Is There a Doctor in the House?

This week in Oxford many of the buses have carried an side-advertisement stating: " There's Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre." The advert is for the Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with Professor William Lane Craig, the American analytic philosopher and philosophical theologian at the event. Dr. Dawkins has branded Professor Craig a 'ponderous buffoon' who uses logic to 'bamboozle his faith-head audience', but has failed to respond to any of Professor Craig’s academic arguments. The Oxford philosopher Dr. Daniel Came, an atheist himself, has written to Dr Dawkins stating that 'the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part'.

Whilst I profoundly disagree with Dr. Dawkins' views on religion, it is real shame the leading (or least loudest) secularist atheist should act in such a way.

An ecumenical H/T to Cranmer,The British blogger and examiner or religio-political agendas with politico-religious objectives

Why Only Twitter Deep?

Deacon's Homily, Thursday 27th week Year 1

Yesterday, we heard how the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray. Jesus answers by teaching them the prayer that will become the most frequently used of all Christian prayers, the Our Father. Jesus teaches them how to pray, but he doesn't stop there. He knows just all too well that if his disciples pose the question of how, it will sooner or later be followed by the question of why. It is this why that today's reading is concerned with.

Jesus assures us that God the Father will be there for us as a father is there for his child. He is even mocking the disciples gently, giving them absurd examples to show how the Father would never act: If his son asks for a fish, will he then instead of a fish give him a serpent? No, the Father is there, listening and acting, providing us with what we need.

But even if Jesus asserts that the Father always listens to anyone who prays to him, some of us may have experienced moments of doubt. There might have been times when we have begged God for help, without getting an answer. At least not the answer we hoped for. And we feel from within ourselves this troubling question: Why?

This why may contain resignation and despair, a why without any visible chance of solution. But this is also a question that God wants to hear from us. Children pose this question all the time. Why is it like this or that? And we answer: Because so and so. Yes, but WHY? And in the end, it might be the child who makes us wonder why.

This fundamental question is rooted in the core of our very existence. God created us in his image, we are made for relationship, we are made for divine interaction! We are called to turn to our Creator in a constant dialogue, or to say it with John Henry Newman as he quotes St Augustine: Cor ad Cor Loquitor - heart speaks to heart. To enable this open-hearted relationship, God gives us the Holy Spirit. This is the ultimate gift that our Father wants to offer us. This is the gift that can lead us to an answer for all our why's.

In a moment, we will pray the prayer that Jesus taught us. Let us then silently open our hearts to the mystery we celebrate, as we ask our father: Thy will be done.

Biblical Beasts: Whale

Is there any mention of whales in the Bible? Your first reaction might well be, “Of course there is: there’s the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.” Even if you were trying to be more thorough, you might still think this was a fairly straightforward question to answer in the age of fully searchable texts of Scripture in programs like BibleWorks. However, we soon find that this seemingly simple question is actually rather more complicated. In many English versions of the Bible, it turns out, there is no mention of whales at all! Other translations, on the other hand, do have some references to whales, but none in the book of Jonah! So what’s going on?

Basically, it’s a question of translation: in the case of Jonah specifically, many English translations use the word ‘whale’ when Jesus talks about the sign of Jonah in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 12: 40), because the Greek word used there sometimes means whale. It also, however, refers to any large fish or sea-monster, and thus was used by the Greek translators of the Old Testament to refer to the ‘great fish’ of which the Hebrew speaks in the book of Jonah (2: 1). This highlights the care that must be taken in the interpretation of the Bible, because if we only knew the English version, we might think Jesus mistakenly thought a whale was a large fish, whereas in fact, if it’s anyone’s mistake, it’s the translators’.

Indeed, the difficulty of identifying the meaning of words referring to the fauna of the Bible has been a recurring theme in our series on Biblical Beasts. It reminds us that the Scriptures are written in the words of human beings, and present us with all the ordinary challenges that language presents: that is why a ‘scientific’ study of Scripture is useful and important. However, we must never allow such study to distract us from the fact that Scripture is the Word of God, and points beyond the human realities its words usually describe to the divine realities that it reveals: in the end, the importance of the sign of Jonah is not to be found in the question of whether it was a whale or some other sea creature, but in the death and resurrection of Christ, of which Jonah’s re-emergence from the creature is a type.

Fruits of Study 8: The Notion of Love

Our faith is based on love, and love is the foundation of our whole life. Of course we know what it is, but trying to describe it is not always that easy. Can we at all give a definition of such an all-embracing, profound notion?

One who did exactly that was Eric Fromm. Born in in 1900, he witnessed two world wars with all its horror and life threatening violence. He came from a Jewish family with strong academic traditions, and he did his formation as psychoanalyst in Germany before moving to the United States in 1934. His religious background and insight in the Talmud strongly influenced his elaboration of the understanding of humanity. In a time where hate and contempt for the dignity and worth of the human being had marked the world society, Fromm sought an answer to the question of the fundamental needs of humanity. He was opposed to the Freudian understanding of the human being, claiming that it is not sexuality, that first and foremost constitutes the drive in humanity, but the deep need of belonging. Fromm developed a humanistic philosophy based on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve becoming strangers in front of God, each other and even themselves. From the moment of the fall, life becomes a struggle to reunite with the world.

Fromm explains how the human being may unite with the world in many different ways; many of them false, others resulting in a limited freedom and peace. (Examples of unsatisfying ways of uniting with the world, says Fromm, can be found in narcissism, submission or domination. The most common way of our time though, is what can be called a herd conformity which in its ground is rooted in a rather primitive feeling of clan identity.) The only way that can fully answer this the deep desire of belonging is love. And we are not talking about being loved, but developing the capacity of loving. Fromm confronted the same difficulty as we started with: What is love? Fromm introduced four notions to describe the quality of loving, each of them describing a certain attitude: care, responsibility, respect and knowledge. These qualities lead man out of himself and draw his attention to the other. Through care he is concerned with growth and happiness of the other person. He takes responsibility by responding to the others articulated or non-articulated needs. He respects the other person and sees him objectively (and not the way he wishes to see him), and he search to know the other sufficiently to see the world from the perspective of the other. This is the fundamental attitude that every human being can take part in, and it should be underlined that this not only to applies to certain people, like the ones we prefer, but to all of humanity. Fromm writes: 'if I can say "I love you", I say, "I love in you all of humanity, all that is alive; I love also myself". Self-love, in this sense, is the opposite of selfishness'. This kind of all-embracing love is in its nature a brotherly love; an equal, respectful and caring attitude, always leaving the other person free.

Egypt: St. Menas designated by Christ as his trusted friend and adviser. 6th century

This is a way of describing love that we as Christians are invited to meditate upon. It corresponds to the Christian notion of love which is at the same time universal and personal. Fromm's description helps us to see clearer how love should be realized, yes, it can even be used to prepare ourselves for confession. After all, we often fail in meeting with those around us, in one or several of the notions that Fromm mentions.

If you would like to know more of Eric Fromm, I recommend his bestselling book, The Art of Loving, which through a simple language describes the depths of our inner selves.

Biblical Beasts: Vulture

Those parts of the Old Testament canon originally written in Hebrew have a number of words for birds but a significant one among them is ‘nesher’. This bird is described as having magnificent wings and soaring high, of nesting in high rocky outcrops, of having keen eyesight and descending swiftly on its food source. Well, it could be an eagle (see the blog from 20 July) but it could equally be a vulture. In particular it could very well be the Griffon Vulture, also called the Great Vulture, its modern scientific Latin name being Gyps fulvus. It was common in Palestine and indeed is still found all around the Mediterranean. This bird does not correspond to the stereotype we now tend to have of vultures as scruffy, quarrelsome and unintelligent. The Griffon Vulture is a very large bird, being little short of five feet in total length, and the wingspan measuring about eight feet. The adult bird is a yellowish brown colour, augmented by the black quill feathers and the ruff of white down that surrounds the neck. (All photos here are of the Griffon Vulture.)

There are several species of eagle found in Palestine so why argue the case for nesher meaning or including the vulture? Well, because the (Griffon) vulture fulfills all the qualities already ascribed to nesher. And there are further attributes of nesher that eagles do NOT meet that the Griffon vulture (and other vultures) do. Micah 1:16 describes nesher as having a bald head: eagles are feathered on the head but vultures, including the Griffon, are not. It has light down. Nesher is described as feeding on the dead, i.e. carrion (Prov 30:17; Job 39:27-30): again only vultures, and not eagles, do this. Nesher is described as being long-lived, prompting the suggestion that it renews its youth (Ps 103:5): eagles can be long lived but the Griffon exceeds them all – living in the wild typically for at least 40-50 years and in excess of 100 in captivity. The Griffon is known to be intelligent, to care for its young, assisting them in early flight, thus ‘bearing them on their wings’ (cf Ex 19:4; Rev 12:14).

Although vultures are not highly esteemed nowadays (in the west) they had high prestige in the ancient world. It was a symbol of a deity among both the Egyptians and Assyrians, often linked to war. This is partly because they seemed to follow armies and to descend with lightning speed in battles. Indeed, the speed with which they found the dead and their capacity for being present when battles occurred gained them a reputation for foresight, and even a share in divine foresight and insight – and more widely divine knowledge. (All this means that the vulture could lie behind the bird in Ezek 1:10 and, though in a Greek text, in the Book of Revelation 4:7.)

It is all of this that Jesus seems to refer to and draw on when he cites the saying ‘Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather (Matt 18:24). The context is the sudden but very public coming of God at the end of time and in judgment. Vultures, previously tiny specks high in the sky, swoop down suddenly and with devastating effect - and seemingly with divine knowledge. They gather in very obvious numbers. Eagles do not gather like this, but vultures do, and among the vultures, the Griffons then feed in a social manner, not disturbing each other. Jesus clearly had the vulture, not the eagle in mind. This is almost certainly true of the similar phrase in Lk 17:37: there is a gathering of birds though Luke uses ‘soma’ which can mean a living or dead body. The context suggests the same kind of meaning as above: the disciples can be sure that God will come, and with speed and power and thus they should be vigilant and indeed stay awake and spiritually alive. A vulture also fits better in the context of Rev 8:13 than an eagle, ‘seeing’ destruction and presumably also death.

If nesher represent one species of bird (as we understand species) then the Griffon vulture is the only candidate. It is also the vulture that Jesus has in mind. Why then is the eagle and not the (griffon) vulture seen as the great religious bird and symbol of divinity in the Christian tradition? The problems begin with the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew texts into Greek from around 200 BC and later. They sometimes use aetos for nesher. Sometimes they use ‘gups’ but they also use this for other Hebrew bird words, and of seemingly smaller birds. They were attempting some sort of biological classification different to what was in the Hebrew words before them and I wonder how well they knew the Palestinian fauna. The ancient Greeks in general did not always distinguish vultures and eagles, but many translators since then have considered that aetos ought in general to be translated as eagle. (Some note that it means vulture if the reference is to a bird feeding on carrion – but ornithological expertise is often lacking.) Only aetos is used in the New Testament. In Roman and Latin culture the eagle, not the vulture, was considered the bird of prowess and a military symbol of power and this view has spread to modern cultures. In translations, eagle has thus dominated over vulture (often to its complete exclusion), sometimes creating exegetical problems. All seem to have lost sight of the magnificent Griffon Vulture. Perhaps the Hebrews intended to include eagles in some of their references to nesher. But the Griffon Vulture, which they clearly knew about, has to all intents and purposes been ‘lost in translation’. To make matters worse, it is now an endangered species in Israel.

Friars' Passions; Cricket?

I had for some time by various cunning ruses and strategems managed to avoid contributing to Godzdogz's 'friars' passions' series. Indeed, i was just begining to relax my vigilance thinking myself safe after two years on the Godzdogz team when, alas, the long arm of the law finally caught up with me in the form of Br. Mark.

The problem is I don't really have a 'passion' anymore. Before I joined the Order I would have perhaps claimed to be passionate about cricket, but it would probably be more truthful to say that I was passionate about winning cricket matches, which is not quite the same thing. As teenagers my team was often told by one of our coaches: 'I want you to enjoy the game, but I'd rather you enjoyed winning.' This became something of a motto for me. I spent hours plotting the downfall of opponents, both on my own and with teammates. We used to disect and analyze matches, training sessions, our techniques, our tactics. We always maintained a brutal honesty, searching for incremental improvements that would cumulatively build to significant leaps in quality. On match day itself we would fight tooth and nail to win.

The fact that cricket (partly because the game takes so long) is so multifaceted meant that in this process of analyzing and struggling I learnt an awful lot about myself, about team dynamics, about leadership, about dealing with pressure, about achieving goals. All of these skills have been enormously beneficial to my academic and personal development from adolescence upwards, and I have been surprised by just how much 'cricket wisdom' is transferable to religious life. But in the end this hyper-competitive outlook destroyed the game for me. As I became older cricket became more and more a chore, something I felt compelled to do rather than something I wanted to do and it was with some relief that I stopped playing after University. Sometimes I think about starting again now that I am older and possibly more mature, but I haven't done anything about it yet.

Now I spend my free time in a number of different ways, all of which i enjoy, but none of which consume me in the way that cricket used to. They are not passions. Indeed, my favourite way to while away an evening is with a good pint with good friends in a proper pub. Maybe next time I'll write a post about that...