Jon Kitna - "Give Me Your Worst Students"

 

 

Former NFL QB Jon Kitna finds ‘gold mine’

at his troubled old high school

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--former-nfl-qb-jon-kitna-finds-%E2%80%98gold-mine%E2%80%99-at-a-school-where-other-teachers-only-saw-problems-194739063.html

 

by Les Carpenter

December 19, 2012

 

 

Jon Kitna prepares for an algebra class at Lincoln High School.
(Yahoo! Sports)

TACOMA, Wash. – Before he left the Dallas Cowboys to come home again, Jon Kitna had one request of the two principals who run Lincoln High School:

 

Give me your worst students.

 

The other teachers told him to stop. This was last February and it was going to be hard enough to teach three algebra classes in the middle of a semester. He was two months gone from an NFL career that went for 16 years, after all. Yes, this was his old high school, the one where he was a star quarterback in the early 1990s, but didn’t the new football coach understand what he was getting into?

 

Didn’t he see the numbers? Didn’t he know that four of every five of the students were on free or reduced lunches? That finding a meal was more important than understanding negative integers? Inspiring the best students was going to be difficult enough. Save himself, they advised. Start slow. Make it easy.

 

Kitna shook his head. Easy wasn’t the point. At 6-foot-4 with a buzz cut and a body built for football, he fills the classroom doorways. He would not be intimidated. And how could they understand this was the only job he ever wanted – that his time in the NFL was a daily preparation for this moment? No, coming home was supposed to be as hard.

 

And so again he told the principals to have the other math teachers select the students they didn’t want – the ones who didn’t listen, who didn’t try, who didn’t care. He would take them all. The principals nodded. Lists were made, class rolls prepared. The new football coach was handed three dream teams of troublemakers. They wished him luck.

 

Only something happened in those three algebra classes, something no one could have imagined. The students who didn’t listen suddenly did. Those who never did work turned in assignments. And when the results of the math assessments came in, Kitna’s students were second best in the school. It wasn’t because their teacher was an NFL quarterback. Many of them didn’t have televisions at home. They had little idea who Jon Kitna was. No, this was something else. Something bigger. Something one of those two principals, Pat Erwin, considers in his office one recent day and finally calls: “The Kitna effect.”

 

---

 

He doesn’t have to be here, of course. Sixteen years as an NFL quarterback brought him more than $20 million. It gave him big homes and nice cars. It allowed his wife Jennifer and three children to never need again. When he walked away from the Cowboys after the 2011 season, he could have gone to the golf course or the broadcast booth or even one of those sprawling high schools with a giant stadium in a suburb of Dallas if he only wanted to coach.

 

“I don’t think that’s what my purpose was,” Kitna says. “This is my challenge. This is what I was meant to do.”

 

He is sitting at a teacher’s desk in the front of a classroom not long before his Algebra I class. Everything has changed in 20 years. Things seem worse now. There are so many more drugs. The poverty shocks him.

 

Yet people he knows from the old days say the school was more violent when he was a student. Gangs roamed the halls. He remembers the gangs but many of those kids were also his friends and they shielded him from what they were doing. Perhaps his memories are sanitized. Maybe because he was surrounded by wealth for so long the hardship here is all the more unsettling.

 

He sat with his team in a pregame study hall one fall day and told the players to close their books. Something was missing. What was it? He could sense they wanted to learn. He could see them working in school. They tried hard at football practice. And yet simple homework assignments went unfinished. Grades that had improved then mysteriously dropped. For every step forward there was a stumble.

 

“What is the disconnect?” he asked.

 

For several moments no one said anything. Then slowly the stories spilled out. Terrible stories. Heartbreaking stories. The players told of homes without parents. They said nobody in the house asked to see their homework. They talked of barely existing at all. They said the only place anyone seemed to care was at school. And they told him that even then he was the only one to whom they could relate.

 

“It was eye-opening,” Kitna says. “It was tearful to hear kids say: ‘My parents when I am doing my homework tell me to stop doing my homework and go sell drugs.’ Or to hear a kid say: ‘I don’t ever eat because I want my mom to eat and only one of us can eat.’ ”

 

For a moment Kitna is silent.

 

Then he stops and looks up wistfully.

 

“All that being said, I’m on a gold mine,” he continues. “This place is a freaking gold mine because these kids are super, uber-talented. Not just athletically. You’ve got kids who can sing and blow the pipes off of things. You see kids who can do acting and drama-type stuff and arts that are just amazing.

 

“People [in the NFL] said I got credited for being a great leader, they [said] ‘even as a backup people are drawn to you.’ And they’d say ‘why?’ Because I went here. It’s because I went here. I’m thoroughly convinced of that because if you go here you don’t just get to be one kind of person, you have to be able to adapt and intermix yourself into all different kinds of cultures and situations.”

 

A buzzer sounds. Time for class. The room begins to fill. The kids are laughing. A few say “hello.” One asks what they are going to work on that day. Kitna watches them and smiles.“I’m on a gold mine here,” he says again.

 

---

 

It takes a village to change a culture, and Kitna has filled his coaching staff with friends and associates he has known over the years. This includes former Oregon State player Casey Kjos, a cousin who he raised as a son, and Eric Boles, his teammate at Central Washington University who played briefly in the NFL. Jennifer and his brother’s wife take care of details like making meals for the team during training camp because they figure the players will otherwise not eat. Since the school had little money for things like uniforms and equipment they took over the booster club and website, and set up a 501(c)(3) and began soliciting donations.

 

Jon Kitna's football team has a weight room

equivalent to one used by NFL teams.

(Yahoo! Sports)

 

To show his seriousness, Kitna spent $150,000 to fill the weight room with equipment as nice as that in any NFL practice facility. He had the walls painted and named it after his old Lincoln teammate and longtime NFL safety Lawyer Milloy. Soon others followed. Carson Palmer, a teammate in Cincinnati, bought two industrial washers for uniforms. Current Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo provided the money for new jerseys. Calvin Johnson, his old receiver in Detroit paid for new equipment as did Cowboys linebacker DeMarcus Ware. Since the kids didn’t have their own spikes for practice, the Cowboys boxed up dozens of cleats. When Nike took over the NFL uniform contract in the spring, the Seahawks sold their now useless game pants to Lincoln at $1 a pair so the team could have practice uniforms.

 

Several times, Erwin, the co-principal, has walked into the school on Saturday mornings and found Kitna washing uniforms.

 

“I think what he is trying to do is see what can happen to kids in a high-poverty area when you put them in a world-class setting,” Erwin says.

 

But inspiring kids who come from nothing is not as easy as wearing Marshawn Lynch’s pants and Dez Bryant’s old cleats. For every moment of joy comes a day that makes no sense.

 

Not long after he arrived, Kitna took the football team to Seattle for a series of 7-on-7 drills at the University of Washington. When he sent notes to the parents, only three called to ask about the trip.

 

Then when the bus returned to Lincoln at 11:30 p.m., Kitna was stunned to discover not one parent or relative had come to meet them. He and the coaches split the players up and drove them home. It was 12:15 a.m. when Kitna dropped off the last of the players in his car. And as the door shut and the player waved good bye, Kitna wept.

 

“I could never fathom that my son would leave for school at 6:30 a.m. with no money for food and some coach I never met or know is going to take him to the University of Washington for 7-on-7 drills and I don’t even know what that means and then not have any transportation when he gets back,” he says. “That’s when it hit me how hard this was going to be.”

 

And yet he keeps pushing because this is all he knows to do, walking through the halls with a computer bag over his shoulder, nodding to kids, calling them: “Dude.”

 

“Jon does everything he has with his whole heart,” says Boles, who is one of his assistants. “I told him: ‘You are responsible to the kids but you are not responsible for them. You can’t control it, Jon.’

 

But his belief is: If they can make one decision a week or one decision a day that is better than the day before then you are making an impact.”

 

Or as the other co-principal, Greg Eisnaugle, says as he stands in the hall one day: “He just exudes positivism. He makes the kids feel they are worthy.

 

Then Eisnaugle pauses.

 

“Have you met Rayshaun Miller?” he asks.

 

---

 

On the dream team of troublemakers, Rayshaun Miller was a lottery pick. He rolled through his first year and a half at Lincoln tormenting teachers so much that many threw their hands up in frustration. The tales of his arrogance and disrespect filled the main office. Once Erwin found him in the hallway boasting of his 4.4 time in the 40-yard dash and how he would tear through opponents on the football field.

 

“How will we know, Rayshaun?” Erwin said. “You can’t stay eligible.”

 

But there is also something compelling about Miller. He is bright. While most teenagers find it difficult to connect with adults, he makes eye contact. His handshake is firm. He likes to talk. This is the student Kitna met when he arrived last February, not the one who drove the teachers mad. At the time Miller was failing pretty much everything. Kitna said he would pick him up at his house at 6:30 every morning and drive him to school where they would work on algebra before the students arrived. Later in the day, he was in Kitna’s class, which gave him more than two hours of math daily with the new coach.

 

His grades soared. The kid who was failing got A’s and B’s. The kid who mocked his teachers waved good morning. When other students fought, he broke them apart. Soon word came to the office of a new, different Rayshaun Miller. And everyone wondered just what had happened.

 

Miller stands in the weight room after school one day and says: “I got my act together.”

 

He was born in Sacramento, Calif., and was sent to live with his father in Tacoma when he was 6 to escape the violence of his old neighborhood. He hasn’t seen his mother or brother since. He says he carried the anger over this for a long time. It was Kitna, he says, who told him he couldn’t use his background as a reason for giving up.

 

“He taught me there is no excuse for not trying,” Miller says.

 

Then Miller starts to talk about his old self, the one who tried to fail. He tells a story of a time he mocked a student for getting an A in a class. He remembers calling the student “stupid.”

 

Now, in the weight room, Miller laughs.

 

“Can you believe that?” he says. “I called someone ‘stupid’ for getting an A.”

 

---

 

Football was a miracle for Kitna. Even he never imagined he’d be in the NFL. It took years to become the starting quarterback at Lincoln. Nobody was waiting with a scholarship when he graduated. His parents helped him pull the money together to go to Central Washington, an NAIA school halfway across the state, where he found himself at the bottom of a long list of quarterbacks. Eventually he became the starter. His senior year, Central won the NAIA national championship, which got him mild acclaim in Washington but did nothing to further his career.

 

Assuming he was done with football, Kitna finished his teaching degree and began pursuing the dream he and Jennifer talked so much about: teaching and coaching. Lincoln was actually looking for a head football coach. He applied but was turned down.

 

Then a few days later Dennis Erickson showed up on Central’s campus.

 

The Seahawks coach at the time was there to give a tryout to his nephew, Jamie Christian, who was one of Central’s receivers. The tryout was a family favor, yet what amazed Erickson was the quarterback whose throws looked like rockets zooming into Christian’s hands. The Seahawks offered Kitna a contract and a spot in their 1996 training camp. He made the practice squad and after the season was placed on the roster of the Barcelona Dragons of the World League. Barcelona won the league title on home turf. Kitna was MVP of the championship game and left the field to chants of “Keeetna! Keeetna! Keeetna!” He was anonymous no more.

 

He made Seattle’s roster in 1997 and became the team’s starting quarterback in 1998. In 2001 he went to Cincinnati, then to Detroit in 2006 where he threw for 4,000 yards two consecutive seasons, eventually landing in Dallas in 2009.

 

Then-Cowboys QB Jon Kitna throws a pass

against the in front 49ers in 2011. (AP)

Yet while this became his football narrative, it was never the story he wanted to tell. Rather the one he repeats, offering to anyone who will listen, is more complicated. It starts with a young college student from Tacoma who understood little about who he was. He went to parties. He drank until he was drunk. He stole. Boles, who speaks to companies about their image, once told a group from 7-Eleven: “You guys can invoice Jon Kitna because he stole so much from you.”

 

Boles was going through a religious awakening at this time. And he talked to Kitna a lot about what he learned. One night Jennifer, who was Kitna’s girlfriend at the time, came home to find him in bed with another woman. In the midst of the ensuing argument, Boles’ words suddenly made sense. And what came from that night was a different Kitna. The drinking stopped along with the stealing and the partying. His expressions of faith were overt, manifesting itself in T-shirts with slogans like “God Athletic Department” or caps with crosses. His bookshelf filled with spiritual texts.

 

His purpose became clear. He would teach. He would go back into the cities, to the worst of neighborhoods and he would make children better. He would tell them about choices and respect and responsibility. He was going to change lives.

 

---

 

With Lincoln being a public school, faith is not a part of the lesson plan. Kitna understands this and seems to respect it. After all, he is teaching in a district where students come from all over the world and from a variety of religions. And don’t the lessons he is trying to teach apply to everyone regardless of belief?

 

“Character is an every day, all the time thing,” Kitna says. “It’s who you really are. It’s not what you turn on and off when you’re around a coach or at home with your parents.”

 

He has a philosophy that he took from a team chaplain in Detroit. He calls it “the four pillars of manhood,” with each represented by a letter that forms the acronym: “R.E.A.L.” as in: A R.E.A.L. man…

 

Rejects passivity

Empathizes with others

Accepts responsibility

Leads courageously

 

And while R.E.A.L. is gender specific and targeted first toward the Lincoln football players, Kitna believes it to be a message that can be embraced by all the students. Who doesn’t need to be reminded to show empathy or courage or take responsibility for mistakes? Virtues are virtues, whether they are taught by a preacher or a math teacher or a football coach.

 

“Win with grace, lose with dignity,” Kitna says.

 

He sighs when he hears the complaints about NFL players celebrating touchdowns and sacks – mocking the failures of the opponent on that particular play. If people want to change this, he says, the time to do so isn’t when the players are in the NFL. It’s too late then. You have to reach them when they are teenagers.

 

And the lessons are harsh. One day this fall Kitna was told of a football player who watched another student draw a derogatory picture of a classmate. The football player had nothing to do with the drawing but he laughed. Kitna had a meeting with the player, the teacher and the student who was the target of the drawing.

 

“Well you didn’t do anything to help the situation,” Kitna told the player. “You didn’t reject passivity.”

 

Then he suspended the player for two series in the upcoming game.

 

Later that week, a group of football players surrounded a group of girl volleyball players from a different school who had come to Lincoln for a match. Two of the players danced suggestively in front of the girls. When Kitna found out about it the next day, he gathered the team together.

 

“Who was there?” he asked.

 

Two players raised their hands.

 

“Who else was there?” he demanded.

 

Eventually five more players stood before him with hands raised. “You who did it, you are out a half,” Kitna said. “And you who didn’t do anything about it, you are out for two series.”

 

Months later, now, Kitna shakes his head. Lincoln lost its starting quarterback, a starting defensive lineman, starting center, a starting receiver and a starting linebacker for parts of that next game. The other team returned a punt for a touchdown, perhaps in part because special teams practice was canceled for the meeting about the volleyball incident. The replacement quarterback had a pass intercepted for a touchdown and Lincoln lost. It was a critical defeat in a 5-5 season.

 

“They got to feel the impact of losing a football game because of the decisions we make,” he says. “But the greater things was [that] the freshmen got to see it. ‘Coach doesn’t play, he really means this.’ ”

 

---

 

In the classroom a projection device turns on, the lights go dim and Kitna stands before his Algebra 1 class with a problem to solve. Behind him, on a screen, is a drawing of a yellow cab with the following question:

 

“A taxicab company charges a flat fee of $1.85 plus an additional .40 cents per quarter mile. A: Write a formula to find the total cost for cab fare. B: Use this formula to find the cost for one person to travel eight miles.”

 

The students unpack their bags, pull pencils from holders and take school-owned calculators from felt caddies that hang on the wall but already something is wrong. Kitna can sense it. Then it hits him: Almost none of them have been inside a taxicab. They are staring at him because they don’t understand the question.

 

Before the first X or fraction or set of parentheses can be scribbled on paper, Kitna must explain taxicabs. He shrugs. Teaching is making him a very patient man. Carefully, he explains the concept of a taxi meter.

 

He had to give up two of the algebra classes this fall because the demands of building the football program became too much. He replaced them with weight training which gives him more time with the football players. He thinks it’s important that they see him as much as possible.

 

But there is also a part of him that loves this class. And there are so many stories, like the one of the girl who barely spoke for the first few weeks who is now one of the best students. He can see the recognition. He can feel learning. This makes him happy. For, yes, he is sitting on a gold mine.

 

 

 

 

Remembering the First Christmas: The Killing of Innocent Children

 

 

Matthew 2

 

¹⁶ Then Herod [the Great], when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. ¹⁷ Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

 

¹⁸ “A voice was heard in Ramah,

weeping and loud lamentation,

Rachel weeping for her children;

she refused to be comforted,

because they are no more.”
 

 

 

The First Christmas

http://nelima.wordpress.com/tag/paul-maier/

Posted: December 19, 2012 | Author: Nelima

 

Matthew’s gospel contains the only reference—inside or outside the Bible—to the massacre of the innocents, Herod’s killing of all the baby boys two years and younger in Bethlehem and its environs.

 

So, was it all a Christian invention to gain sympathy for their founder? Was Herod even capable of such a cruel act? Following is a very lightly edited transcript of an interview of historian Paul Maier (one of whose novels I loved). The interview was conducted by Tony Reinke for one of Desiring God’s podcasts, Authors On The Line.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

Tony Reinke: Tell us more about the character we find embedded in the Christmas story, this man we know as Herod.

Paul Maier: Well, Tony, you may be surprised to hear this, but believe it or not, if you’re ever asked which is the one figure from the ancient world on whom we have more primary evidence from original sources than anyone else in the world, the answer is not Jesus or St Paul or Caesar Augustus or Julius Caesar—none of those… Not Alexander the Great, no, no. It’s Herod the Great, believe it or not. Why? Because Josephus gives us two whole book scrolls on the life of Herod the Great, and that’s more primary material than anyone else. And I don’t think Herod deserved it. [Laughter]

He was a very remarkably successful politician, keeping the peace between Rome which had conquered Judea in 63 BC. And he acted simply as a Roman governor overseas. He was simply known as a ‘client king’. Meaning, very often when the Romans conquered a province and they didn’t want to send a governor out, and there was a local king doing a good enough job… And so, yes, he may be called ‘king’ but he was definitely deferent to Rome for his whole administration.

In 40 BC he was awarded the title king. He didn’t actually take control of the land until with Roman help he drove some adversaries out of Jerusalem. From about 37 BC on he’s in charge until his death in 4 BC. Actually he was remarkably successful in a lot of ways. He deserves the title ‘Herod the Great’ if we talk about his accomplishments for much of his life. He was the one who rebuilt the great temple in Jerusalem. He was the one who single-handedly created the city of Caesarea: where there was no good port in the Holy Land, he creates one by sinking some ship hulls and then using them as a base to build a breakwater in an otherwise rectilinear sea coast. He built Caesarea in 12 years, and he built other cities like that too. In Jerusalem he face-lifted the entire city in addition to building a gorgeous palace for himself. He had a hippodrome, a stadium, theatres and this kind of thing. He was kind of a Hellenistic monarch.

And he also built seven great fortresses across the land, strong points at which he could defend his administration. One, the most famous, was Masada, down along the south-west corner of the Dead Sea. Everything he touched diplomatically seemed to turn to gold. He kept peace both with Jerusalem and Rome, and that says he was very successful.

Reinke: There’s another side to Herod. Tell us a little bit about the paranoid side of Herod that begins to emerge later in his life.

Maier: Well, basically, he was responsible for many of the problems back home. His home was a can of worms, simply because he married 10 wives and each of those produced princes for him and each of those male princes was scheming to succeed as number one. And there can only be one number one. And so if there weren’t two or three collateral plots taking place before they had orange juice in the morning, you knew something was wrong.

Josephus gives a hideous tale of what was going on in the family: attempted poisonings, one brother against another. It so rattled Herod that he actually put to death 3 of his own sons on suspicion of treason. He put to death his favourite wife out of the 10 of them. Mariamne was his favourite, she was a Hasmonean Maccabean princess and he put her to death then he killed his mother-in-law—I should have said one of his many mothers-in-law. He invited the High Priest down to Jericho for a swim. They played a very rough game of water polo and they drowned him. He killed several uncles, a couple of cousins… A fellow said he’s a real family man—in that negative respect.

As a matter of fact, Augustus himself, to whom Herod was always very deferent, said, “I would rather be Herod’s pig than his son.” It’s a double pun. In Greek it’s suos and huios—a clever turn on words. The other idea is that at least pigs weren’t slaughtered for human consumption over there, and they had a better chance of a longer life. And so it’s a brilliant pun on the part of Augustus.

 

 

Reinke: At one point late in his life, Herod plots to kill a stadium full of Jewish leaders. The plot ultimately failed, it doesn’t pan out. But explain that episode from his life and why he did this.

 

Maier: Well, Josephus says here a very grisly thing to report about Herod in his last months. He was so paranoid that he … Of course, he did have some grasp of reality, for instance he was worried that nobody would mourn his own death in the Holy Land, which shows how deadly accurate he was. [Laughter].... They were preparing general celebrations. And nobody likes to die knowing that they’re going to dance on their grave. And so he was going to give the people something to cry about.

It’s in 4 BC, he’s down in his winter palace in Jericho—it’s the only place in the Holy Land that doesn’t snow or get cold in the winter, it’s 1200 feet below sea level. Herod is dying and he tries every remedy in the world to stop the gang of diseases that were creeping up on him. He went to the hot springs at [unclear name] at the north-eastern corner of the Dead Sea (by the way, they’re still springing hot water 2,000 years later) and that didn’t cure him. And so now he goes back to his winter palace and he invites his sister Salome in and he says, “I want you to arrest all the Jewish leaders in the land and imprison them in the hippodrome just below the palace here.” And that hippodrome has been discovered archaeologically, by the way. And so she does and then she says, “Brother, why am I doing this?” And Herod says, “Well, I know that when I die the Jews are going to rejoice, so let me give them something to cry about.” And so he wants them all executed in that hippodrome so that there will be thousands of households weeping at the time Herod the Great dies.

 

So is that the kind of a sweet guy who could have killed the babies in Bethlehem? Yeah, I think so.

 

 

Reinke: Speaking of Matthew 2, the Bible records a scene from Herod’s paranoia late in his life. The wise men, of course, alert him to the birth of the new king in Bethlehem. They don’t then return to him and Herod eventually slaughters all the boys that are two years old and under in Bethlehem and in all the region.

 

For all that Josephus wrote about Herod, he doesn’t mention this. In fact there’s no extra-biblical evidence that this event even happened. How do you respond to that claim? Is the slaughter of the innocents historically reliable?

 

Maier: It’s interesting. Josephus does not mention it, and therefore a lot of biblical critics will pounce on that aspect of the nativity account and say therefore it didn’t happen. Now please understand this is an argument from silence, and that’s the weakest form of argumentation you could use. As we say in the profession, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

 

And in this case, one or two things could have happened. Josephus may have heard about it and not used it. Because you don’t have hundreds of babies killed; you only have about 12, as a matter of fact—12 or 15. The infant mortality in the ancient world was so huge anyway, that this is really not going to impress a reader too much, believe it or not. And I think Josephus is choosing between the two stories about how Herod dies and right before his death. I think I would take the one where he’s going to slaughter hundreds of Jewish leaders.

 

Or he may not have heard about it. Again, simply because little Bethlehem didn’t amount to much. A little village of 1500 or so. We did an actuarial study of Bethlehem at the time. You wouldn’t have more than about 2 dozen babies two years old and under, half of them the wrong sex. And so this is not a big deal, and I think that’s why Josephus either never heard about it or didn’t feel it important enough to record. So this does not militate against Matthew’s version by any means.

 

In fact I was arguing once, years ago, on the infant massacre with a professor in Wagner College in New York who claimed that this is all fiction, and that surely a massacre of hundreds of Jewish boy babies would have come to the attention… I agree it would have if there had been hundreds. But it couldn’t possibly be the case [because there weren't that many killed].

 

And ‘all the coasts thereof’… Well, look, Jerusalem is 5 miles away. So therefore this would include Jerusalem as well if we’re going to take literally ‘all the coasts thereof’. We’re talking about Bethlehem and probably a half mile around when we’re talking about the surroundings of Bethlehem.

 

 

Reinke: As a historian, is there any doubt in your mind about the historicity of the slaughter of the innocents?

 

Maier: I see not one iota of evidence that it could not have happened. And therefore, again, there’s no reason to doubt the account as far as I’m concerned. To be sure, Luke hasn’t heard about it. Remember, Matthew and Luke don’t copy from one another when it comes to the nativity. And that’s good, because this way they can hit it from different angles.

 

I think it really happened, and let’s remember again that the first martyr of Christianity was not Stephen, it was Jesus, but not even Jesus… For my money the first martyr in Christian church was the first baby that was killed in Bethlehem, and we always overlook that.

 

 

- transcribed by Nelima

 

 

More on Herod

 

Wikipedia - Herod the Great

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

 

About.com - The Ruthless King of the Jews: Profile of Herod the Great, Enemy of Jesus Christ

http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/a/JZ-Herod-The-Great.htm

 

National Geographic - Herod

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/12/herod/mueller-text

 

Encyclopedia of World Biography - Herod

http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Herod-the-Great.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of ‘Pontius Pilate’

(a documentary novel)

http://nelima.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/pontius-pilate-a-documentary-novel/

 

Posted: February 17, 2010 | Author: Nelima

 

This book, Pontius Pilate, has gained itself a particular distinction in my life: just yesterday, it made me miss my stop on the metro (underground). Many other books have come close, almost making me forget that theirs wasn’t the real world, but none has yet turned me into a confused traveller. Now that you know how much I enjoyed reading it, I’ll try to share why.

 

Paul L Maier, the author, not content with being a theologian and historian decided to try his hand at writing fiction. In this ‘documentary novel’ he masterfully melds together all his expertise without coming across as dry (regarding the history part) or frivolous and sensational (regarding the novel part). He draws on respected historical sources such as Josephus, Philo, Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius —and of course the Bible— for all the major plot events. Only when history is silent does he resort to invention.

 

The story follows Pilate for a large part of his life, from his being a tribune in the Castra Praetoria in Rome to his appointment as the Prefect of Judea and his dismissal from that post (over a decade later) and his subsequent return to Rome. What got me hooked in the first few chapters was Maier’s description in gorgeous detail of Pilate’s wedding, a typical Roman upper-middle class wedding. Throughout the story, his wife is a constant presence at his side, a portrait that affirms marriage.

 

As the story continues we feel Pilate’s optimism as he sails to Palestine with the aim of doing a better job than his predecessors. We puzzle with him as he tries to negotiate the dangerous waters of staying in the emperor’s favour (three successive emperors, to be precise). We marvel with him at the Jews’ apparent stubbornness. We empathise as he tries (unsuccessfully, we know already) to defend Jesus at his trial. Later, Pilate is hard-pressed to explain the empty tomb and the transformation in the disciples. Maier never gives easy answers or descends into being preachy, even when one character was explaining to another what Christianity was all about.

 

I greatly enjoyed this book, and can’t wait for whoever borrowed Maier’s other novel Flames of Rome to return it so that I can dig into that as well!

 

 

- Nelima

 

 

 

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Christmas Advent in a Cold Prison

 

 

Christmas in a Cold Prison

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/christmas-in-a-cold-prison

 

by Tony Reinke

December 20, 2012

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer awoke December 25, 1943 on a hard wooden bed. It was the first of two Christmases he would spend sequestered in a Nazi prison.

 

This first Christmas would be celebrated in a lonely prison cell in a place called Tegel. He had been there for nine months, and he would be there for nine more until he was transferred to his final home, a Nazi concentration camp.

 

Bonhoeffer had hoped to be released for the holiday, but that was contingent on his personal lawyer who proved unreliable. His hope of spending Christmas with his family quickly evaporated into the cold silence, and his only connection with his parents would come through letters.

 

Inside Tegel

 

In the Tegel prison, Bonhoeffer and his 700 fellow inmates were treated as criminals irrespective of trials and verdicts. The men were underfed and verbally harassed, and frequently the warden refused to turn the lights on, adding to the dark and depressive spirit of the place. Bonhoeffer was assigned to a cell surrounded by prisoners awaiting execution. He writes about often being kept awake at night by the clanking chains of the cots as the unsettled, condemned men tossed and turned.¹

 

But it was within this suffocating suffering that Christmas seemed to take a deeper meaning for the 37-year-old pastor-scholar. “A prison cell like this is a good analogy for Advent,” he wrote to a friend. "One waits, hopes, does this or that — ultimately negligible things — the door is locked and can only be opened from the outside."²

 

Two Sides to Christmas

 

For Bonhoeffer, there are two sides to Christmas. There is a hopeless precursor side to Advent. Until God arrives, we have no hope for release from this imprisonment of our own sin. We are stuck and condemned, and the door is locked from the outside. We depend completely on Someone from the outside to free us.

 

And yet on the other side of Christmas, on the other side of the birth of Christ the King, we find suffering remains. We find freedom and hope, but the suffering is not washed away. As Martin Luther says, “God can be found only in suffering and the cross.”³ It is in the suffering of the Son of God that we find God.

 

From his birth in a despised manger, to his death on the cross, the Son of God suffered. Christ was acquainted with pain (Isaiah 53:3). And because Christ was familiar with it, we too are made familiar with suffering (2 Corinthians 1:5, 1 Peter 4:13).

 

The wisdom of God in the suffering of his Son baffles us. Christ became weak and vulnerable in order to suffer for us in his full payment of our sin (Philippians 3:9). What this means is that the child of God suffers, but not because God has withdrawn from him, but because God has drawn close. We are united to Christ and we share in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10).

 

A Christmas More Meaningful and Authentic

 

Which brings me to Bonheoffer’s Christmas letter from the Tegel prison to his parents Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer on December 17, 1943. In it he asks that they not worry or fret about their separation. He will find joy in their enjoyment of the holiday. They will feast together, and he will feast on the memories of precious Christmases past.

 

At one point, Bonhoeffer writes this:

Viewed from a Christian perspective, Christmas in a prison cell can, of course, hardly be considered particularly problematic. Most likely many of those here in this building will celebrate a more meaningful and authentic Christmas than in places where it is celebrated in name only.

 

That misery, sorrow, poverty, loneliness, helplessness, and guilt mean something quite different in the eyes of God than according to human judgment; that God turns toward the very places from which humans turn away; that Christ was born in a stable because there was no room for him in the inn — a prisoner grasps this better than others, and for him this is truly good news.

 

And to the extent he believes it, he knows that he has been placed within the Christian community that goes beyond the scope of all spatial and temporal limits, and the prison walls lose their significance. . . .

 

With great gratitude and love,

 

Your Dietrich⁴

 

Suffering Brings Meaning to Christmas

Ironically, we can miss this meaning of Christmas if our celebration is only wrapped up in comfortable warm fires and the fellowship of friends and family. We can miss the memory of our desperation that required the Son of God to suffer for us. We can miss the personal desperation met in the manger. And we can miss out on the fellowship of his sufferings.

 

As we have recently explored, Christmas and suffering are deeply interwoven themes in Scripture. Personal suffering brings deeper meaning to Christmas. And in a season of suffering, the child of God discovers that he suffers not because God has drawn away, but because God has drawn close to us convicts, drawn close through a manger, drawn closer to us than the hard prison cell walls of a cold Nazi prison.

 

---

¹ Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 8, Letters and Papers from Prison (Fortress, 2010), 343–347.
² Ibid., 188.
³ Luther's Works (Fortress, 1957), 31:53.
⁴ Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 8, Letters and Papers from Prison (Fortress, 2010), 224–226.



 

The Emerging God of Emergent Theology (with no Intro)

continued from -

The Emerging God of Emergent Theology (with Intro)

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-emerging-god-of-emergent-theology.html

 

 

 

"People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived,

reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone." - Anon

 

 

 

...What do we mean by "The Emerging God of Emergent Theology?"

Just who is this God?

 

 

 

The Emergent God of Emergent Theology

 

First - Emergent Theology requires that we think of God in (i) non-classical terms; (ii) in non-dualistic categories (the past era of modernistic Enlightenment majored in these themes); and (iii) in open and relational terms of growth and evolvement as a Spiritual Being who is in an open and evolving relationship to the cosmos, the environment, mankind, and even Himself (this is known as relational theism as versus classical theism).

 

Second - we are evolving (or, becoming) within our being, our senses, our knowledge, our understanding, and our fulfillment or destiny. Even so is the Creator of the universe evolving (or becoming) within these same faculties. We know this upon the basis of God's relationship with us. And vice versa upon our relationship to Him. Because God is relational (sic, the Trinity), so we are relational. Hence, God's image is reflected in us as much as our image is reflected in Him (though in a limiting, more finite sense). And it is through His image we may commune each with the other relationally.

 

Accordingly, we each are evolving. And evolving together. In becoming. And becoming together. Both God and humanity (and His creation by extension) are emerging towards some greater resolution of completeness. And until that time of restoration is complete, God is incomplete. Despite classical theism's assertion that He is complete in Himself. Relational theism says that this cannot be so, so long as the cosmos is incomplete to which the Creator-God is infinitely bound.

 

Third - God's knowledge of the future is incomplete because of the indeterminacy that He has placed within the heart of the cosmos... and, within that of humanity itself by free will. The opposite of this (in dualistic terms!) is Determinism which would annul the idea of free will. If we lived in a mechanistic creation being automatons ourselves than there is no idea of completeness, or hope of renewal, or teleology of redemption. For all is complete within a deterministic environment to which we may only live out our mean parts as puppet to the universe's meticulous rule (some agnostic evolutionists and cosmologists like to posit this strategem; an evolutionary creationist/theist will not).

 

However, if all is indetermined than we have another type of future - an unknown future. Both to us and to God. Making the enterprise of the operation of creation unpredictable and surprising to God each and every day (this is known as Open Theology compounded by the problem of sin). To which God may hold within Himself such emotions as dismay, disappointment, hatred, anger, joy, delight, satisfaction, hope, love and forgiveness. Even as these same emotions may be present within our breast to each day's trials and turmoils, beauty and grace.

 

This position does not make God less Sovereign, but it does make God more open to possibilities and probable outcomes based upon a studied wisdom applied to situational events and social intricacies. Since creating-granting-instilling free will to creation and mankind, God's applied Sovereignty must work in-and-around this creational blessing both terrible and glorious (this dilemma sounds almost Shakespearean doesn't it?). Hence, not only do we live with the complexity of open futures, so does God - but on a much, much larger cosmic/human scale.

 

Fourth - our classical statements of God give to us not the God of the Bible, but a God of our classical systems. Against this temptation comes the aide of postmodernism to help us become accountable to all previous church statements of God that are un-God-like (known as bounded-set categories of thought and doctrine as versus open-set categories). Consequently, any would-be postmodern theologian must re-adjust classical theologies of God so that they may become more biblically described and backfilled with theological potentiality than the static, closed frameworks that do now exist (whether admitted or not).

As example, these boundaries may apply to ourselves as much as to the church. For God is not dead, nor irrelevant, unless we make of Him that idea. If God is dead it is we ourselves who have made God dead. To declare an ignorance of God, or a disbelief in God, does not remove God's existence. Only the application of His existence to the one who declares such beliefs. However, an evolving, emerging theology of God will allow doubters, disbelievers and even the faithful as one people to whom God embraces. I speak in the sense of the corporate, human solidarity of mankind, where doubt and disbelief is commonly found, even amongst God's faithful.

More often this phrase "one people" is understood to apply to the church itself when telling of a biblically covenanted remnant of obedient souls who are redeemed by faith. Here, I wish to use it to describe the solidarity of God to mankind. To a humanity whom God blesses with His presence; Who tarries before man's questions and doubts, disbeliefs and sarcasms; Who will not leave us to ourselves however much we would wish it. Though assuredly there are consequences to our actions and speech, even still, God can, and will, redeem by faith's acceptance. Even the irredeemable, the unreachable, the deep skeptic and cynic. Emergent theology says that God is a God to all men and women, not just to the faithful, or the religious believer, but to all men and women of whatever color or stripe, shape or condition (speaking metaphorically). This is the solidarity of God with humanity. This is the promise of God as man's Creator who has placed upon Himself the further burden, or responsibility, to redeem, reclaim, revive, renew, rebirth, restore.

As such, God's work of salvation is unbounded by man's sinful heart, whom He would commune with in grace and mercy, love and forgiveness, until the disbelieving heart doubts no longer. Though no arguments can prevent a disbelieving heart, even still, at the heart's end will be the God disbelieved. A God who will never abandon us to ourselves. Who will be present with us even when refused. Lo, Jesus promises that He will never leave us nor forsake those that seek after Him. But that He will redeem as He can, if allowed to do so. It is that simple, regardless of the restrictions many churches seem to place upon the liberating gospel of Christ. It is God Himself who will stand as man's ultimate Advocate and Mediator. Not the church. Nor its dogmas. Nor its faith practices. Faith is the only one requirement to redemption's release into the lives of the penitent, the seeker, the broken. God is everywhere found regardless of our Christian formulas of election and judgment. Let then the gospel of Jesus be as unbounded. And let us see the value of humanity from the heart of the Savior and not from the heart of the religious, the legalist, the perfectionist, or the circumspect. These are unnecessary barriers before the God of all souls.

Fifth - a more literary reading is required for searching and studying Scriptures than the normative literal reading that is now occurring to the obscurity of Scriptural understanding. To refuse recognizing the meaningful categories of literary genre within the Bible will only continue the fiction of believing a historical-grammatical hermeneutic is being utilized when in fact it is neither historical, nor grammatical, when reduced (or omitted) before the larger dogma of reading the Bible "literally." Consequently, God remains unrevealed to such a readership. Hence, God becomes static and closed. As is the Bible. As is worship and faith. However, a literary reading of the Bible will produce a dynamic, open theology of God, the Bible, worship and faith (this is known as an Open Hermeneutic).

 

Sixth - sin, death, destruction, evil, harm and injustice do continue against the will and very pleasure of God. And yet, God is no less Sovereign, as He threads His plans for renewal, recreation, restoration, reclamation, rebirth, and redemption for both the cosmos and for humanity. This in incomprehensible to us but nonetheless true. We might classify this as an open problem to the dilemma of living but the category of Incarnational Revelation and Redemption may sufficiently speak to this area. Or put another way, God's Incarnational presence gives to us our Incarnational future.

 

Seventh - An open theology will work towards reducing our conception of God in dualistic categories. God is neither strong nor weak, perfect nor imperfect (which is one of my complaints per the accompanying article below), passive nor impassive, decisive nor indecisive. When we do this it limits our perception of God while also imperfectly describing God. We would do better to obtain an open description of God than a closed, classic description of God.

 

The article I've included below shows how a contemporary Jewish theologian uses biblical grammar, context, and linguistics, to arrive at a more appropriate contextual theology of God as versus later arising classical statements of God based upon presumptive logic. Which in this case seems attributable to the earlier Greek paradigms of thought and logic, cosmology and nature, gods and men, from which derived the Early Church's Hellenistic doctrines of God as Judaism dimmed in its backview mirror.

 

As such, efforts are underway in revisioning the New Testament in Jewish (non-Hellenistic) terminology, and is known as the "New Perspective of Paul" by which classical theism derived from Pauline doctrine is re-expressed into the Jewish terms that Paul once preached. The gospel of Jesus should be as integral to Paul's teachings as Paul's thoughts were to Jesus' day of ministry. Together, both Jesus and Paul were revisioning Judaism's theology of God to a theology more appropriately pertinent to the God that the Jewish priests and organized temple professed to worship. We would do well to do the same today with our church systems and dogmas in reflective light lest we ignore God's postmodern day prophets burdened to preach God's revelation of light, light, grace and glory.

 

Eighth - in all of this, Emergent Theology can be said to be evolving. Or, emerging. That it is willing to critique past theological judgments, and in the presiding, perhaps deliver a fuller, more comprehensive concept to those same judgments using the helps of more up-to-date tools found in today's evolutionary sciences and advanced studies of philosophy, linguistics, behavioralism, archaeology, and anthropology, to mention a few. Especially as set within the framework of a reconstructive postmodernism that provides both ground-and-base to attempt these formidable tasks.

 

To realize that each age of the Bible had its own perspectives and spiritual needs is to understand that no one "-ology" can cover all these differences. Emergent theology will allow for the application of postmodern studies into each historical social application without prejudicing the outcome to a set standard of expectations. The Bible is not so simple a book as to be comprehensively read or understood by any one individual or view. In the preponderance of submitted studies will arise a currency of theological thought that cannot be reflective of any one view but a reconstruction of all applicable views into that of our own philosophic needs and wants. As such, emergent theology is an evolving, emerging theology.

 

Ninth - Our concept of God must be open. To grasp the concept that God "Will Be what He Will Be" is exciting because it gives to us hope that we "may be what we may be" by God's help. And by the Holy Spirit's guidance, as we are borne along on the wings of each new-day to the dusks of the setting sun in reconstructive vision and amplitude within God's rectifying sovereignty. Simply said, we have an open future underlain by the promises of the God who restores and renews.

 

Like ourselves, God is not a static being either. In the popular orthodox understanding of the biblical description of God as the One who Is ("I Am that I Am") we sometimes complete this statement by telling of a God who "Completes what He has started." Which is true enough, but a closer reading of the imperfect tense of the biblical expression tells us that God "Will Be what He Will Be." Which I take to infer that even God Himself is being challenged in His grace and glory to provide the promise of His salvation regardless of the corruption of sin and causality of free will divinely imparted in both nature and humanity.

 

Significantly, the one is a result of the latter - that is, sin is a result of free will as given and exercised. As such, each have been seeded into the fabric of the universe - one purposefully (free will). The other affectively (sin). And within this complex tapestry God will redeem what He has set in motion without hindering the very operation of free will that created the problem of sin in the first place. To this God tells us that "He will Be what He will Be." It is an ontological expression with functional (or teleological) import.

 

Tenth - regardless, of how we understand sin's origin, God will be what He will be, which humbly tells us that even God Himself is emerging (like ourselves) towards a completeness we may only find by God's grace and mercy as foundationally secured through Jesus. Consequently, God's redemption of mankind will provide even His own "redemption" towards completeness and order (as found in the Jewish concept of Shalom).

 

Finally - the application of the metaphysical categories of perfection do not overlay well with the ontological categories of being. This is a human foible of misunderstanding as illustrated below by Hazony's argument which is more in line with Jewish hermeneutical interpretation than it is with Emergent theology (though it does exhibit Emergent-like rhetoric as noted in our list above). Even so, God is God, and His Being does overwhelm our senses and our knowing. It is enough to know that God is our Redeemer. And that we are His through Christ Jesus, our Savior and Lord. Rest in this therefore, and be at peace.

 

R.E. Slater

December 15, 2012

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

An Imperfect God

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/an-imperfect-god/?smid=fb-share

The Stone: By Yoram Hazony

November 25, 2012

Comments

 

A God who is perfectly powerful can not also be perfectly good

 

 

Is God perfect? You often hear philosophers describe “theism” as the belief in a perfect being — a being whose attributes are said to include being all-powerful, all-knowing, immutable, perfectly good, perfectly simple, and necessarily existent (among others). And today, something like this view is common among lay people as well.

 

There are two famous problems with this view of God. The first is that it appears to be impossible to make it coherent. For example, it seems unlikely that God can be both perfectly powerful and perfectly good if the world is filled (as it obviously is) with instances of terrible injustice. Similarly, it’s hard to see how God can wield his infinite power to instigate alteration and change in all things if he is flat-out immutable. And there are more such contradictions where these came from.

 

The second problem is that while this “theist” view of God is supposed to be a description of the God of the Bible, it’s hard to find any evidence that the prophets and scholars who wrote the Hebrew Bible (or “Old Testament”) thought of God in this way at all. The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.

 

Philosophers have spent many centuries trying to get God’s supposed perfections to fit together in a coherent conception, and then trying to get that to fit with the Bible. By now it’s reasonably clear that this can’t be done. In fact, part of the reason God-bashers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are so influential (apart from the fact they write so well) is their insistence that the doctrine of God’s perfections makes no sense, and that the idealized “being” it tells us about doesn’t resemble the biblical God at all.

 

So is that it, then? Have the atheists won? I don’t think so. But it does look like the time has come for some rethinking in the theist camp.

 

I’d start with this: Is it really necessary to say that God is a “perfect being,” or perfect at all, for that matter? As far as I can tell, the biblical authors avoid asserting any such thing. And with good reason. Normally, when we say that something is “perfect,” we mean it has attained the best possible balance among the principles involved in making it the kind of thing it is. For example, if we say that a bottle is perfect, we mean it can contain a significant quantity of liquid in its body; that its neck is long enough to be grasped comfortably and firmly; that the bore is wide enough to permit a rapid flow of liquid; and so on. Of course, you can always manufacture a bottle that will hold more liquid, but only by making the body too broad (so the bottle doesn’t handle well) or the neck too short (so it’s hard to hold). There’s an inevitable trade-off among the principles, and perfection lies in the balance among them. And this is so whether what’s being judged is a bottle or a horse, a wine or a gymnastics routine or natural human beauty.

 

What would we say if some philosopher told us that a perfect bottle would be one that can contain a perfectly great amount of liquid, while being perfectly easy to pour from at the same time? Or that a perfect horse would bear an infinitely heavy rider, while at the same time being able to run with perfectly great speed? I should think we’d say he’s made a fundamental mistake here: You can’t perfect something by maximizing all its constituent principles simultaneously. All this will get you is contradictions and absurdities. This is not less true of God than it is of anything else.

 

The attempt to think of God as a perfect being is misguided for another reason as well. We can speak of the perfection of a bottle or a horse because these are things that can be encompassed (at least in some sense) by our senses and understanding. Having the whole bottle before us, we feel we can judge how close it is to being a perfect instance of its type. But if asked to judge the perfection of a bottle poking out of a paper bag, or of a horse that’s partly hidden in the stable, we’d surely protest: How am I supposed to know? I can only see part of it.

 

Yet the biblical accounts of our encounters with God emphasize that all human views of God are partial and fragmentary in just this way. Even Moses, the greatest of the prophets, is told that he can’t see God’s face, but can only catch a glimpse of God’s back as he passes by. At another point, God responds to Moses’ request to know his name (that is, his nature) by telling him “ehi’eh asher ehi’eh” —“I will be what I will be.” In most English-language Bibles this is translated “I am that I am,” following the Septuagint, which sought to bring the biblical text into line with the Greek tradition (descended from Xenophanes, Parmenides and Plato’s “Timaeus”) of identifying God with perfect being. But in the Hebrew original, the text says almost exactly the opposite of this: The Hebrew “I will be what I will be” is in the imperfect tense, suggesting to us a God who is incomplete and changing. In their run-ins with God, human beings can glimpse a corner or an edge of something too immense to be encompassed, a “coming-into-being” as God approaches, and no more. The belief that any human mind can grasp enough of God to begin recognizing perfections in him would have struck the biblical authors as a pagan conceit.

 

So if it’s not a bundle of “perfections” that the prophets and scholars who wrote the Hebrew Bible referred to in speaking of God, what was it they were talking about? As Donald Harman Akenson writes, the God of Hebrew Scripture is meant to be an “embodiment of what is, of reality” as we experience it. God’s abrupt shifts from action to seeming indifference and back, his changing demands from the human beings standing before him, his at-times devastating responses to mankind’s deeds and misdeeds — all these reflect the hardship so often present in the lives of most human beings. To be sure, the biblical God can appear with sudden and stunning generosity as well, as he did to Israel at the Red Sea. And he is portrayed, ultimately, as faithful and just. But these are not the “perfections” of a God known to be a perfect being. They don’t exist in his character “necessarily,” or anything remotely similar to this. On the contrary, it is the hope that God is faithful and just that is the subject of ancient Israel’s faith: We hope that despite the frequently harsh reality of our daily experience, there is nonetheless a faithfulness and justice that rules in our world in the end.

 

The ancient Israelites, in other words, discovered a more realistic God than that descended from the tradition of Greek thought. But philosophers have tended to steer clear of such a view, no doubt out of fear that an imperfect God would not attract mankind’s allegiance. Instead, they have preferred to speak to us of a God consisting of a series of sweeping idealizations — idealizations whose relation to the world in which we actually live is scarcely imaginable. Today, with theism rapidly losing ground across Europe and among Americans as well, we could stand to reconsider this point. Surely a more plausible conception of God couldn’t hurt.

 

---

Yoram Hazony is president of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author of, most recently, “The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.” He will be giving a lecture at The New York Public Library author series on Monday.

 

 

 

 

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"