Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

The Visible and Invisible Church - Lazar Puhao

Archishop Lazar Puhalo on the Visible and Invisible Church

QUESTION: In Western church tradition, there is a concept of the visible and invisible church, however we define that. Is there such a concept in Eastern Christianity?

RESPONSE: There is, but there is not such a sharp dichotomy in the East since the visible and invisible church are intimately connected. What the West would call the invisible church, the East “the noetic altar in the heavens” with a noetic projection on earth. So, the invisible permeates the visible.

QUESTION: And what constitutes the visible church?

RESPONSE: Sometimes we make the mistaken of trying to look for a physical definition rather than a spiritual definition. And sometimes we carry ‘spiritual’ a little too far and make it meaningless.

But the church on earth—“the catholic church”—is where catholic means “gathered together,” where everyone gathers or is gathered. I would call the church “the harvester of the earth,” because you make the church present and call everyone into it.

The minute you are baptized and chrismated, you become part of the royal priesthood, and you become part of THE Church—not the visible church but THE Church, visible and invisible, all united together.

It’s very important to remember that if one listens to the divine liturgy carefully, you can see this osmosis, this penetration of the heavenly into the earthly. The moment we enter the temple—we gather as a kind of visible kingdom of God. When we have what we call “the entrance,” most people miss it, but we say, “Blessed is the entrance of thy holy ones—the angels—because in the priest’s prayers, the angels are entering with us. And in the great anthem of the people of God, as I call it, “the Cherubic Hymn,” we sing,

“Let us who mystically represent the Cherubim and sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-giving Trinity, lay aside all worldly cares, that we may receive the King of all, invisibly upborne [escorted] by angelic hosts. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.”

In other words, the angelic hosts are celebrating together with us—so the unseen is totally penetrating the seen and what is unseen is now seen.

And to make it more definitive, we see it in types and symbols. The types and symbols are very powerful. In the liturgy itself, inside “the gates of paradise,” when the priests start to cense the gifts, they pray,

“Having received them upon Thy holy, most heavenly, and noetic altar as an odor of spiritual fragrance, send down upon us in return the divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

We must always see the penetration of the Holy Spirit as the union of the visible and invisible church, because they are not two distinct entities. The visible is for the sake of our weakness, but the invisible is always present—as long as we understand there is no dichotomy, we can say that the church here on earth is the visible aspect of the heavenly church.

But again, as a farmer, I often think of the church as the harvester of the crop, as long as there’s a harvest to be had,… so “lift up your eyes, the fields are ripe for the harvest.”    

Beyond Chicken Little Narratives - Luke Schulz

I remember growing up with the narrative of Chicken Little, and it seems to me to be the mainstream narrative adopted by both left and right. The sky is falling because of climate change! The sky is falling because authoritarians are in power! The sky is falling because other people are rich! The sky is falling because those people think differently! The sky is falling because these are the end times! If you truly believe that "the sky is falling", you will be fed plenty of fodder to confirm your biases. And if those spinning narratives can catch you in their web, they will continue to feed on your anxious attention.

 

How you see politics, and everything else, depends on narratives. What is the story you see playing out in the world? Where did that narrative come from? Many of us are intellectually lazy, or ignorant, and so we allow narratives to be fed to us through established channels and corporate media ON BOTH SIDES. But we need to realize that these stories are curated to produce the most angst and thus demand the most attention. It is a business model and a political ploy, designed to capture you and arrest your faculties of investigation. The left is not a mass of evil Communists and the right is not a mob of psychotic Nazis. Have some nuance!

Here's a narrative for you: DEMOCRACY IS WORKING.

 

Across the West, after decades of influence, the left has done a piss poor job representing its proclaimed values and constituents, and a lot of people don't buy the narrative anymore. They didn't become enamoured with the far-right or dictators, they just want something different, because the status quo, the prevailing narrative, seems to have failed them. The only alternative to "same-old" at the moment is the populist right, and until the left re-examines itself and figures out how to better represent and legislate on the values and concerns of its constituents, the populist right will be popular.

 

In democracies, parties must calculate the desires of the population, and deliver on them. If you stray too far from that, the people vote you out. This is how democracy works, and until the left gets new accountants, they leave the populist path to victory open for the right to capitalize on. And they will, until inevitably, the roles reverse. Come back to the public with a better platform and everything will be a-ok.

 

Democracy is simply working as it does. Our problems are not caused by liberal or conservative voters. Our solutions lie ever in new offerings going forward. We will pull through this era. No war has been lost, the sky is not falling, and giving in to panic or anxiety only makes you vulnerable to the false narratives of predators wearing all stripes, who will use their influence to get you to point the finger at your neighbour instead of them.

 

Peace and Love!

Addison Hart's "Confessions of the Antichrist" - Review by Bradley Jersak

After thoroughly enjoying "Patapsco Spirits: Eleven Ghost Stories", Addison Hart's marvellous collection of short ghost stories (it was my top fiction choice for 2024), I immediately raced to see what other books he had to offer. It turns out, quite a few (click here for his Goodreads list). Since I'm neck-deep in a stack of non-fiction works right now, I wanted another taste of his story-telling, so I used my remaining Christmas cash to pick up his novel, Confessions of the Antichrist.

Full disclosure, if I didn't already follow Hart's treasury of thought on Substack ("The Pragmatic Mystic") and hadn't known he's an elder brother to DBH (perhaps Mycroft to David's Sherlock?), I may have wrongly assumed from the title that Confessions was another fan fiction instalment of the Left Behind literary debacle. I'm glad I knew better! For while this short novel is very readable and moves quickly, it also boasts some wonderfully creative premises that left me pondering (as his ghost stories had in my essay here).

I'm wary of spoilers, and would even recommend avoiding the Amazon summary. So rather than offering an overview of the plot, I can hint at it by suggesting some pre-reading thought experiments to tempt you into Hart's treatment.

• Given the apostle Paul's claims in the Christ hymns of Philippians 2 and Colossians 1--that all things visible and invisible are "reconciled by his blood" and that every tongue in heaven and on earth and under the earth will confess (joyfully) the Lordship of Jesus--is it possible that even the devil (whatever that is) could yet repent and be saved? (an ancient debate, actually).
• If we were to image the devil seeing the error of its ways and trying to make amends, what would that look like? Would those amends look like a realignment with the fallen spirit's original design, or would the corruption of character continue to be manifest in his course corrections?
• If the devil were to prepare an Antichrist for the role, what type of man would he be? When or how would he discover his role? How would he be revealed to the world? Would the classical Antichrist of Christian imagination be his inevitable destiny or would God offers exit ramps? Could he or would he take them?
• Would the church recognize the Antichrist when he appeared? If they were to discover his identity, how would they respond and relate to him? Who would resist him? Who would bargain with him? And how do we keep doing so again and again in the realpolitik of our world. 
• And where does Jesus come into any of these questions? Is God the divine architect of a predestined outcome, or a passive observer in a cosmic dualism, or how would he participate in this plot as the Shepherd of humankind?       

The way Addison plays with these questions is well worth enjoying. The book has previously compared the book to a meeting of Through the Looking-Glass and The Divine Comedy. Yes, or I might suggest that it's the lovechild of The Grand Inquisitor and The Screwtape Letters because its relevance is a serious exploration in the nature of temptation and how we in 'the real world' regularly succumb to it in the name of our best ideas, which are precisely what got us into the current mess.

P.S. A few minor asides: I appreciated the very short chapters. It allowed me to snack on the book between tasks or at the end of the day and kept the book moving.

And I would also recommend pausing to look up Hart's incidental references to books, authors, history (historical figures, the Etruscans, etc.), and artworks (Goya)--worthy of pausing for sure.

-----

  

Shadia Drury's "Chauvinism of the West" - Review by Ron Dart

Shadia Drury, Chauvinism of the West: The Case of American Exceptionalism (Palgrave MacMillan, 2024)                              

Each year a few fine and must-read books are published (others not worth more than a passing glance), but there can be little doubt that Shadia Drury’s Chauvinism of the West is a ten-bell book. There is much packed into this historic read of the West and its impact on the notion and ideology of American exceptionalism—the origins, history and contemporary reality of American politics, foreign policy and global politics are parsed and exposed well and wisely.

Chauvinism of the West is divided into 6 compact, probing and arrow hitting bull’s eye well chapters: 1) The Roots of American Exceptionalism, 2) Manifest Destiny Goes Global, 3) What’s Wrong with Spreading Democracy, 4) Neoconservative Realism, 5) Fascist Elements in Neoconservative Realism and 6) The Political Theology of the West. Each of the paced well and tightly argued chapters are divided into smaller sections that hold the reader as Shadia’s argument unfolds and develops. The almost 50 pages of the “Annotated Bibliography” convert the at odds book with the orthodox way of viewing America into a spacious library that highlights further reading for those interested in following the pathway and trail that Shadia organized and constructed.

The cover of Chauvinism of the West speaks its own evocative and convincing message, metaphor of Statue of Liberty falling into the sea, foaming waves soon to bury and drown it, city in the distance soon to suffer the same fate.

The First Christmas and the Palestinians - Ron Dart

T.S. Eliot began the 6^th of his Advent-Christmas-Epiphany Ariel poems “The Cultivation of Christmas Trees” in an apt and poignant manner.  

    There are several attitudes towards Christmas,

    Some of which we may disregard:

    The social, the torpid, the patently commercial,

    The rowdy (the pubs being open to midnight),

     And the childish—which is not that of the child

The birth of the child, of course, was none of the above, so accurately depicted by Eliot. The actual birth was about the uncertain Joseph-Mary having to leave their home in Nazareth, being ignored in their hour of birthing need in Bethlehem, larger political powers seemingly driving them to places of loneliness---they must have wondered as did the Magi in Eliot’s “Journey of the Magi” that indeed it was a cold coming, a hard coming and was it all folly? And where was God in all this, God actually with them in the form of a vulnerable child (never easy to see when much seems to contradict and oppose such a read of a lived historic moment).

It would have been a matter of months (perhaps under 2 years) that Herod sent his death squads to slaughter many innocent children, Joseph-Mary and Jesus refugees, flight to Egypt and the Jewish community there a temporary home for a few years. Such is, in brief, the tale of the Jewish Jesus born from the Jewish context, the Biblical Jewish tale central to the Western Tradition and ethos, a chosen people, a people offered land, a people near and dear to a significant segment of the Christian Tradition. But, where in this tale are the Muslim and Christian Palestinians?

We have witnessed a barbaric and aggressive Jewish assault on the Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023. The extreme right-of-centre Israeli state has brutally, even though judged as engaging in genocide and violating international law, ignored basic human rights and savaged the Palestinians in Gaza (the West Bank has also felt the impact of this). The right-of-centre Jewish Orthodox Zealots and Christian Zionists have cheered on such a war against a people, and Western leaders have done little to halt the carnage. And, there was the 1^st Christmas--yes, the slaughter of the innocents (many more done by the Jewish state than ever done by the Roman military) and Mary-Joseph-Jesus refugees (rather minor when compared to the multitude of Palestinian refugees).

What will be the long-term ripple effect for politics in the Middle East and Palestinian children who have seen families killed, homes destroyed, hospitals, and educational structures obliterated? How will Muslim states (pro-contra West) view the virtual apathy of Israel in this war? And there was the 1^st Christmas, many faithfully and religiously remember these days, some as Eliot noted, missing the deeper meaning. But what is the relationship between what the Palestinians are living through (much more gruesome and sustained, Jewish death squads creating hovels, slaughtering many innocents) and the 1^st Christmas? To isolate the latter from the reality of the former is to misread the meaning of the contemporary reality in Israel today and its war, genocide, and refugee-making machine on the Muslim and Christian Palestinians on this Christmas season. It might be of some worth to read Eliot’s “The Triumphal March,” the 5^th in the Ariel poems, to get a sense of how such a drama plays itself out in the affluent and insulated West to get a sense of the tragedy the West and Israel are facilitating and inflicting on the Palestinians and the unwary implications of it

Fiat Lux

Ron Dart     

The Challenge of Mary - Katherine Murray

She did not cry, ‘I cannot. I am not worthy,’
Nor, ‘I have not the strength.’
She did not submit with gritted teeth,
            raging, coerced.
Bravest of all humans,
            consent illumined her.

-Excerpt from Poem: Denise Levertov’s “Annunciation”

It is the second week of Advent, and my attention is turned to Mary and, more specifically, Mary’s fiat, “Be it done onto me according to Your will.”  Mary's response to the angel Gabriel’s message that God has chosen her to birth God’s own son is to surrender with a clear ‘yes.'  She self-empties her own will - kenosis - so that God’s will can be done.  Kenosis is a Greek term meaning “self-emptying,” used by the apostle Paul in Philippians 2:6-11 to help us understand the life of Jesus, Mary’s son.  Mary’s “consent to open her sealed body to the presence of the infinite” is her kenotic act.^[1] And her choice has cosmic significance.^[2]

For half of my life, I was in a protestant, fundamentalist Christian tradition that acknowledged Mary only once a year, at Christmastime, as Jesus’s mother, when we would read the Luke nativity story.  That is all I really understood about Mary.  But in the last decade and a half, I became more intentional to explore the wider Christian tradition and I also became more deeply contemplative in my spirituality.  Curiously, both these movements brought me closer to Mary, who has come to inspire me and teach me, but mostly, challenge me.

Luke writes that Mary pondered the words of the angel (1:29). I ponder Mary’s kenotic choice.  Mary has agency and so is free to decline to be impregnated by the Spirit with Jesus.  But, incredibly, she renounces her own will and power^[3] to be the mother of God-in-flesh. The emptying of her will results in her being filled with God.  Through Mary, it is shown that “barrenness is the condition of fruitfulness.”^[4]  The fruitfulness of Mary’s fiat is that she participates in God becoming flesh - “for in the union of God and humanity, it is Mary who imparts the humanity.”^[5]  Her consent opens up a way for the beginning of a new creation^[6] and “preserves the mystery of life, the power opposed to death.”^[7]  Mary participates in the redemptive mission of God.^[8]   She “becomes a sign of grace, the sign of what is truly salvific and healing: the ready openness that submits itself to God’s will.”^[9] I stand amazed.

Mary’s kenotic act offers me a window through which to see and understand part of the mystery of God.  It is imitative of her own son Jesus before he has even revealed it to the world.^[10]  Jesus, through both his teaching and how he lived his life, would reveal kenosis as God’s way of being.  He would teach in the Sermon on the Mount that, ‘Blessed are the poor in Spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5:3). Rather than be full of ourselves, we are to be emptied of egotism, void of willfulness to experience God’s reign.^[11] Jesus taught that true power and greatness is not in dominating and oppressing others but by serving all (Matthew 20:25-26).  He revealed that “equality with God is not through getting but through giving until he was empty.”^[12]

Jesus lived his life doing only what he saw his Father God doing, saying only what he heard his Father God speak (John 5:19, 12:49). He gave himself so completely to this way of being that he consented to suffering and being killed when, in the garden of Gethsemane, he surrendered to God’s will being done and not his own (Luke 22:42).  Kenosis is the framework that unifies the entire life of Christ.^[13]

In that framework, Jesus revealed that God’s will is done on the earth through the surrender of human will.  Kenosis is a revelation of God’s nature.^[14]  It is in this way that Mary participates in revealing part of the divine mystery.

If we widen the lens on kenosis in scripture, we also see God self-emptying at creation. That is, in creating humanity with the freedom to choose, God made space for humans to choose God’s will or reject it.^[15]  It is the “lamb slain at the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8).^[16] Kenosis is present at creation. This is what gives Mary her agency.

We see in God at creation, in Mary’s consent to God, and in Jesus’s full life, that the divine way of reigning is through self-emptying and self-giving.^[17] God’s victory is through humility.^[18]

From what we read about Mary in the gospels, she does not renounce her fiat. Mary continues to surrender to God’s will being done even when Joseph is about to divorce her, when she has to flee to Egypt to protect Jesus from a genocidal king, and when she fears Jesus lost though he is teaching in the temple.  Mary continues in this way as she watches her son live out a unique destiny that sees him misunderstood, rejected, betrayed, tortured, and condemned as a blasphemer and put to death.^[19]  She continues to self-empty, to live a life of ongoing surrender to God, and in this way, too, is like her son.

In Mary and in Jesus, we see that God has chosen human partners who can bridge heaven and earth. That is, when we renounce our human will so that God’s will is done, it opens up a way for God’s love and presence to be manifested in the world.^[20] Sarah Jane Boss describes it this way, “It is because one woman (Mary) did this thing once, decisively, that…Christians have confidence that human beings can mediate the divine presence to the rest of creation.”^[21]

Mary opens up a unique window into the divine mystery, helps us see God more clearly, and to understand how God is at work in the world. Francesca Murphy, writing on the Mariology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, captures it this way, “What it means to be Christian in relation to God is articulated in Mary.”^[22]  In Mary I see that when we renounce our will to do God’s will we are imaging God, we are being like God - for this is God’s nature as revealed at creation and in Jesus.^[23] This is no doormat posture! We renounce our own self-will and the power we have to make room for the all-powerful.  It is for me a humbling truth.

When I consider the landscape of the world at present and observe horror in the Middle East, rising hate, racism, and violence, a movement to autocratic government and militarism, climate crises, economic hardship, and relationships in need of reconciliation - I ache for God’s loving will to be done upon the earth. When I consider Mary’s life, I see that my consent to God opens up a way for that to happen. Mary shows me what is possible when a human being consents to God’s will and renounces their own will and power. She points me to the way to experience the fullness of God in the here and now.  Mary challenges me to do the same.

---

Endnotes

Twelve Principles to Urge Muslims to Engage Christians in Dialogue - Safi Kaskas

Engaging in interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians is essential for fostering mutual understanding, respect, and peaceful coexistence. Below are twelve principles to encourage such engagement, supported by both Islamic and Christian perspectives.

1. Embracing True Faith

Principle: Muslim-Christian cooperation is a way of being truly Muslim and truly Christian.

Islamic Perspective: A Muslim is someone who strives to live peacefully, both within and outside their community. The Qur’an teaches:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ادْخُلُوا فِي السِّلْمِ كَافَّةً وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ (Believers, enter all together into peace, and do not follow the steps of Satan; he is clearly your enemy. - Qur'an 2:208)

Prophetic Tradition: "A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand people are safe." (Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim)

Christian Perspective: The Beatitudes teach that “God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9). Kingdom people are called to be peacemakers who “plant seeds of peace and reap a harvest of righteousness” (James 3:18, NLT).

2. Bridge-Building as a Religious Calling

Principle: Bridge-building is an important dimension of our religious calling.

Islamic Perspective: ادْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ ۖ وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ (Call people to the path of your Lord with wisdom and good advice and argue with them most courteously. - Qur'an 16:125)

Christian Perspective: Engaging in respectful and wise dialogue aligns with the Christian value of loving one's neighbor.

3. Acknowledging Diversity and Pluralism

Principle: Recognizing that God wills a world with diverse religions, including Islam and Christianity.

Islamic Perspective: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ (Those who believe, and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabeans—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous deeds—will have their reward from their Lord, and they will not fear, nor will they grieve. - Qur'an 2:62)

Christian Perspective: Christians are called to respect and acknowledge the existence of other faiths, fostering a world where different religious traditions coexist peacefully.

4. Building Micro and Macro Bridges

Principle: Trusting in a God of love and compassion, we aim to build both individual (micro) and communal (macro) bridges.

Islamic Perspective: Building personal relationships and community connections reflects the prophetic model of compassion and community.

Christian Perspective: Jesus’ teachings emphasize love and compassion, which are foundational for building strong individual and communal bonds.

5. Beyond Dialogue: Interfaith Cooperation

Principle: Engaging in interfaith cooperation, which includes service projects, meals, book clubs, and public advocacy.

Islamic Perspective: Cooperation in good works is emphasized in Islamic teachings.

وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ (Help one another in acts of righteousness and piety, but do not help one another in sin and transgression. - Qur'an 5:2)

Christian Perspective: Engaging in shared activities and advocating for common causes aligns with the Christian call to love and serve others.

"I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another." (John 13:34)

"Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)

6. Dialogue for a Better World

Principle: Dialogue is part of a larger hope for a better world, focusing on core religious beliefs and societal issues.

Islamic Perspective: Dialogue promotes understanding and peace, which are core values in Islam.

Christian Perspective: Engaging in meaningful dialogue helps build a more just and compassionate world.

"In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:16, NIV)

7. Dialogue Over Debate

Principle: Emphasizing dialogue over debate, fostering mutual respect, intellectual humility, openness, and active listening.

Islamic Perspective: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ (People, We created you from a male and a female and made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the one who is most mindful of God. - Qur'an 49:13)

Christian Perspective: True dialogue seeks understanding and commonality rather than merely winning an argument.

"My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry." (James 1:19, NIV)

8. Avoiding the Idolatry of Rightness

Principle: Avoiding an obsession with being right, recognizing that Truth is greater than any individual’s understanding.

Islamic Perspective: Truth (with a capital T) is another name for God, and our understanding is always limited.

Christian Perspective: Humility in seeking Truth is a key Christian value, acknowledging that God's wisdom surpasses human understanding.

9. Commitment to Peace

Principle: Actively promoting peace and reconciliation in all interactions.

Islamic Perspective: وَالصُّلْحُ خَيْرٌ (And reconciliation is best. - Qur'an 4:128)

Christian Perspective: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

10. Educational Exchange

Principle: Encouraging mutual learning about each other's religious traditions and cultures.

Islamic Perspective: The pursuit of knowledge is highly valued in Islam.

Christian Perspective: Learning about and understanding others is a form of loving one's neighbor.

11. Social Justice

Principle: Collaborating on issues of social justice to address common challenges.

Islamic Perspective: إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ (Indeed, God commands justice and good conduct. - Qur'an 16:90)

Christian Perspective: "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:24)

12. Environmental Stewardship

Principle: Working together to protect and sustain the environment.

Islamic Perspective: إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكُمْ خَلَائِفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ (Indeed, We have made you successors upon the earth. - Qur'an 35:39)

Christian Perspective: "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." (Psalm 24:1)

Conclusion

These principles provide a foundation for Muslims and Christians to engage in meaningful dialogue and cooperation. By embracing these values, we can work together to build a more harmonious, understanding, and compassionate world. Through continuous dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect, we can contribute to a better future for all.

Warrior of God - Poem by Syed M Shah

WARRIOR OF GOD
Syed M Shah

The glint of the sun;

Warms the soul.

From the cold draft;

That seeps thru pores;

From the darkened hills.

A black tide of struggle;

Lingering like a plague;

From crest to crest;

Seen by eyes of this world;

As an undefeatable enemy

"Easy boy", I speak to the heart;

As it purrs with slight fear.

"One last ride I promise";

A known lie that travels like Soothness;

Serenity within a world of disturbance.

Like a fish in deep water;

Smooth below the violent surface.

We ride together Heart, Soul, and Body.

Oh how often we have rode this ride!

1000 and 1 times we led this charge...

That battered armor still holds strong,

That splintered lance still is sharp,

That wounded spirit still is alive,

That dejected heart still holds hope,

This world of unbelief still holds this believer...

The warmth of God's Hand;

Takes the last of doubt.

And you stand - light upon light;

From head to toe facing Darkness.

 

Syed M Shah

T.S. Eliot's Ariel Poems for Advent - Six Reflections - Ron Dart

T.S. Eliot's Ariel Poems for Advent - Six Reflections

A Postcard from the Desert - Eric H. Janzen

Dear, L and R,

 

I write to you from the arid land that has become my home on an unusually cloudy day. There will be no rain. The drought continues. I had a dream some time ago that concerns you both and the time has come to share it. While I do not expect much to come of this, it must nevertheless be shared if for no other reason than to unburden my soul.

In the dream, I was a silent presence. Neither of you could see me. We were in a house made of old, rotting boards of wood, perched on tall stilts over a swamp. The air was humid. Uncomfortable. L walked over to a bookshelf where they removed a scrapbook containing pictures and articles of R’s hero and political events. R quickly rushed over, snatched the book away, and yelled, “Don’t touch that! It’s sacred.”

L sneered, “How can you possibly say that? How can you have that in here?”

R’s face reddened—not with anger, but rage. Silently, I watched, astonished at R’s rapid escalation into this fearful state. R shouted. L backed away, puffed out their chest, and began shouting over R. You both engaged in one upping the other. Such dreadful clamour would not be possible in the waking world. The fragile house creaked under the weight of your words, and I feared it would collapse, sending us into the murky depths below. I moved to the door. As a sensitive soul, this display was simply too much for me. However, in the doorway, a Presence stopped me and whispered:

Watch. Listen. This is the important moment.

I obeyed and realized that R and L’s words were becoming similar with every bellow and shout they could muster. Slowly, their voices and words synced up and they stood before each other yelling simultaneously:

“You are a hypocrite! You do not treat others the way you want to be treated!”

This accusation trapped you both, and you seemed unable to move beyond it, as if time itself had frozen in that moment. There were no new words—only this single, unyielding judgment.

And I despaired, for I realized that once all the arguments over value systems, belief systems, political paradigms and ideologies were stripped away, this one sad truth remained: L and R, you have become the same. You have both forgotten your true selves. You have abandoned the Way of Love—the path of Christ, who calls us to love our neighbor, love our enemy, and love God. The Golden Rule has been twisted into a rule of accusation instead of a rule meant for reconciliation. I woke up and recorded this terrible dream, hoping I would never have to send it to you. Alas, my conscience demands I write you this letter.

I do not expect L’s family or R’s family to care much about this, but I ask that those who still follow Christ pause and reflect on its meaning. Here in the desert, we do not have faith in political powers of any kind, for they are, as the apostle Paul warned us, the “powers and principalities” of this world. The dream reveals the ultimate end of those who give themselves over to political ideologies as though they are “sacred”, placing them as equal to Christ and his Kingdom, which is of course idolatry. What is the fruit of this? Where does it lead? In the dream, dear L and R, you were no longer the sheep you once were, but wolves. Sheep follow their Shepherd, embracing His way of love, mercy, and reconciliation—the very ministry we were entrusted with. Wolves, on the other hand, follow only their own hunger for power. They hunt others and are driven by one desire: to dominate, to control, to rule over both their pack and everything outside it.

I implore you to think once more about what you are doing, saying, and believing.

Sincerely,

E

Joonas Sildre's "Between Two Sounds" - Review by Bradley Jersak

Joonas Sildre’s Between Two Sounds: Arvo Pärt’s Journey to his Musical Language (trans. Adam Cullen (Plough Publishing, 2024).

I confess that I had not recalled previously hearing of Arvo Pärt, the subversive Estonian musician and Soviet exile, nor of ‘tintinnabuli,’ the distinctive musical technique he created. It’s unlikely I would have happened upon him were it not for my friends at Plough Publishing, who graciously sent me a beautiful copy of a graphic novel about his work. That led me to a deep dive of reading the book, listening to hours of Pärt’s compositions, digging into his history as a dissident, and studying his technique. What tied it all together for me was his faith and the remarkable story told so creatively by Sildre and his graphics.

Please purchase your copy >> HERE. 

What worked for me so well: first, the 220+ page biography moves quickly because the various sized panels don’t bog down the reader with excessive text. The narrative flows smoothly through the well-written dialogue and clean artwork. The black, white, and greyscale was appropriate to the era and Joonas Sildre is a master of drawing music.    

The story itself caught my attention because of my own heritage—a family of faith that knew the communist era persecutions of Czechoslovakia and their musical resistance to the hammer and sickle with bow strings and brass. It was beautiful to hear how Pärt could proclaim the ancient themes of Emmanuel, the Nativity and the Passion in a new musical language.

When I first sampled Arvo Pärt’s tintinnabuli works, it sounded like a brooding form of classical songwriting. But there’s more to it than that. On one hand, it derives in part from early polyphony and Gregorian chant. On the other, tintinnabuli was truly invented by Pärt in 1976 (in a piano piece titled Für Alina. In a fascinating article, “Tintinnabuli – technique, style or ideology? Music In Movement,” it is defined as

… a distinct technique, which in essence unites two monodic lines of structure – melody and triad – into one, inseparable ensemble. It creates an original duality of voices, the course and inner logic of which are defined by strict, even complicated mathematical formulas…

Tintinnabuli music can also be described as a style in which the musical material is extremely concentrated, reduced only to the most important, where the simple rhythm and often gradually progressing melodies and triadic, so-called tintinnabuli voices are integrated into the complicated art of polyphony, expressing the composer’s special relationship to silence.

In addition, tintinnabuli is also an ideology, a very personal and deeply sensed attitude to life for the composer, based on Christian values, religious practice and a quest for truth, beauty and purity.

In Arvo Pärt’s own words,

I could compare my music to white light which contains all colours. Only a prism can divide the colours and make them appear; this prism could be the spirit of the listener.

More technically, he adds,

“Tintinnabuli is the mathematically exact connection from one line to another…. the rule where the melody and the accompaniment is one. One and one, it is one – it is not two. This is the secret of this technique.”

For my own part, the graphic novel taught me how to listen (and ‘see’!) the importance and function of silence—both in the musical compositions and in the spirit/Spirit of faith-based resistance (external and internal). I’ll leave you with
a sampling here of Sildre’s art and then Pärt’s music below:

 

From Darkness, Comes Light - A Poetic Response to Dante's Inferno by Luke Schulz

From Darkness, Comes Light -or- How I Learned to Love My Fate
A personal, poetic response to Dante’s Inferno

By: Luke Schulz

This poem is written as a personal reflection on the relationship between Virgil and Dante I could never hope to approach the grandeur of The Commedia. I should be glad if I could even live up to Lewis’ Great Divorce. However, I have attempted here to creatively capture the sense I felt in Inferno, and what that would look like in my own personal experience. Nietzsche has meant a lot to me, and he was, though a self-styled antichrist, a light in my darkest hour. The ironic prophet in my return to the light, and his teaching has returned me to the Christian fold. Like Virgil, he cannot take me all the way to that multi-folate rose, yet he is an invaluable guide on the journey, and in my view certainly deserves to be awarded the status of Prophet. He is prophecy reads like the Old Testament at times, but that is in some sense his mission, to reboot the West, an OT renaissance sans what the Christian religion has become. I hope the value of his vision is conveyed in these verses.

Because I am no high romantic writer, at least not at this stage of the game, I chose to stylistically reflect the time and place this has been written. Borrowing in some ways from the style of T. S. Eliot, there is no set rhyme scheme in the poem. In fact, the first section contains few rhymes, if any. But as the teaching takes hold of the student, the poetic speech begins to flourish. This happened naturally as I wrote, but I understand why. It is the same with my own thinking. As my personal views become more clarified, they also become more poetic. Many of the verses here occurred to me just as they remain written, knowledge

comes to me in little, metered, pieces, and the next thought, the next idea, often rhymes with the last as it occurs to me. I have allowed this process to be laid bare in the text. So what we have here is a post-modern prose of seven line stanzas, why, I am not too sure, but that was the only rule I followed. The rhyme and meter come and go, but increase as the Prophet’s vision becomes more clear.

CLICK download and read the rest of "From Darkness Comes Light

Review of Martens & Niskanen's "The Transcendental Mystery of God's Word" - by Ron Dart

John W. Martens and Paul V. Niskanen (eds.), The Transcendent Mystery of God’s Word: A Critical Synthesis of Antioch and Alexandria (Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2024).

There has been, in the history of Christian exegesis, at one level, a consistent yet unhelpful tension, simplification and polarization between the literal, grammatical, historic and linguistic approach to exegesis that Antioch (both as a place and metaphor for a type of exegesis) embodies and the more allegorical, tropological, anagogical and mystical exegetical approach of Alexandria (both as a site and icon) of an alternate approach to exegesis. Needless to say, such an either-or attitude should not dominate—in short, there is plenty of Alexandria in Antioch and Antioch in Alexandria.

I should note, before I comment on this fine book, that it was dedicated to Ben D. Meyer (1926-1995). When I was doing my PHD at McMaster University in the mid-1980s, I was Ben’s TA for a semester. I shall never forget the way he assigned, for a lower level class, Bernard Lonergan’s (1904-1984) Insight: A Study in Human Understanding---we who were his TAs had to interpret Lonergan to students who had not the slightest idea of what Lonergan was saying, doing and why, his opposition to “field specialization-subject specialization”, most young students not mature enough to comprehend. But, Ben’s thinking had been deeply impacted by Lonergan and Lonergan-Meyer were grappling, in a significant and nuanced way, with the challenges of the Enlightenment’s historic, empirical and rationalist approach (that was used by many in their approach to the Bible) and a more classical layered method (that was true to modern methods but also acutely alert to how such approaches both revealed and concealed the motherlode and mystery of the text).

The Transcendent Mystery of God’s Word brings together essays from a conference in June 2022, highlighting eight packed and challenging chapters that engage, in an updated way, layered ways of defining both Antioch and Alexandria and a lively and healthy dialogue between them. Specific texts are chosen from limited passages in the Bible that reflect both Antioch and Alexandria and massage the nature of both “letter” and “Spirit”. The varied approaches of Patristic exegesis and how Psalms can be interpreted and applied are wisely covered just as New Testament texts that reflect on the baptism of Jesus and “the Johannine Farewell Discourse”. Each of these chapters, when read slowly and thoughtfully, reread and sat with for days, walks the attentive reader into a way of reading the Bible in a way that asks of the reader a thoughtful and receptive mind and imagination. A rather dated and, perhaps, irrelevant notion of Antioch versus Alexandria or Alexandria versus Antioch vanishes in such a judicious approach and multiple probes. I have no doubt that Ben Meyer would be amply pleased with those who have been given the torch he once carried and carried it yet further.

The front cover of the book has splendid painting of St. Jerome as a portal of sorts into the sanctuary of insights. It might have been valuable, given the Antioch-Alexandria dialogue to have Origen gracing the cover also. 

Ben Meyer was at McMaster at the same time as the much respected Canadian political philosopher George Grant. Both Grant and Meyer would have agreed with Lonergan’s questioning of “field specialization-subject specialization”--all three would have been committed to multiple methods to approach the more comprehensive whole and mystery of the journey. The underlying vision of The Transcendent Mystery of God’s Word very much reflects such a notion of the deeper concerns and reasons for uniting, in an updated way, Antioch and Alexandria.     

The Bibliography in The Transcendent Mystery of God’s Word is an inviting library in itself and many of the books listed point in directions for those interested that bring to the fore the fuller landscape of the Antioch-Alexandria merging. If understood aright, these approaches can be friends on the journey rather than opponents. John Martens and Paul Niskanen should be offered many a kudo for this 10 bell book that one and all should read and inwardly digest for a mature understanding of Antioch-Alexandria and the transcendent mystery of God’s Word.

Amor Vincit Omnia

Ron Dart                

The Free Gift of the Free God - Steve Robinson

"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:2

It's amazing how a pre-conceived "framework" constrains how you understand a piece of text. For example, 2x4 is either 8 or a piece of lumber depending on whether you are a mathematician or a carpenter. We always come to texts with a framework which is sometimes not found in the text itself. 

So, the "juridical/accounting/transactional" framework that I was taught always told me that St. Paul meant "If we sinned we owed God big-time, so much that we could never re-pay so Jesus paid it for us, suffering the wrathful penalty of God's justice, paid the debt we owed to God for our sins, and the zero balance of the ledger was our free gift from Christ". 

Over the years the "substitutionary" framework (as it is usually preached) made less and less sense as "the gospel" in light of what I read about God in the Gospels. One day I read the text exactly as it is written: It says "SIN pays the wage of death." Not God. God doesn't kill us because we sin. WE embrace death when we serve sin, and sin gives us the paycheck it promises and we cash it: Alienation and separation from God who is Life. Apart from Life, we die. 

And yet God still offers a free gift: Himself, Life, not "wages". He doesn't offer Life as a paycheck for "not sinning", He offers forgiveness carte blanche. He always has from the beginning. There is no death in God. There cannot be, because He is Life eternal. Death is only in us.

St. Gregory said, "What is not assumed is not healed." That is The Gospel in seven words. When Jesus died in His human flesh He assumed ALL that is within us, our nature, our limitations, our will, our mortal flesh and ultimately even our death and united it ALL to God. He accepted sin's "wage" even though He didn't earn it by sinning. He took the paycheck and ripped it up instead of cashing it in.

So, God didn't kill Jesus instead of us (John MacArthur's take on Good Friday). Christ accepted the wages from sin (not from God the Father) on our behalf and nailed the W-2 to the cross (Colossians 2:14). Death is zero'd out. In Christ we have no fear of an audit, no taxes due, no penalties for non-payment of our back taxes. It has ALL been assumed into Christ. 

In all the Parables, the Master, Lord, King, Landowner forgave the debts of his crappy householders, borrowers, scammers, and negligent subjects with "a Word". He NEVER extracted the due debt from an innocent third party and then offer the zero-sum, paid off balance sheet to the debtors as a "gift" the innocent paid for. On the Cross God in Christ absorbs death, the wages of sin, into Himself because God is Life and not even our "last enemy" (I Cor. 15:26), invincible death can prevail before and within God. As Solomon said, "Love is stronger than death..."

St. Paul says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" at the Cross. (2 Cor. 5:19) He was not vicariously punishing Christ, exacting a penalty, or substituting Him for us in some cosmic juridical execution of a guilty evil-doer. THIS is why we celebrate "The Feast of The Precious and Life-giving Cross" because death is slain through the power of love. Therefore it is not called "The Celebration of the Horror of the Penalty God Demanded in His Righteousness". 

The Gospel is not about wages, ledger books to be balanced, cosmic justice and penalties to be paid to a God who must pay Himself off via His Son to satisfy His need for a balanced ledger or the guilty punished. The Gospel is about a benevolent King who just forgives because that is who He is: an unconstrained, free God who is Love. And because of that He takes all the crap and debt and even death that we can deal out into Himself for our sake's just because He loves us, because that is His nature.

I once held the former thing as "Gospel", and it made sense to me until it didn't. Then I found the latter thing in the Parables. The longer I live the latter thing makes more and more sense to me. God says to us, "Forgive your enemies..." and either He expects us to be better gods than Him as a "juridical God" or He does what He expects of us (though we fall short, He does not.)

All that said, we look upon the Cross today as our salvation, regardless of what theological framework we bring to it. 

As if we can make sense of the horror of the Cross.

As if we can make sense of human, much less, divine Love.

(For the Feast of the Cross, Sept. 14).

Painting by Salvador Dali

Compassion Not Criminalization: The Chronic Misunderstanding of Drug Addiction - Madeleine Canlis

Compassion Not Criminalization: The Chronic Misunderstanding of Drug Addiction
by Madeleine T. Canlis

Madeleine Canlis

The opioid crisis is at an all-time high, killing around 250 people each day in the US alone (USA Facts, 2024). While controversy ensues over the most effective strategy to address this national health crisis, most everyone can at least agree that the billions of dollars spent up to this point has not worked. With the infamously unsuccessful War on Drugs anchoring our collective understanding of addiction, we must ask ourselves, is there a better way to address this issue? Drawing from scholarly research, expert opinions, and global examples, I will be contending that we are gravely misunderstanding addiction, and that the solution to this crisis lies not in increased punishment but in compassion and trauma-informed care.

A quick note on language: I will be mostly using the term “PWUD” (people who use drugs) instead of “addicts”. As I discuss the importance of empowering PWUD, I find it appropriate to emphasize the person over the problem. That being said, I know many PWUD who self-select the term “addict”, finding it more accessible and less performative. For that reason, there are a few cases where the term “addict” is used.

If I were to ask someone what they think causes drug addiction, chances are they would answer that when someone tries a drug, especially the stronger ones, they are likely to become addicted to it due to the strong chemical hooks of the drug. Makes sense, right? Well, many case studies throughout history seem to suggest an alternate explanation, leaving us to take a look at the numbers and see that something isn’t adding up. Take, for example, American soldiers during the Vietnam War. A few years into the conflict, a startling statistic was reported to the American public that 20 percent of active soldiers had become heroin addicts in their time deployed. For a country rallying around Nixon’s promise to eradicate drug abuse once and for all, this news was unsettling.

As these soldiers arrived back home, however, something peculiar happened: 95 percent of them quit cold turkey, returning smoothly to the comfort of the lives they had left before the war (Hari, 2015). If addiction was caused principally by the development of a chemical dependency, these men should’ve been addicts for life. What piece are we missing? Well, according to author Johann Hari (2015), we are attributing addiction to all the wrong sources. He teaches that the opposite of addiction isn’t sobriety, but connection. These soldiers were using heroin to survive the hellish conditions of war; when they returned home to their families and places of belonging, there was no need for it anymore. Perhaps even stronger than chemical hooks are social and environmental factors. This realization changes everything.

CLICK HERE to download the full article and continue reading

Madeleine Canlis is a Grad Student in School of Social Work, University of Washington

 

New Release: Philemon of Gaza Meditates Luke's Gospel

New Release: Philemon of Gaza Meditates Luke's Gospel 

"Turning the the other cheek is not enough: Luke 6:27-38"

The People's Seminary is delighted to announce the publication of the first English translation of 6th Century Philemon of Gaza's mediation on Luke's Gospel. Check out his inspiring reflection on Luke 6:27-38 below.

“To whoever slaps you on one cheek offer him the other.”

When we have received a slap, the first reaction that comes to us is most often to respond, slap for slap, we might say. The action of anger is rapid, so rapid in fact that it is, so to speak, instinctive. Also, what the Lord commands us regarding the slap becomes very difficult because we are to turn the other cheek before even responding to our aggressor. 

There are commandments that we can obey after careful consideration, but this is not the case with this one. We are to turn our cheek spontaneously, without even taking time to think. We barely have time to pray before turning the other cheek, and if we pray, then our prayer must be very brief, spontaneous, instinctive and precede any reflection.

Such rapid and instinctive obedience is not possible without long prior work on our part, without long practice of prayer, without long practice of obedience to the Lord, without such practice that our obedience has become our new nature. Then we can turn the other cheek without anger, without responding slap for slap. Anger is a fire that lights up very quickly; it is like a beast with rapid reflexes. Not responding to a slap requires having tamed anger and being its master. What is then necessary for us is self-control; it is also to have replaced anger with gentleness.

O my soul, you know that meekness and self-control are fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:23). The long preliminary work that we must do in order not to retaliate against a slap is therefore only possible with the help of the Lord and the precious gift of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. You also know that this help is granted to us in response to a long practice of prayer and unfailing obedience to the commandments of the Lord; thus, our obedience to the command on slapping will be spontaneous. 

Only the humble know how to obey in this way, those whose humility has been granted by the Lord along with meekness and self-control. I now understand the apophthegm where we are told that a hermit turned the other cheek and thus chased away an evil spirit, he lived so much in this perfect humility received from the Lord. 

However, after turning the other cheek, we may still not at peace, nor in love towards our aggressor, nor ready to forgive him. Why is that? 

Turning your cheek is not enough! O my soul, I give thanks for the enlightenment given by the Lord to Abba Joseph who explains to us that this absence of peace comes from the fact that our pride has also been slapped. Indeed, not only has our cheek received a slap, but our pride has received one too. So if the fire of our anger was extinguished when we turned our cheek, another fire remains in us, the fire of resentment, a fire maintained by our pride which refuses to forgive and love our aggressor. While anger reacts and retaliates quickly, without even thinking, resentment takes time to reflect and nurture revenge before responding to the aggression. 

This is why, Abba Joseph tells us, we must truly obey the Lord and turn the other cheek, not the left cheek when the right has been struck, but the other right cheek, the inner cheek of our pride. 

This in truth is the deep meaning of the commandment given to us by the Lord. How marvelous! The long work that it is good for us before being attacked is the work of humility which alone chases away pride and resentment and then allows us to forgive our aggressor and to truly love. This humility that is victorious over pride is that which only the Lord can give us, the divine humility which he grants to those who have already walked a long way down the path of human humility. It is this humility received from the Lord which allows us to obey spontaneously, this famous humility which allowed Mark, the disciple of Abba Silvanus, to interrupt the writing of his omega. It is the very humility of Jesus who was slapped several times without ever responding with a slap (Mt 26:7; Mk 14:65; Jn 18:22; 19:3). 

We are never told that he turned the other cheek, because in truth, it was the invisible inner cheek that he turned; this reaction escaped the eyes of men, but not the eyes of the Evil One who was immediately repelled and chased away. The Lord, meek and humble of heart (Mt 11:29), is the only one who can enable us to respond with meekness and humility to an aggressor. He only grants this gift to those who open themselves to it through long interior work in synergy with him. Then we are given to turn our inner cheek with true love to our enemy.

Order your copy of Philemon of Gaza Meditates Luke's Gospel here.

Philemon of Gaza Meditates Mark's Gospel, is now available as an Audiobook here, as is Daniel Bourguet's The Humble Divinity of Jesus in Mark's Gospel, Volume 1 and Volume 2 paperback, e-book and Audiobook versions.

DOES THE BIBLE REVEAL A GOD WHO KILLS? Richard Murray

DOES THE BIBLE REVEAL A GOD WHO KILLS? 

Rather than starting from the Old Testament and working forward, we need to start from the more illuminated New Testament and work backward. 

This really has more to do with us a better recognizing the New Covenant SPIRIT rather than the Old Testament LETTER, or, put another way, the spiritual fingerprints of Jesus versus the spiritual fingerprints of Satan. 

This is scripturally true regardless of whether we consider the devil a dark angelic “who,” OR instead as a dark dynamical “what”. Whoever or whatever the devil is, the term Satan symbolizes the dark energies which are untethered from the divine will and work death, fear, hostility, condemnation, accusation, and oppression within this Earth realm. 

Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan, not utilize them, and to reveal to us that do NOT come from the Father (1 John 1:3).Satan is the killing source, not God. (John 10:10). Satan is the "murderer from the beginning," not God. (John 8:44). Hebrews 2:14-15 says Satan has the "power of death," NOT God. 1 Corinthians 15 lists "death" as an "enemy" of God, not a friendly force He uses. In other words, Jesus simply doesn't kill. Death is not in His nature. Let's start from the New Covenant Jesus and work backward to the Old Covenant view of God as killer. 

Jesus reveals a God who NEVER kills, and never orders us to kill. But, in wrongly reading OT Scripture "by the letter," which Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:6 to NEVER do, for "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," one could say God kills and tells many others like Joshua and Saul to kill whole tribes of women, babies and men.

But reading the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-48 we are told in the last verse to "Therefore be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect." What is the "Therefore" there for? The previous 10 verses tell us what the Father's perfection is--- to turn the other cheek toward our enemies, to bless those who curse us and despitefully use us, to pray for our enemies rather than kill them, to go the extra mile and give the extra coat. Just like the Lord blesses the just and the unjust with needed rain and energizing sunlight, the Father doesn't kill His enemies, but instead overcomes them with good. Romans 12:21.

So, as "able ministers of the New Covenant,"(2 Corinthians 3:6), if we read the Old Testament with the New Testament Spirit, which always gives life, we will see that it was Satan, always Satan, masquerading as an agent of God, who either kills or orders us to kill. 

The Old Testament had an UNDIFFERENTIATED view of God and Satan. The writers were not aware that Satan was an enemy of God. They thought he was an obedient angel of God, the Lord's "left hand" of wrath so to speak. So often, when the OT says "God said," it could refer to EITHER God or Satan saying it BECAUSE the OT Jews believed they were both just displaying different parts of God's nature. But, Jesus came to declare and differentiate the works of His Father from the works of Satan. Satan's death and destructions are NOT of God. Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan, not to claim them as His own. 1 John 3:8.

Simply put, the Old Testament was written from a perspective which saw Satan as an angel with a tough job, but who ultimately was just following the Lord's orders. Jesus, in contrast, revealed in His teachings and tone that Satan was violently OPPOSED to His Father's will RATHER than humbly submitted to it. Read most any Jewish religious reference material on Satan, and you will see they believe that Satan was the death angel who smote all the Egyptian firstborn, supposedly at the Lord's command. 

And not just the Egyptians. Jewish orthodoxy still largely believes that Satan is the grim reaper who ultimately kills all men at God's sole command. The book of Job shows Satan kills with sickness ("boils"), with nature ("a great wind"), with other violent men ("Sabeans with swords"), and with supernatural power ("fire from heaven"). Satan is a master assassin who kills a million different ways, but always, the Jews believe, at the express command of God. Jesus came in the New Testament to correct that view as error by revealing Satan to be a cosmic rebel, liar and murderer fro the beginning rather than an obedient angel merely fulfilling his purpose in creation.

As THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF JEWISH CONCEPTS by Philip Birnbaum says, "Satan...is...identified with the angel of death. He leads astray, then he brings accusations against man, whom he slays eventually. His chief functions are those of temptation, accusation and punishment. Under the control of God, he acts solely with the divine permission to carry out his plots." (Sanhedrin Press, page 594). Rabbi Benjamin Blech similarly writes, "Judaism sees Satan as a servant of God whose function is to set up choices between good and evil so that we can exercise our free will.... [His] apparent harshness is merely camouflage for divine concern and love." IF GOD IS SO GOOD, WHY IS THE WORLD SO BAD? Simcha Press, pages 7-9.

In the New Testament, we get a significantly different picture. While Hebrews 2:14-15 confirms that Satan, as "the devil," does indeed have "the power of death," Jesus' purpose in bearing the cross was to "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Put even more bluntly in this passage, Jesus ascended the cross in order to "destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." 

Jesus came to destroy the works of the destroyer. 1 John 3:8. But Jesus destroyed them not with His "alleged" counter-wrath, but with His sacrificial love. Jesus came to reveal that all forms of "death" and "violence" were enemies of God and never a part of His divine nature. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 defines the dynamic of "death" as an "enemy" of God to be "put under His feet" until it's "destroyed."

So, if the Old Testament saints were confused and not able to differentiate the purposes of Satan and God, what does this imply about their ability to distinguish between the voices of God and the devil? Well, it allows for the absolute mother of all mistaken identities--- confusing the voices of God and Satan--- or, just as tragic, mistakenly combining their TWO voices into ONE bipolar voice. 

Like a high static radio, which sometimes receives two different signals at once, the Old Testament saints were hearing from both Yahweh and Satan, sometimes alternatively, and sometimes simultaneously. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, they could not distinguish between both voices, again just like a radio receiving two different stations although the dial is only on one setting. The Old Testament saints assumed both voices were from God, that both WERE God. 

But, Jesus came to correct all misunderstandings about His Father. We have the anointing, BECAUSE of Jesus, to go back and properly divide Scripture, just like He did in Matthew 5:38-48. Jesus came to reveal His Father's light and Satan's darkness, something the Old Testament saints were clueless about. John 1:18.

DOES THE BIBLE REVEAL A GOD WHO KILLS? Richard Murray

DOES THE BIBLE REVEAL A GOD WHO KILLS? 

Rather than starting from the Old Testament and working forward, we need to start from the more illuminated New Testament and work backward. 

This really has more to do with us a better recognizing the New Covenant SPIRIT rather than the Old Testament LETTER, or, put another way, the spiritual fingerprints of Jesus versus the spiritual fingerprints of Satan. 

This is scripturally true regardless of whether we consider the devil a dark angelic “who,” OR instead as a dark dynamical “what”. Whoever or whatever the devil is, the term Satan symbolizes the dark energies which are untethered from the divine will and work death, fear, hostility, condemnation, accusation, and oppression within this Earth realm. 

Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan, not utilize them, and to reveal to us that do NOT come from the Father (1 John 1:3).Satan is the killing source, not God. (John 10:10). Satan is the "murderer from the beginning," not God. (John 8:44). Hebrews 2:14-15 says Satan has the "power of death," NOT God. 1 Corinthians 15 lists "death" as an "enemy" of God, not a friendly force He uses. In other words, Jesus simply doesn't kill. Death is not in His nature. Let's start from the New Covenant Jesus and work backward to the Old Covenant view of God as killer. 

Jesus reveals a God who NEVER kills, and never orders us to kill. But, in wrongly reading OT Scripture "by the letter," which Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:6 to NEVER do, for "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," one could say God kills and tells many others like Joshua and Saul to kill whole tribes of women, babies and men.

But reading the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-48 we are told in the last verse to "Therefore be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect." What is the "Therefore" there for? The previous 10 verses tell us what the Father's perfection is--- to turn the other cheek toward our enemies, to bless those who curse us and despitefully use us, to pray for our enemies rather than kill them, to go the extra mile and give the extra coat. Just like the Lord blesses the just and the unjust with needed rain and energizing sunlight, the Father doesn't kill His enemies, but instead overcomes them with good. Romans 12:21.

So, as "able ministers of the New Covenant,"(2 Corinthians 3:6), if we read the Old Testament with the New Testament Spirit, which always gives life, we will see that it was Satan, always Satan, masquerading as an agent of God, who either kills or orders us to kill. 

The Old Testament had an UNDIFFERENTIATED view of God and Satan. The writers were not aware that Satan was an enemy of God. They thought he was an obedient angel of God, the Lord's "left hand" of wrath so to speak. So often, when the OT says "God said," it could refer to EITHER God or Satan saying it BECAUSE the OT Jews believed they were both just displaying different parts of God's nature. But, Jesus came to declare and differentiate the works of His Father from the works of Satan. Satan's death and destructions are NOT of God. Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan, not to claim them as His own. 1 John 3:8.

Simply put, the Old Testament was written from a perspective which saw Satan as an angel with a tough job, but who ultimately was just following the Lord's orders. Jesus, in contrast, revealed in His teachings and tone that Satan was violently OPPOSED to His Father's will RATHER than humbly submitted to it. Read most any Jewish religious reference material on Satan, and you will see they believe that Satan was the death angel who smote all the Egyptian firstborn, supposedly at the Lord's command. 

And not just the Egyptians. Jewish orthodoxy still largely believes that Satan is the grim reaper who ultimately kills all men at God's sole command. The book of Job shows Satan kills with sickness ("boils"), with nature ("a great wind"), with other violent men ("Sabeans with swords"), and with supernatural power ("fire from heaven"). Satan is a master assassin who kills a million different ways, but always, the Jews believe, at the express command of God. Jesus came in the New Testament to correct that view as error by revealing Satan to be a cosmic rebel, liar and murderer fro the beginning rather than an obedient angel merely fulfilling his purpose in creation.

As THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF JEWISH CONCEPTS by Philip Birnbaum says, "Satan...is...identified with the angel of death. He leads astray, then he brings accusations against man, whom he slays eventually. His chief functions are those of temptation, accusation and punishment. Under the control of God, he acts solely with the divine permission to carry out his plots." (Sanhedrin Press, page 594). Rabbi Benjamin Blech similarly writes, "Judaism sees Satan as a servant of God whose function is to set up choices between good and evil so that we can exercise our free will.... [His] apparent harshness is merely camouflage for divine concern and love." IF GOD IS SO GOOD, WHY IS THE WORLD SO BAD? Simcha Press, pages 7-9.

In the New Testament, we get a significantly different picture. While Hebrews 2:14-15 confirms that Satan, as "the devil," does indeed have "the power of death," Jesus' purpose in bearing the cross was to "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Put even more bluntly in this passage, Jesus ascended the cross in order to "destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." 

Jesus came to destroy the works of the destroyer. 1 John 3:8. But Jesus destroyed them not with His "alleged" counter-wrath, but with His sacrificial love. Jesus came to reveal that all forms of "death" and "violence" were enemies of God and never a part of His divine nature. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 defines the dynamic of "death" as an "enemy" of God to be "put under His feet" until it's "destroyed."

So, if the Old Testament saints were confused and not able to differentiate the purposes of Satan and God, what does this imply about their ability to distinguish between the voices of God and the devil? Well, it allows for the absolute mother of all mistaken identities--- confusing the voices of God and Satan--- or, just as tragic, mistakenly combining their TWO voices into ONE bipolar voice. 

Like a high static radio, which sometimes receives two different signals at once, the Old Testament saints were hearing from both Yahweh and Satan, sometimes alternatively, and sometimes simultaneously. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, they could not distinguish between both voices, again just like a radio receiving two different stations although the dial is only on one setting. The Old Testament saints assumed both voices were from God, that both WERE God. 

But, Jesus came to correct all misunderstandings about His Father. We have the anointing, BECAUSE of Jesus, to go back and properly divide Scripture, just like He did in Matthew 5:38-48. Jesus came to reveal His Father's light and Satan's darkness, something the Old Testament saints were clueless about. John 1:18.

When the Old & New Testaments *Literally* Clash - Richard Murray

What are we to do when the Old and New Testaments "appear" to LITERALLY clash in meaning?

Here are a few examples.

The New Testament says Satan is the destroyer who wields "the power of death," NOT God. Hebrews 2:14-15. 

The Old Testament, by contrast, says God alone holds the power of death. Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalm 90.

Both can't LITERALLY (by the dead letter) be right. 

The New Testament says Satan is the afflicter and oppressor of men, not God, never God. Acts 10:38; John 10:10. 

The Old Testament says that God alone is the ultimate oppressor and afflicter of men. Deuteronomy 28:15-68; Psalm 90; Job 1:21.

Both can't LITERALLY (by the dead letter) be right. 

The New Testament teaches "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all" and that He has no connection to "evil" whatsoever, and to let no man say" otherwise, not even Old Testament men. 1 John 1:5; James 1:13-17. 

The Old Testament LITERALLY says God DOES have darkness within Him and that He IS the author and doer of evil. Amos 3:6; Isaiah 45:7.

Both can't LITERALLY (by the dead letter) be right. 

The New Testament says that ONLY good and non-harmful gifts come down from the Father of Lights in whom there is no shadow of turning. James 1:16-17; Luke 11:10-13. 

The Old Testament LITERALLY says God "delights" to afflict us with "marvelous...plagues,...  enemies, ...famines, ...destructions...and many other curses." God happily sends these oppressions directly our way straight from His wrathful hand until we are "utterly destroyed." Deuteronomy 28:15-68; Psalm 91.

Both can't LITERALLY (by the dead letter) be right. 

I could go on and on. The issue here is that the Old Testament had an undifferentiated view of God. They wrongly believed, due to their developmental limitations, that Satan was God's "angry voice," His "left hand of wrath," His "obedient servant angel" who was merely carrying out God's express commands to tempt, punish and eventually kill all men.

But the above view is not at all consistent with New Testament teaching regarding Satan (regardless of whether we consider the devil a dark angel OR a dark dynamic working within the corporate psyche of humanity). 

Satan is NOT fulfilling God's will, but OPPOSING it on every level. New Testament Scripture proclaims Satan a cosmic rebel, the accuser of the brethren, the tempter, a liar, a murderer from the beginning, the destroyer, a thief, a devouring lion, the god of this world, and the prince of the power of the air. Jesus came to destroy Satan's works, not implement them (1 John 3:8). Jesus came to fully differentiate His Father's nature from Satan's nature. He came to cull away and forever sever all Satanic attributes which had been wrongly attributed to His Abba's character by the OT saints. 

The early church fathers recognized these sometimes conflicting ideologies between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The fathers certainly encouraged us to not always read OT passages literally. They believed that Scriptures had to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit before their deeper meanings could rightly be understood. 

Even though there were on occasion some "literal" misstatements in the OT due to their developmental limitations from not being indwelt by the New Covenant Pentecostal Spirit, what they wrote was nonetheless of great value. But, their writings just had to be excavated, elevated and renovated  to comport with the "better" understanding of the New Testament revelation.

Here is the perfect example. God confessed in Isaiah 13:3-18, in the first person no less, to wrathfully causing: a nation of women to be raped, a nation of infants to be executed by smashing them all to pieces against rocks, a nation of children to be mercilessly impaled with arrows, and, finally, a nation of men to be executed by the sword. 

To claim that Jesus (or His beloved Abba) were rapists would, of course, be blasphemy. 

And yet, and yet, and yet----- Isaiah 13:3-18 says (quoting God in the first person) that God's 'burning wrath' DOES do all this pillaging, raping, and killing. 

So what's the point? Merely this. If you won't accept the 'rape confession' as coming from the lips of Jesus, then don't dare accept any OTHER Old Testament quote as coming directly from Jesus' lips IF it portrays His Father as being a plague-sending, famine-bringing, fire-flinging, bone-crushing, child-drowning, throat-slitting, homicidal, genocidal, and infanticidal God.

However, if you ARE a strict Biblical literalist, then you must believe that God's 'burning wrath' 'hunts' us down and directly CAUSES: 

--women to be raped, 

--infants to be dashed to pieces against the rocks, 

--children to be impaled by arrows

--houses to be looted

'I MYSELF...SUMMONED MY WARRIORS ...to EXECUTE MY ANGER....The LORD of hosts IS MUSTERING AN ARMY FOR BATTLE. They come from a distant land...the LORD AND THE WEAPONS OF HIS INDIGNATION, to DESTROY THE WHOLE EARTH. Wail, for the day of the Lord is near; it will come like DESTRUCTION FROM THE ALMIGHTY!....See, the DAY OF THE LORD COMES, CRUEL, WITH WRATH AND FIERCE ANGER, to make the earth a desolation, and to DESTROY ITS SINNERS from it....I WILL PUNISH THE WORLD for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity.... I will make mortals more rare than fine gold....Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at THE WRATH OF THE LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger. Like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with no one to gather them, all will turn to their own people, and all will flee to their own lands. Whoever is found will be THRUST THROUGH, and whoever is caught will fall by the SWORD. Their INFANTS will be DASHED TO PIECES before their eyes; their HOUSES will be PLUNDERED, and their WIVES RAVISHED. See, I AM STIRRING UP the Medes AGAINST them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold. Their BOWS will SLAUGHTER the YOUNG men; they will have NO MERCY on the FRUIT of the WOMB; their eyes WILL NOT PITY CHILDREN.' Isaiah 13:3-18. 

The above statement literally claims to be the Lord talking in first person, so we can't say anybody else is exaggerating or misstating His character. Nor can we cop out by saying that God was just this way on this one occasion because the Lord 'changes not.' (Malachi 3:6). Either this 'baby bashing brutality' and 'man-smashing malice' and 'woman-raping evil' is in His nature now and forever-- or it isn't-- it's that simple.

Will literalists own this passage and just declare that God's burning wrath makes Him a child-killing, rape-committing, man-impaling killer? Or, will they continue to hide behind silly euphemisms that these brutal acts are just part of God's 'mysterious ways,' His 'higher ways,' His 'justice and holiness' being dispensed?

Do we really want to go here, to this dark corner of primitive savagery? I think not. 

Instead, let's choose a better hermeneutic. Let's choose Jesus as our hermeneutic. His flawless nature is written in all our consciences, waiting to be consulted and catalyzed into love. 

Don't let literalism kill your conscience. Those who loosen their 'death-grip' on Scripture will surely find their 'life-grip' on the Spirit of love and light."

Had enough yet? There are MANY, MANY, examples. So, what is the reason for these misstatements about God's character?  

All the violence, plagues, killings, oppressions, curses, afflictions, destructions and damning which the Old Testament says comes from GOD must NOW be re-evaluated with New Testament light. We must look at the particular Old Testament passage which is attributing "evil" to GOD and ask if it is referring to THE GOD OF THIS WORLD or is it referring to THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS.

The problem was that the Old Testament had an “undifferentiated" view of God. They lumped Satan into their image of Yahweh. They simply did not differentiate God from the Devil in any meaningful way. 

The result? A bipolar God who is up and down, good and evil, hateful and loving, cruel and gentle, vengeful and forgiving, murderous and peaceful.

The Old Testament certainly has many accurate and priceless versions of the wondrous acts of the true Yahweh, THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS. The Old Testament frequently reflects the riches of Jesus' love, virtue, blessing, mercy, miracles and generosity. 

But, not always. Too often, because they are largely clueless about Satan's identity, the Old Testament mars and deforms the image of God by attributing the works of Satan to God.

Jesus came to heal and reveal. He came to heal our image of a wrathful and hateful God by revealing His Father-God to be ALL love and ALL light. 

Jesus came to teach us how to differentiate the works of the true God from the works of Satan. 

Jesus IS that dynamic differentiation. 

Satan, as the FALLEN GOD (or dark cosmic sickness) afflicting this WORLD, operates in all forms of stealing, killing and destroying. 

God, on the other hand, as fully revealed by the RISEN CHRIST of the RISEN FATHER, operates only in forms of life --- the giving of it, the protection of it, the blessing of it! John 10:10.

If it’s not good it’s not God.

Self-Effacement in Philemon of Gaza & Simone Weil - Ted Hill

Self-Effacement - What I am learning from a 6th century monk and a 20th century mystic.

Philemon of Gaza Meditates Mark’s Gospel - edited by Daniel Bourguet
Gravity and Grace - Simone Weil

If you have not come across this contemplative treasure of the 6th century monk Philemon of Gaza yet, it is worth searching it out! Bob Ekblad with Tierra Nueva and The People’s Seminary Press has introduced me to this treasure.

Philemon of Gaza meditating Mark 1:21-28 where Jesus heals a man with an unclean spirit. Philemon recognizes Jesus seeing this man in deep pain unable to pray.

Philemon says this about the man: “A man who has prayer taken from him while in a place of prayer has lost his humanity.” (Bourguet, 15) This halted me. Jesus sees differently than I do. I seem to be locked into the problem/solution mode of evaluation. Jesus sees someone who has lost their being. Jesus also sees what it takes to have that humanity restored. The following is what Philemon of Gaza contemplates most as he meditates the Gospels: humility or effacement. This is the word Daniel Bourguet chose to use found in the following quote:

“Jesus said nothing. He had set a man free in order to restore him to prayer, and now was silent to make room for the man’s prayer. He stepped back so as not to disturb the man’s dialogue with God, effacing himself before both the man and his Father … the humble Jesus!” (Bourguet, 16, emphasis added)

I read this and can almost picture the face of Jesus as he removes Himself from this restoration of this man’s humanity - “so as not to disturb” - so tender a moment Philemon is describing in his meditation. Effacing is an erasing or to become inconspicuous - Jesus didn’t disappear but He refused to disturb what was happening. Nothing in Him needed to be seen or heard at this moment.

A few days before I read this meditation, I read Simone Weil’s ‘essay’ on Self-Effacement and was shocked by something so similar I even wonder if this 20th French Mystic had access to the French manuscripts of Philemon of Gaza as there is such close connection - at least in my mind - of the following Weil quote to Philemon:

“... I act as a screen. I must withdraw so that he may see it. I must withdraw so that God may make contact with the beings whom chance places in my path and whom he loves. It is tactless for me to be there. It is as though I were placed between two lovers or two friends.” (Weil, 88, emphasis added)

Earlier in the essay she says it in a less imagined way when realizing how much deprivation her presence has between God and His creatures: “I can do something for all that and for God, namely to know how to retire and to respect the tete-a-tete.” As I connect her unsettling words, that seem to be leaning toward unhealthy self-deprecation, to Philemon of Gaza’ meditation, I hear something different in her words and a few questions come to mind: Is she emptying (kenosis) herself in this effacing like Jesus did and does? Is she seeing the beauty of what God longs to see but, because of consent, cannot see until she removes herself?

In my mind, those questions lead away from self-deprecation (and any sense of will-less-ness) to an extraordinarily subtle humility, a humility that I can only sense as I read.

Weil’s subtle humility seems to be tied to a yearning to be present in the world without being present, or maybe without being the cause of distance between God and someone God loves. I am not quite sure if that is what she is saying but I am simply choosing to settle into these humble words of humility and yearning:

“I do not in the least wish that this created world should fade from my view, but I do wish that it should no longer be shown to me in person. To me it cannot tell its secret which is too high. If I go, then the creator and the creature will exchange their secrets. To see a landscape as it is when I am not there … When I am in any place, I disturb the silence of heaven and earth by my breathing and the beating of my heart.” (Weil, 89 emphasis added)

Self-Effacement is not simply an action I control such as removal or withdrawal or destruction/eraser of self, it is recognizing what our presence does and how our removal also does something essential. It cannot do (be a “screen” or “stop[ping] the light of God,” p 87) what it does without being in the way, the screen, or realization of the tactless nature of my presence. Getting out of the way is then intrinsically linked to first being in the way … is it not? Jesus was in the way of the pain of man with the evil spirit and once this man’s humanity was restored to prayer, Jesus stepped out of the way.

I want to be one who gets in the way of God so I can then know what it looks like to get out of the way and see in the posture of Christ-like humility the beauty of God’s love, the ‘secrets’ between the Creator and creature!

-----------

Weil, S. (1997). Gravity and Grace. University of Nebraska Press.

Bourguet, D. (ed) (2023). Philemon of Gaza Meditates Mark's Gospel. The People's Seminary Press.