and Yahweh as "LORD" (all caps). The Priestly writer attempted to merge the Elohist and Yahwist identities of God by introducing the term "Yahweh El," i.e., "LORD God," that we see in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament.

On the assumption that there is only one divine entity, English-speaking Jews and Christians have appropriated the English language common noun "god" and made it into a proper name, "God," to refer to the divine entity. Speakers of other languages likewise have made the generic word for god a proper name, e.g., Dieu in French, Gott in German, Dios in Spanish. For want of a better term or name, the following also employs this common convention.

The English proper name "God" has been adulterated by its use in common parlance expletives "Oh God!", "My God!", and similar phrases to register shock or indicate that something bad is happening or has happened. Also, the phrase "OMG!" ("Oh my God!") has become used in text messaging to indicate surprise or joy. These expletives rarely are intended to evoke anything having to do with a divine entity.

Reza Aslan, in his book God: A Human History, says that as a Sufi he worships "...a God with no material form; a god who is pure existence, without name, essence, or personality."¹ Writing in The New Yorker, Louis Menand describes a letter written in 1954 by Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind criticizing Gutkind’s book entitled Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt:

The word God, he [Einstein] says, is "nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness," and the Hebrew Bible is a collection of "honorable, but still purely primitive legends."²

__________

1 Aslan, Kindle e-book location 4679.

2 Louis Menand, "Einstein’s God Letter," The New Yorker, December 25, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/reading-into-albert-einsteins-god-letter

18. Will

A Calvinist view is that God predestines all cosmic and human events, and that God "elects" chosen human individuals for a Heavenly destination. A corollary view is that God has a discrete will and plan for the life of every individual who must discover this will for his or her life and then comply with it.

I have adopted an Arminian view,⁵⁴ i.e., that humans possess free will to choose and act as they wish. If a god has the ability to intervene in the knowledge, wisdom, emotions, or motives of humans (e.g., to "move" humans to certain beliefs or actions), any such intervention would seem to conflict with the belief that the god allows free will.

In the "Lord's Prayer" (Matthew 6:9-13), Jesus (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Yeshua) entreats the Father to let "your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven," but the nature of this will is unspecified. Does God have a generic will with respect to all of humankind, or is it specific to individual humans?

The belief that God has a will and a plan for each and every individual human often leads to anguished searches for direction with no clear criteria of discovery. Later in life there may be feelings of guilt and remorse that God's will for one's life may not have been found or followed ("I missed my calling"). My sense is that if God exists, he (she?) must have a generic hope that all humans will come to recognize, honor, respect, and love God, but that God leaves it to individuals to find their own ways in life.

This view accords with the economic theory that humans are driven to discover their "comparative advantages," i.e., the productive activities that they can perform at least cost in terms of what must be given up. If all were to discover and specialize in their comparative advantages and then trade the fruits of their labors with one another, the material welfare of society would undoubtedly increase.

A twenty-first century economist might recognize Paul's idea of "gifts" (Romans 12) as a first century predecessor of the modern concept of comparative advantage. Members of the "body of Christ" have different gifts, each of which contributes to the well-being of the whole Christian community. It is plausible to an economist that the process of discovering one's comparative advantage may serve as the vehicle for effecting divine will with respect to individual life paths.

<>

19. Virgin Birth

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Mary was pledged to marry Joseph, "but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:18, NIV) Modern scientific understanding of the life initiation and birth processes casts doubt upon such an "immaculate conception" followed by the virgin birth of Jesus. In a New York Times interview, Professor William Lane Craig of the Talbot School of Theology says

…I used to struggle with this, too. But then it occurred to me that for a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal! Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence), an occasional miracle is child’s play.¹

Stephen Mitchell suggests in his book The Gospel According to Jesus² that Mary either may have been a harlot, or she may have been raped by a Roman soldier, the identity of whom was known at the time.³ In either case, Jesus would have been illegitimate, a condition abhorrent in first-century Jewish society. Mitchell argues that this fact, widely known by the local Jewish society of the day, haunted Jesus throughout his lifetime. Mitchell finds hints of this likelihood in challenges to Jesus, in a number of Jesus' harsher pronouncements about his mother, his family, and women, and in the fact that Jesus never mentions an earthly father

Some Roman Catholics maintain that Mary remained a virgin through the remainder of her life. This sounds implausible since Jesus was known to have brothers and sisters. But it might have been possible if Jesus’ brothers and sisters were actually older half-brothers and half-sisters born to a first wife who may have expired before Joseph became betrothed to Mary. This possibility is a premise in the historical novel Before Bethlehem by James Flerlage.⁴

The virgin birth narrative is an ethos myth that is central to orthodox Christian theology, but it is a distraction from Jesus’ teachings and life example. This myth may seem incredible to twenty-first century postmoderns. The question is whether it is worth more as an ethos myth for pre-postmodern believers than it costs in skepticism about its credibility to postmoderns.
__________

1 Nicholas Kristof, "Professor, Was Jesus Really Born to a Virgin?", The New York Times, December 24, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/opinion/sunday/christmas-christian-craig.html

2 Stephen Mitchell, The Gospel According to Jesus, Harper Perennial, 1993.

3 Origen, Contra Celsum, as quoted by Mitchell, pp. 25-26.

4 James Flerlage, Before Bethlehem, Dreamscapes Publishing, 2013.

<>

20. Lineage

It was common practice in the patriarchal society of first century Palestine to trace a person's lineage through the person's father (patrilineage). Chapter 1 of Matthew's gospel traces the lineage of Jesus through his adoptive father Joseph to King David's son Solomon. Ross Douthat, writing an opinion column in The New York Times, says

If you only know the Bible vaguely, this litany of names probably sounds a bit pompous, an attempt to elevate the infant Jesus by linking him to great patriarchs and noble kings. But the truth is roughly the opposite: The more you know about Genesis or Chronicles or Kings, the more remarkable it is that Matthew announced the birth of the son of God by linking him to a pack of egregious sinners.¹

Douthat goes on to cite in the Matthew lineage examples of sinful misdeeds. He concludes that "all this has happened before and will happen again."

The lineage in Matthew is relevant only if adoption can establish authentic lineage (or if Joseph happened to be the biological father of Jesus). Roman practice in fact did allow inheritance (and implicitly lineage) to be through an adoptive father, and an adopted son often took inheritance precedence over biological sons. Perhaps the most prominent example is that following the assassination of his maternal great-uncle Julius Caesar in 44 B.C.E., Gaius Octavius was named in Caesar's will as his adopted son and heir (Caesar had no known legitimate children).

Bart Ehrman notes in his book How Jesus Became God that "Son of God" is an ancient Hebrew term applied to kings of Israel who had been anointed by God and thus had been "adopted" by God.² It is unknown whether first-century Palestinian Jews would have been accepting of lineage by adoption for other than kings of Israel, but the author of the Gospel of Matthew certainly seems to be arguing this in Jesus' case.

There is more to the Octavius story that pertains to Jesus. Upon his adoption, Octavius took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Once Julius Caesar was deified (post-mortem) by vote of the Roman Senate, Octavius added Divi Filius ("Son of the Divine") to his name. After his forces defeated those of Mark Antony in 27 B.C.E. to end twenty years of civil war, the Roman Senate voted him a new title, Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, making him the first Roman Emperor. (In this context, Augustus means "the venerated one.") Although Julius Caesar was deified after his death, Augustus encouraged worship of himself as a god during his lifetime. He continued to be regarded as "Son of the Divine" even after his death in 14 C.E. A couple of decades later when Roman authorities learned that some Jews in Palestine were beginning to call Jesus "Son of God," they regarded this as unacceptable since Augustus was the only figure that Romans identified as the son of a god. Jews, of course, took offense at Romans calling Augustus "Son of the Divine."

Historically, the Jewish identity of a child born to parents, one of whom is not a Jew, has been determined according to halakhic rules (the Jewish religious laws derived from the Torah) by the ancestry of the mother. The halakhic matrilineage rules were derived from Deuteronomy 7:1–5, Leviticus 24:10, and Ezra 10:2–3. Some biblical historians believe that the lineage traced in Luke's Chapter 3 may actually have been that of Jesus' mother Mary to another of King David's sons, Nathan.³ By halakhic rules this would identify Jesus as an authentic descendant of David and thus eligible to become a Jewish messiah.

In Mark 6:3 Jesus is teaching at the synagogue in his hometown. Incredulous at the authority that he seems to exhibit, people ask, "Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?" (NIV) Since Hebrew males usually were identified as sons of their fathers even if they were deceased, this question may imply the significance of matrilineage in Jesus' case since his birth father was unknown to the locals who may have suspected illegitimacy.

The lineage of Jesus is ancillary to his teachings and life example, and the lineage issue may be a distraction to his preaching about how to live in society. A marginal comparison may reveal that it costs more in terms of postmodern skepticism than its retention is worth to classical theology believers.
__________

1 Ross Douthat, "Staying Catholic at Christmas," The New York Times, December 22, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/opinion/catholic-christmas-church.html

2 Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, HarperCollins, 2014.

3 Anthony Maas, "Genealogy of Christ," Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, 1913.

<>

21. Ministry

Jesus' "ministry period" spans roughly the last year (or two or three) of his life beginning around 28 or 29 C.E.

The three synoptic Gospels all contain descriptions of Jesus’ ministry period, but there is material in Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. This has led biblical historians to infer that Matthew and Luke must have had access to source material that Mark did not know. This source material, likely from the early church’s oral tradition, is unavailable to us today. It has become known as the ‘Q’ document from the German word for source, Quelle.¹ Jim Vincent asserts that

The ‘Q’ document material in the gospels take us to the heart of that Christianity which Jesus taught and practised. Within it one can discern a singular, highly distinctive voice. That voice is concerned not with theology or doctrine, but simply with how to live in the present world.²

The important point here is that Jesus’ ministry was focused primarily upon how humans should interact with one another in this world, not upon messiahship or apocalypticism or a next life.

Even so, biblical historians continue to debate whether Jesus' ministry should be characterized as apocalyptic or sapient. Reza Aslan characterizes Jesus as a fully human historical apocalyptic messiah figure.³ Following is a brief synopsis of Aslan’s argument.

As a young adult Jesus fell under the influence of John the Baptist who advocated repentance of sinful behavior because the Kingdom of God soon would arrive. After Herod Antipas had John beheaded, Jesus took up proclamation of John's message that the Kingdom of God was near, a message that the Roman state would regard as sedition relative to Roman sovereignty in Palestine. Jesus aggressively preached his message, but only to and for Jews in supporting and sustaining Jewish law. Jesus held an apocalyptic vision of the end of the world as it was known, to be replaced by a new world order that he called the "Kingdom of God."

Aslan says that Jesus’ self-concept probably was that of the long-expected and hoped-for messiah who would liberate Palestine from Roman control and usher in the new world order in which he would be King of the Jews. However, as Aslan sees it, Jesus failed in virtually all aspects of his messianic quest.

In his book How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman asserts that since apocalypticism was intense in Palestine during the third decade of the first century C.E., Jesus may have viewed himself as an apocalyptic messiah.⁴ Patrick Goggins notes that apocalypticism had been "in the air" in Palestine for five centuries, but that the political environment of Palestine in the third decade of the first century was relatively calm.⁵ However, apocalypticism heightened significantly in the seventh and eighth decades of the first century (when the earliest gospels were being written) due to several destabilizing political and religious events. Apocalypticism thus may have been projected by the Gospel writers in the seventh and eighth decades of the first century back to the ministry of Jesus in the third decade.

But literary projection may occur in either temporal direction, back in time by applying present understanding to interpretation of the past, or forward in time to interpret past events as applying to present conditions. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the Tanakh (Old Testament) writers were writing about circumstances of their own times as shaped by their history; they were not attempting to predict the future arrival of a messiah. Peter Enns says that Old Testament writers often "shaped how Israel's storytellers talked about their past" to apply to their present.⁶ Enns notes that New Testament writers Matthew, Luke, and Paul in particular, anxious to tell their perceptions of the Jesus story to their respective audiences, took liberties to reinterpret a number of Tanakh passages to refer to and predict the coming of Jesus as the long-expected Messiah. Terry Teachout, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece about colorizing historical black-and-white photos says, "Would you trust a biographer or historian if you found out that plausible-sounding unspoken 'thoughts' that he attributed to his subject were actually made up out of whole cloth in order to punch up the narrative? I know I wouldn’t."⁷ Nor would I, but it seems to have been a common practice among the writers of both the Old and the New Testaments. Even Jesus himself took liberties in creatively applying various Mosaic Law passages to circumstances that he encountered.

Ehrman says that Jesus didn't think of himself as God, the Son of God, or the Son of Man, but rather as the long expected apocalyptic messiah, a human, who would rule the Kingdom of God once the Roman regime had been overthrown. Ehrman further argues that soon after his death and perceived resurrection, Jesus was no longer present and his body was missing, so his followers presumed that he was exalted by God to divine status. By the time that the Gospels were being written, Jesus may have become regarded as Son of God and eventually as God or co-god with the Almighty. Vincent says that

Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus never claimed to be God and it is extremely improbable that he ever used the designation ‘Son of God’. He never does so in the synoptic gospels and on the small number of occasions when John attributes the phrase to him it is likely to be by way of interpolation . . . which is so alien to the ‘Q’ document teachings that it fails to convince.⁸

Even as ancient concepts were being projected forward to Jesus' time, the post-resurrection perception of Jesus as Son of God became projected by Gospel writers back to accounts of Jesus' life decades earlier. Ehrman notes that "Son of God" is an ancient Hebrew term applied to kings of Israel who had been anointed by God and thus had been "adopted" by God. Ehrman argues that Jesus' references to "Son of Man" do not refer to himself. Rather, they refer to a heavenly lesser-deity described in the biblical book of Daniel and in the non-canonical book of 1 Enoch. This Son of Man, a heavenly being, will be sent to earth by God Almighty at the apocalypse to eliminate evil and establish the Kingdom of God over which a human messiah (an "anointed one") will rule as King. The term "son of man" eventually came to be understood as referring to a normal human being.

In his book How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels, N.T. Wright offers a theological foil to other theories about the Kingdom of God and who would rule it.⁹ Wright accepts the orthodox premises of Jesus' virgin birth, his divinity, and his resurrection from the dead. He likens the Jesus story to a cloak that is an outer shell covering an inner body. The outer shell includes the circumstances of Jesus' virgin birth at one end of his life, and his death and resurrection at the other end. Wright suggests that it is these outer cloak circumstances that capture the popular attention, so that the body inside the cloak often is forgotten. The conclusion that Wright deduces from his approach is that the body inside the cloak as described in the four Gospels is the real story about the Kingdom of God. Along with the cloak matter, this story is crucial to Christian theology in asserting the divinity of Jesus and explaining that it was God himself (not a "Messiah," not the "Son of God," not the "Son of Man") who became "King" to rule the Kingdom of God. Assuming that God has always been sovereign over the entire universe (or the greater multiverse), the kingship over earth’s humanity would be a lower-order sovereignty that has always existed but was not recognized by humanity. Given the secular disarray of the current world and the fact that many postmoderns are fleeing organized religion, the idea of God becoming universally recognized as King may qualify with “second coming” and “apocalyptic end of time” as events yet to happen.

Marcus Borg, in his book Meeting Jesus for the First Time Again, asserts that Jesus' self-understanding was unlikely to be messianic. Borg says that "... we have no way of knowing whether Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah or as the Son of God in some special sense," or that ". . . Jesus expected the supernatural coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation." ¹⁰

In analyzing Paul's letters to the Corinthians and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, John Dominic Crossan argues that the primary emphasis of Jesus' ministry was not apocalyptic, but rather was "sapiential," i.e., that the Kingdom of God is present in the here-and-now, and is open to the righteous.¹¹ Crossan says that apocalyptic eschatology is a matter of humans waiting for God to act; in contrast, sapiential eschatology perceives that God is waiting for humans to act.¹² If Patrick Goggins is right that apocalypticism was projected back to the ministry of Jesus by the Gospel writers, Jesus' ministry indeed may have been sapient rather than apocalyptic.

The competition between the apocalyptic and sapient views was played out during the fourth decade of the first century in the "justification debate" between the apostle Paul (who initiated the Christ movement) and the brother of Jesus, James "the Just" (who led the Jesus movement). In following Jesus' teachings, James argued that salvation resulted from honoring the prescriptions of Torah to act in doing good deeds, whereas Paul rejected the requisites of the Torah (particularly in regard to circumcision and dietary restrictions) and asserted that salvation is a matter of faith alone (the sola fide doctrine). An apocalyptic ministry accords with Paul's view that salvation is by faith alone (i.e., that God will act); a sapient ministry advocates that salvation results from human actions to do good deeds (i.e., God waiting for humans to act). Vincent concludes that "…both the doctrine of atonement and that of justification by faith—the twin pillars of Pauline theology—cannot be said to have originated with Jesus, but only with Paul."¹³ While Paul's view may have won the debate in established Christian orthodoxy, a possible resolution of the doctrinal dispute lies in the belief that one who is saved by faith alone will want to do good deeds.

During his lifetime, and particularly during his ministry period, Jesus was a great teacher, prophet, and moral philosopher, a point that can be accepted even by twentieth century postmoderns. His moral philosophy was not unique, but paralleled other earlier and contemporary moral teachings. In his book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (Simon and Schuster, 2010), Sam Harris makes the case that just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.¹⁴ Harris argues that morality is a universal matter that should be considered in terms of human and animal well-being, rather than prescribed by religious dogma.
_________

1 Matt Slick, "What is the gospel of Q and does it prove the Gospels are false?", https://carm.org/what-gospel-q-and-does-it-prove-gospels-are-false

2 Jim Vincent, Should the Church Abandon the Bible?, aSys Publications, 2018, Kindle e-book location 4633.

3 Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Random House, 2013.

4 Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, HarperCollins, 2014.

5 Patrick Goggins, A Reader's Guide to Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God, Part III, Kindle e-book location 2014.

6 Peter Enns, The Bible Tells Me So, HarperOne, 2014, p. 227.

7 Terry Teachout, "Is it Real or Is It Color?", The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 4, 2014, https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-it-real-or-is-it-color-1417744290

8 Vincent, Kindle e-book location 5017.

9 N. T. Wright, How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels, HarperOne, 2012. A well-known concern in economic analysis is that any conclusions to be deduced from an economic model are at least biased if not pre-determined by the assumption of premises upon which the model is based. Different premises may lead to different conclusions. My model for attempting to understand the identity of Jesus differs from Wright’s in that it is based on the premises that Jesus came into existence through normal life-initiation and birth processes, that he may have survived the crucifixion and recovered enough to have been "seen" by various parties, and that he may have died naturally and was buried at some later time. With these premises as analytical starting points, the conclusion that I have deduced with regard to Jesus’ teachings and life example (i.e., the “middle” of the story between the “bookends”) is that Jesus was a fully-human being who was appointed by God to serve as a prophet in conveying a message of universal love for individual humans and all of humankind. As in Wright’s model, the "middle" is the real story, but unlike Wright’s model, the "bookends" (i.e., the circumstances of Jesus’ birth and death) are distractions to the real story.

10 Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus for the First Time Again, HarperCollins, 1995, p.29.

11 John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1992.

12 John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images, HarperCollins, 1998.

13 Vincent, Kindle e-book location 3703.

14 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Simon and Schuster, 2010.

<>

22. Crucifixion

As noted by Michael Baigent in his book The Jesus Papers, zealots in Galilee promoted Jesus' potential messiahship as a vehicle for countering Roman hegemony of Palestine.¹ At least two of Jesus' disciples may have been zealots, Simon ("the Zealot") and Judas Iscariot (who hailed from the Judean town of Kerioth and carried a sicarii dagger that was a zealot signature). Others also may have been zealots.

But Jesus refused to assume a political role of messiahship as intended by zealots. Zealots may have ceased promotion of Jesus' potential messiahship and abandoned him to the Jewish and Roman authorities once Jesus said that taxes should be paid to Rome. In Matthew 22:21, Jesus says to "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God’s." The first clause in this sentence is addressed to the Jewish religious authorities who had been questioning Jesus. Baigent conjectures that the second clause may have been directed at the Roman political authorities, i.e., give the land of Palestine back to God and to God's chosen people, the Jews. Judas' betrayal of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:48) implies abandonment by the zealots. So also does Peter's denial of Jesus during his trial.

Jesus never made public declaration of his messiahship, and he taught (or perhaps only implied) privately to his disciples that he was the long-expected messiah. Bart Ehrman argues in How Jesus Became God that Judas' betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane was really a betrayal to the Roman authorities that Jesus thought of himself as a messiah who would overthrow the Roman state to become King of the Jews.² Roman authorities took this to be an act of sedition that would threaten the sovereignty of the Roman state and thus could not be tolerated.

Jewish religious authorities also may have wished to dispose of Jesus since his teachings threatened their authority. In his book The World of Jesus, William H. Marty says that the Sanhedrin feared an uprising against Roman rule as support for Jesus continued to increase. High Priest Caiaphas concluded that it would be better to have Jesus killed than to risk Roman reprisals.³

Baigent argues that Pilate, Rome's official representative in Palestine, was in a difficult position. On the one hand a Jewish mob, likely organized by the Jewish religious authorities, was calling for Jesus' crucifixion because he said that taxes should be paid to Rome, but on the other hand the Roman authorities might not have seen the need for a crucifixion for the very same reason, i.e., because Jesus had said that taxes should be paid to Rome. Baigent conjectures that Pilate may have been complicit in approving an apparent crucifixion to satisfy the mob, but one that could be ended prematurely in deference to the Roman authorities.

Jesus' crucifixion was a political act fostered by Jewish religious authorities and implemented by Roman political authorities. Jesus was crucified around midday on the Friday of Passover Week, probably in the year 30 C.E. Jewish law required that a crucified body be removed from the cross and buried before sundown when the Passover celebration would begin. Chapter 19 of John's Gospel reports that Pilate gave Joseph of Arimathea permission to remove Jesus' body from the cross since he apparently had died after being on the cross for a relatively short time (only about six hours between midday and sundown).

Baigent notes that in the original Greek, John's Gospel says that Joseph asked for Jesus' soma, the Greek word for a living body. Pilate, thinking that Jesus had already died, gave Joseph permission to remove the ptoma, the Greek word for a corpse. Although Jewish law required that a crucified body be buried before Passover sundown, many Jews would have been reluctant to remove a corpse from the cross because they would have been defiled by touching a dead body. Baigent says that Joseph's willingness to remove Jesus' body from the cross indicates that he knew that Jesus was still alive.
__________

1 Michael Baigent, The Jesus Papers, HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.

2 Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, HarperCollins, 2014.

3 William H. Marty, The World of Jesus: Making Sense of the People and Places of Jesus' Day, Baker Publishing Group, 2013, Kindle e-book location 947-948.

<>

23. Resurrection

Jesus' time on the cross was much shorter than usually required to cause death. In Mark 15:44 we are told that Pilate sent a centurion to see if Jesus was dead, and Pilate was surprised when told by the centurion that Jesus had already died. Michael Baigent conjectures that Jesus may have been drugged by the sponge which contained, not wine vinegar that would have revived him (Mark 15:36), but some combination of drugs so that he appeared to have died.¹ He then could be removed from the cross in a sedated (perhaps even comatose) state and taken to a nearby tomb so that he could recover and his wounds could be treated. Baigent argues that this may be implied in John 19:39 which indicates that Joseph and Nicodemus took with them to the tomb a large amount of aromatic spices (myrrh and aloes) that also had healing properties. This theme is also pursued in Howard Brenton's Postmodern-era play "Paul" that was first produced at the National Theatre in London in 2005.²

Bart Ehrman contends that it is inconceivable that Jesus received a decent burial since his disciples had fled, he had no family living in Jerusalem, and no one else in Jerusalem would have been able or willing to provide proper burial for a peasant executed for sedition.³ In Ehrman's opinion, the story about Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus likely was a later fabrication to enable a resurrection narrative. If there had been no decent burial in a grave, there also could have been no resurrection from a grave. Ehrman doubts that either burial or resurrection could have occurred as described in Matthew's and Luke's gospels. John Dominic Crossan says that Jesus' corpse likely was left on the cross, as was the usual Roman practice, to be eaten by dogs.⁴ However, Simcha Jacobovici and coauthors have published books claiming to have found the Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem.⁵

Ehrman argues that soon after his death and perceived resurrection, Jesus' followers presumed that he had been exalted by God to divine status since he was no longer present and his body was missing

After the reputed resurrection, Jesus was "seen" on the road to Emmaus and by various disciples and disciple groups. This might have been possible if Jesus had survived the crucifixion and recovered as hypothesized by Baigent. Ehrman says that Jesus probably did die in the crucifixion, and that the "appearances" of Jesus after his crucifixion more likely were visions experienced by the various parties. Jim Vincent says that "The most convincing interpretation of the resurrection accounts is that they describe, in figurative form, the dawning of a gradual realisation on the part of the disciples of the significance of Jesus and of his continuing existence."⁶

So we have five identifiable theories of how Jesus may have been seen by people after the crucifixion:

1. Jesus was actually God (or God’s Son, a version of God himself) who contrived a death-by-crucifixion charade, and thus by divine prerogative could appear to humans after the crucifixion.

2. Jesus was a human who actually died in the crucifixion but was resurrected by God and exalted to divine status, and who then could appear as a living human until his ascension to heaven.

3. Jesus was a human who actually died in the crucifixion but whose “appearances” after the crucifixion were visions experienced by various parties.

4. Jesus was a human who actually died in the crucifixion so that his “appearances” after the crucifixion were a figurative description of a gradual realization by disciples of his significance.

5. Jesus was a human who was crucified but who survived the crucifixion and recovered enough to actually be seen by other humans.

These are theories that can neither be proved nor disproved by historical or scientific evidence, so the question boils down to which seems more credible. Pre-postmodern orthodox theology believers may choose theory (1) or theory (2). To me, the most credible alternative is theory (5).

I must admit that even before I encountered these ideas about the birth, death, and resurrection narratives, I harbored some latent suspicion if not outright skepticism. If Baigent's or Ehrman's or Vincent’s takes on these stories are true, then the biblical birth, death, and resurrection narratives are myths.

Patrick Goggins takes a postmodern view in asserting that even if the resurrection narrative is a myth, Jesus' message does not depend on his resurrection from the dead for its truth. Goggins says that "Islam teaches that Mohammad died and was buried, yet his earthly message lives on. Perhaps Jesus's words can likewise survive the death of his earthly body."⁷

The resurrection narrative may seem incredible to the twenty-first century postmodern mind. To twenty-first century churches, this myth may cost more in terms of postmodern skepticism than the value that it adds as an ethos story for classical theology believers.
__________

1 Michael Baigent, The Jesus Papers, HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.

2 Howard Brenton, playscript Paul, NHB Books, London, 2006.

3 Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, HarperCollins, 2014.

4 John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1992.

5 Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: the Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence that Could Change History, HarperCollins, 2007; James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery: The New Archeological Find that Reveals the Birth of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 2012.

6 Jim Vincent, Should the Church Abandon the Bible?, aSys Publications, 2018, Kindle e-book location Kindle e-book location 3530.

7 Patrick Goggins, A Reader's Guide to Reza Aslan's "Zealot", Kindle e-book location 838-841.

<>

24. Lessons and Carols

As a co-director of Furman's Study Away program in England, I have accompanied Furman students on several visits to King's College Chapel in Cambridge. I have watched and listened on television to numerous editions of the King's College choir's presentation of "Nine Lessons and Carols."

A Lessons and Carols tradition dates back to at least 1880 at Truro Cathedral in Cornwall. The King's College service of Nine Lessons and Carols was organized in 1918 by The Rev. Eric Milner-White, chaplain of King's College, very soon after the end of The Great War (now known as World War I). Milner-White's intention was to provide a Christmas eve gift to the city of Cambridge that would help with grieving the loss of 23 percent of the members of King's College during the war. (https://anglicancompass.com/nine-lessons-and-carols-a-rookie-anglican-guide/)

The service of Nine Lessons and Carols has been repeated annually on Christmas eves in King's College Chapel since 1918, and other Anglican churches have produced their own presentations of it. The hymn selections have changed from year to year and among the various presentations, but the scriptures have remained the same in Anglican church presentations:

First Lesson from Genesis 3:8-15; 17-19. God tells sinful Adam that he has lost the life of Paradise and that his seed will bruise the serpent’s head.
Second Lesson from Genesis 22:15-18. God promises to faithful Abraham that in his seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Third Lesson from Isaiah 9:2, 6-7. The prophet foretells the coming of the Savior.
Fourth Lesson from Isaiah 11:1-3a, 4a, 6-9. Isaiah foreshadows the Peace that Christ, the Prince of Peace, brings.
Fifth Lesson from the Gospel of Luke 1:26–35, 38. The angel Gabriel salutes the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Sixth Lesson from Luke 2:1, 3-7. St. Luke recounts the story of Jesus’ birth.
Seventh Lesson from Luke 2:8-16. The shepherds go to the manger.
Eighth Lesson from the Gospel of Matthew 2:1-12. The star leads the wise men to Jesus.
Ninth Lesson from the Gospel of John 1:1-14. St. John unfolds the great mystery of the Incarnation.
(https://anglicancompass.com/nine-lessons-and-carols-a-rookie-anglican-guide/)

For many years I have also enjoyed the beautiful renderings of Nine Lessons and Carols during my own Baptist church's annual Candlelight Service of Lessons and Carols, this year on December 21, 2025 (the fourth Sunday of Advent).

When I compared our order of service with the Anglican listing of the nine lessons, I became aware that we (and perhaps other American churches) have taken liberties to adjust the list of included scriptures. The first two Anglican scripture lessons have been deleted: the First Lesson in Genesis 3, Adam's "loss of life in Paradise" and attribution of the fault to the woman (perhaps deleted to avoid scripture blaming the woman); and the Second Lesson in Genesis 22, Abraham's faithfulness will bless all humankind. Our first two scripture lessons ("The prophet foretells the coming of the Savior." and "The peace that Christ will bring is foreshown.") correspond to the Third and Fourth Anglican lessons.

To replace the two deleted Genesis lessons and bring the lesson number back up to nine, we have inserted Isaiah 35:1-6 ("The prophet foretells the coming of the desire of all nations.") and Isaiah 40:1-8 ("The prophet proclaims good news to a people in exile.") as the Third and Fourth lessons. Some theologians have expressed skepticism that in Chapter 35 the writer of Isaiah intended to foretell the coming of the Christ, or that Chapter 40 pertains to first-century occupants of Judea living under harsh Roman rule. The Isaiah Chapters 35 and 40 passages appear to have been taken out of context from literature of one era to be repurposed to support a narrative about an event that happened in another era. Scripture substitution is the literary vehicle that enables "cherry-picking" what is needed to advance a story.

Our Fifth through Seventh scripture lessons and our Ninth scripture lesson correspond to the Anglican scripture lessons. But we have substituted John 1:1-5 ("This is the great mystery of the Incarnation.") for the Anglican Eighth Lesson ("The star leads the wise men to Jesus."), possibly because some scholars regard the "wise men" event as legendary rather than historical. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi) The Anglican caption of the Ninth Lesson has been shifted to the Eighth Lesson in our sequence.

Those objections aside, our First and Second lessons (the Anglican Third and Fourth lessons) imply an advocacy of theocracy that Americans may find objectionable. Ancient Israel was in fact a theocracy under the rule of Kings Saul, David, Solomon, and descendants of Solomon until the exile to Babylon in 597 BCE, after which no one else of the House of David occupied the Throne of David. In Chapter 9, Isaiah was describing realities and hopes of his day, not those of first-century occupants of Judea. In the Middle East today, experience with Caliphate administration of theocracy has been problematic.

The United Kingdom is described as a "parliamentary democracy," but it is also a de facto theocracy by virtue of the fact that the reigning monarch is the head of the Church of England (Anglican) when in England, and the head of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) when in Scotland. This precedent was set on 3 November 1534 when King Henry VIII established himself as the head of the newly-founded Church of England. (https://www.historyhit.com/henry-viii-becomes-head-church-england/) These facts seem to have been of no importance to Rev. Milner-White when he selected the scriptures for the Nine Lessons and Carols service in 1918, nor do they appear to be an issue for Anglican churches today in U.K.

Americans fought a war of revolution in the 18th century to escape an authoritarian monarch and to achieve liberty to worship as they wished. The principle of separation of church and state is rooted in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion. Court cases continue to be adjudicated in regard to religious instruction in public schools and public finance of private schools, but case law confirms this separation.

We now are in a different place and at a different time than when the service of Nine Lessons and Carols was created in 1918 by Rev. Milner-White who served an Anglican ministry in a de facto theocracy. In the Anglican Third Lesson, Isaiah 9:6-7 says, "...and the government will be on his shoulders. .... Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end." (NIV) Milner-White probably had no second (or even first) thoughts about the potential problems posed by theocratic governance.

The Isaiah 9:6-7 passage is an implicit but potentially dangerous advocacy of theocracy because it subtly conveys the notion that an authoritarian theocracy is an acceptable alternative to a democratic polity with a tripartite republican form of government that enables checks and balances on the accumulation of power.

The literary precedent of scripture substitution has been set. We now need yet one more scripture substitution in an American version of the Lessons and Carols service. The need for a substitute for Isaiah 9:6-7 in the First Lesson lies in the political support provided to the current President of the United States by religious organizations that favor public financing of "Christian schools" and enabling religious instruction in public schools. The current President seems to have no qualms about soliciting political support and accepting financial contributions from religious organizations. The inclusion of Isaiah 9:6-7 in an American production of Lessons and Carols only encourages violation of the Constitution's First Amendment prohibition of religion and state involvement.

My suggestion of a scripture to replace Isaiah 9:2 and 6-7 in the First Lesson is Matthew 4:12-17 which refers to the prophesy in Isaiah 9:2 but makes no mention of government. Another possible substitute passage might be John 1:24-27 in which John the Baptist proclaims that Jesus "is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."

DS Legacy

EssaysVolume11

Introduction

10. Rewriting the Jesus Story

11. Rewriting My Story

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Collected Essays

Abroad