Today at church, at the end of the service, they invoked Church Discipline on a member. It had to do with the fact that this person had been caught cheating on their spouse and apparently did not intend to change their ways. At any rate it seems this person had not been attending services for quite some time so the decision to expel them seems rather moot.
I am not surprised at this announcement, though, because a few weeks ago we had heard a sermon on Church Discipline. So I kind of figured something was in the wind. Even though Pastor said the timing of the announcement had nothing to do with his sermon today on sin in the Garden of Eden. I don't want to call the man a liar but--come on, this was not a last minute decision and neither are his sermon topics. Let's just say it was damn interesting timing.
If Genesis is one of the most controversial books in the Bible, Chapter 3 is the most problematic. This is the chapter where Adam and Eve eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There's been a lot written about this chapter, which is the foundation chapter for Christian theology because here we are introduced to the concept of original sin. I am not sure how it is viewed in Jewish theology.
First, a little "backstory" as we call it in theater. In Christian theology, Satan was the leader of the angels who rebelled against God and took at least a third of the angels with him. You will search in vain for the story in the Bible because it is not there in one chunk like the Adam and Eve story. Instead, like the messianic prophecies, it is pieced together here and there from different verses, such as Isaiah 14:12:20 which in context is actually talking about the king of Babylon. In Christian tradition, but apparently not Jewish tradition, Satan is also (or takes possession of) the snake in Genesis Chapter 3 who then tempts the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. He does so by getting the woman to question God's motives. She gets Adam to eat, God finds out and gets pissed off and throws them out of the Garden, but not before cursing the serpent, Eve and Adam. In fact, the very first words He says to Eve are a curse: "You will have pain and sorrow in childbirth; your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Adam is told that the ground will be hard to till, that there will be weeds and thistles. And the serpent will crawl in the dust and be enemies with humankind until the time when someone comes to crush his head. This is where things get interesting. If you are reading a traditional Protestant Bible, "he" will come and crush the serpent's head. If you are reading a traditional pre-Vatican II Catholic Latin Vulgate-based translation, "She" will crush the serpent's head (that is why so many statues of Mary have her standing on a snake). If you are reading the JPS Tanakh translation, "they" will crush the serpent's head. Take your pick.
Meanwhile it seems that once Adam and Eve have eaten this fruit they realize they are naked and are ashamed, which has spawned all kinds of speculation about the exact nature of their transgression, that it was somehow sexual in nature. When I first learned this story from the good nuns I was about 6 or 7 years old and knew nothing about sex or sexuality. I was a complete innocent in that regard. But somehow, I pieced together a theology that linked this story to the "forbidden area" of my body, based on the evasive answers I got when I asked why does it feel so good down there. The theology I came up with (and never discussed with anyone) was that this part of the body was a test, just like the tree was a test. It was a second chance, so to speak. Adam and Eve might have blown it with the tree but here was a chance to make things right. Do not touch it, do not think about it, do not speak about it. And I kept my end of the bargain. I completely shut down my sexual curiosity. Since I wasn't supposed to have any anyway nobody ever questioned. Like I say, this was LONG before I knew there was any connection between the story in Genesis and sexuality.
During his sermon Pastor said a couple of things that disturbed me. In fact, Genesis 3 is disturbing because it comes right out and says that questioning God is wrong, that the questions that the serpent posed to Eve were wrong, and that the questions I am asking here are wrong. And Eve and Adam accept their fate without a word in their defense. At least in Wagner's "Ring" when Wotan, the king of the gods, sought to punish Brunhilda for her transgression she stood up to him and said that her punishment did not fit her crime. Adam and Eve go meekly from the garden. Not only are they banned from the garden but all of their offspring including you and me are also banned from Heaven. Only Jesus' sacrifice could reverse that curse. Now I ask, what parent would on the first offense of their child throw that child out of the home and decree that none of that child's descendants could ever enter that house again to the end of time? Even the person who was expelled from church got more of a chance than did Adam and Eve. But we are not allowed to question that.
During his sermon Pastor pointed out that when Eve was talking to the serpent she did not say the name of the tree but simply said "the one in the middle of the garden." There are some things, he said, that we should not name in our lives, that we should not even mention. Well, I grew up in an age of secrets and I think there are some things that bloody well ought to be mentioned and if you don't like talking about them, too bad. There are things that go on behind closed doors that ought not to be going on. Last week one of my friends confessed something about her marriage to me that I won't reveal here but it stunned me. Under her husband's pious facade there is some major emotional cruelty going on. Yes, Pastor knows about it but he dismisses it as nothing. That is because we are women and don't have a voice in this church, I suggested, playing the role of the serpent. She said, "You know, I think you are right." Some things should not be covered up. Some things should be mentioned and brought into the light. He may not realize it but by him saying this, he may be inadvertently discouraging someone who needs to speak up from speaking up. That is how these things fester and keep going. As long as they are not blatant, like the situation where the ex-member was cheating on their marriage, no one will address them.
And then he had to slam "Evolutionists and Secular Humanists". Now I have been engaged in a conversation with another member who bless her soul is trying to reconcile my evolutionary views with that of the church. She admits she is not knowledgeable about science and evolution but says she sees no conflict. I said that the issue was not with Christianity in general but with this church in particular. Is it or is it not official doctrine that one must be a six-day Creationist to be a member? She says no. Well, today he brought up the issue (quite unnecessarily, I think) by saying that he had talked to numerous atheists, secular humanists and evolutionists and none of them could explain why it is we wear clothes. Um. Excuse me. I consider myself quite well read in the topic (if I may so brag) and that has never ONCE been an issue in the discussion. The evolutionary answer is quite simple: for protection against the elements and for decoration. This is a red herring and intellectually dishonest. No, I do not know what his discussions were with those who believe like me in evolution because I was not there, but I doubt quite frankly that they took place as described. And this puts me in a precarious position because of my gender. I pointed this out to my friend and she said, "Well, I didn't catch that part. What did he say?" She does not understand that if it is true that there is room for all kinds of opinions under the roof of this church, then why did he have to go out of his way to make that kind of statement? What is his point? To me it IS a put-down of those who don't accept his interpretation of the Bible and a way of saying, if you don't believe this way, you are not welcome here. And I suggest, most respectfully, that maybe she ought to listen more closely or review the written transcript of his sermon (it is available online on the church website) because what I heard is not what she is claiming. In short, "Houston, we have a problem."
I am not surprised at this announcement, though, because a few weeks ago we had heard a sermon on Church Discipline. So I kind of figured something was in the wind. Even though Pastor said the timing of the announcement had nothing to do with his sermon today on sin in the Garden of Eden. I don't want to call the man a liar but--come on, this was not a last minute decision and neither are his sermon topics. Let's just say it was damn interesting timing.
If Genesis is one of the most controversial books in the Bible, Chapter 3 is the most problematic. This is the chapter where Adam and Eve eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There's been a lot written about this chapter, which is the foundation chapter for Christian theology because here we are introduced to the concept of original sin. I am not sure how it is viewed in Jewish theology.
First, a little "backstory" as we call it in theater. In Christian theology, Satan was the leader of the angels who rebelled against God and took at least a third of the angels with him. You will search in vain for the story in the Bible because it is not there in one chunk like the Adam and Eve story. Instead, like the messianic prophecies, it is pieced together here and there from different verses, such as Isaiah 14:12:20 which in context is actually talking about the king of Babylon. In Christian tradition, but apparently not Jewish tradition, Satan is also (or takes possession of) the snake in Genesis Chapter 3 who then tempts the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. He does so by getting the woman to question God's motives. She gets Adam to eat, God finds out and gets pissed off and throws them out of the Garden, but not before cursing the serpent, Eve and Adam. In fact, the very first words He says to Eve are a curse: "You will have pain and sorrow in childbirth; your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Adam is told that the ground will be hard to till, that there will be weeds and thistles. And the serpent will crawl in the dust and be enemies with humankind until the time when someone comes to crush his head. This is where things get interesting. If you are reading a traditional Protestant Bible, "he" will come and crush the serpent's head. If you are reading a traditional pre-Vatican II Catholic Latin Vulgate-based translation, "She" will crush the serpent's head (that is why so many statues of Mary have her standing on a snake). If you are reading the JPS Tanakh translation, "they" will crush the serpent's head. Take your pick.
Meanwhile it seems that once Adam and Eve have eaten this fruit they realize they are naked and are ashamed, which has spawned all kinds of speculation about the exact nature of their transgression, that it was somehow sexual in nature. When I first learned this story from the good nuns I was about 6 or 7 years old and knew nothing about sex or sexuality. I was a complete innocent in that regard. But somehow, I pieced together a theology that linked this story to the "forbidden area" of my body, based on the evasive answers I got when I asked why does it feel so good down there. The theology I came up with (and never discussed with anyone) was that this part of the body was a test, just like the tree was a test. It was a second chance, so to speak. Adam and Eve might have blown it with the tree but here was a chance to make things right. Do not touch it, do not think about it, do not speak about it. And I kept my end of the bargain. I completely shut down my sexual curiosity. Since I wasn't supposed to have any anyway nobody ever questioned. Like I say, this was LONG before I knew there was any connection between the story in Genesis and sexuality.
During his sermon Pastor said a couple of things that disturbed me. In fact, Genesis 3 is disturbing because it comes right out and says that questioning God is wrong, that the questions that the serpent posed to Eve were wrong, and that the questions I am asking here are wrong. And Eve and Adam accept their fate without a word in their defense. At least in Wagner's "Ring" when Wotan, the king of the gods, sought to punish Brunhilda for her transgression she stood up to him and said that her punishment did not fit her crime. Adam and Eve go meekly from the garden. Not only are they banned from the garden but all of their offspring including you and me are also banned from Heaven. Only Jesus' sacrifice could reverse that curse. Now I ask, what parent would on the first offense of their child throw that child out of the home and decree that none of that child's descendants could ever enter that house again to the end of time? Even the person who was expelled from church got more of a chance than did Adam and Eve. But we are not allowed to question that.
During his sermon Pastor pointed out that when Eve was talking to the serpent she did not say the name of the tree but simply said "the one in the middle of the garden." There are some things, he said, that we should not name in our lives, that we should not even mention. Well, I grew up in an age of secrets and I think there are some things that bloody well ought to be mentioned and if you don't like talking about them, too bad. There are things that go on behind closed doors that ought not to be going on. Last week one of my friends confessed something about her marriage to me that I won't reveal here but it stunned me. Under her husband's pious facade there is some major emotional cruelty going on. Yes, Pastor knows about it but he dismisses it as nothing. That is because we are women and don't have a voice in this church, I suggested, playing the role of the serpent. She said, "You know, I think you are right." Some things should not be covered up. Some things should be mentioned and brought into the light. He may not realize it but by him saying this, he may be inadvertently discouraging someone who needs to speak up from speaking up. That is how these things fester and keep going. As long as they are not blatant, like the situation where the ex-member was cheating on their marriage, no one will address them.
And then he had to slam "Evolutionists and Secular Humanists". Now I have been engaged in a conversation with another member who bless her soul is trying to reconcile my evolutionary views with that of the church. She admits she is not knowledgeable about science and evolution but says she sees no conflict. I said that the issue was not with Christianity in general but with this church in particular. Is it or is it not official doctrine that one must be a six-day Creationist to be a member? She says no. Well, today he brought up the issue (quite unnecessarily, I think) by saying that he had talked to numerous atheists, secular humanists and evolutionists and none of them could explain why it is we wear clothes. Um. Excuse me. I consider myself quite well read in the topic (if I may so brag) and that has never ONCE been an issue in the discussion. The evolutionary answer is quite simple: for protection against the elements and for decoration. This is a red herring and intellectually dishonest. No, I do not know what his discussions were with those who believe like me in evolution because I was not there, but I doubt quite frankly that they took place as described. And this puts me in a precarious position because of my gender. I pointed this out to my friend and she said, "Well, I didn't catch that part. What did he say?" She does not understand that if it is true that there is room for all kinds of opinions under the roof of this church, then why did he have to go out of his way to make that kind of statement? What is his point? To me it IS a put-down of those who don't accept his interpretation of the Bible and a way of saying, if you don't believe this way, you are not welcome here. And I suggest, most respectfully, that maybe she ought to listen more closely or review the written transcript of his sermon (it is available online on the church website) because what I heard is not what she is claiming. In short, "Houston, we have a problem."
