The Dish

Limésy, France, 1.32 pm

A reader writes:

I teach biblical studies so I am interested in this topic.  You are fundamentally right about the stark contrast between the prosperity gospel of the likes of Joel Osteen and the gospel preached by Jesus, but I take issue with your apolitical reading of Jesus’ proclamation. 

In the ancient world under the rule of the Roman empire (basileus in Geek) where inscriptions read “Divine Augustus Caesar, son of god, imperator of land and sea, the benefactor and savior of the whole world,” running around proclaiming that the “kingdom of God is at hand” has a political resonance.  There is no separation of church and state at this time.  Caesar Augustus was not only the divine son of God and savior, his birth under the sign of a star was “good news” (euangelion in Greek) for the world (a claim that may sound familiar at this time of year). 

When Jesus preached the “good news” (euangelion) of God’s kingdom (basileus) it could not have been heard by the Roman authorities as anything but the assertion that the reign of the God of Israel which was now breaking into the world in Jesus’ preaching, healing, and exorcisms superseded all other claims to kingship and power.  From the Roman side of the equation this message constitutes sedition.  Drawing upon the prophets of Israel, Jesus preached a kingdom that was breaking into this world as the culmination of God’s plan for Israel and the entire world (see Isaiah 40-55).  It was both now and not yet at the same time.  When the time came that God’s kingdom was complete there would be a new heaven and new earth in a mutual embrace where God now dwells with his people here, not up in heaven somewhere (Rev 21:1-4).
 
However, Jesus did not preach that this kingdom manifested itself in the manner to which the world subscribed: the use of power by might and social status.  Rather, the exemplar for life in this kingdom was Jesus on the cross: self-sacrificial love for others that looks foolish to the world.  Thus Paul writes, “we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23).  Unlike those who grasped for might as power, Jesus “did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself (in the Greek this phrase literally means “divested himself of status”), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death– even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:5-8).

Humility and death on a cross were not virtues in the ancient world, and yet they were to the early Christian movement and because of this “the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another.  If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it” (1 Corinthians 12:22-26).  Not easy stuff to preach to a world that craved social status as power then or now.
 
On the matter of “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).  The “of this world” part of this passage is often mistranslated.  The phrase in Greek “ek tou kosmou toutou” can just as well mean that “my kingdom is not based on this world” (i.e., my kingdom does not function the same way that your kingdom does).  That this is the meaning of this phrase is further supported by Jesus’ follow up, “If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over.”  If Jesus’ message of the kingdom did not have a bearing on this world, why would he also proclaim “I have conquered the world!” in the same Gospel (16:33)?

My point is that it is not about worldly power as the world understands it. It is the assertion that there is a greater, deeper power: that of love. Jesus' message may have had a political impact, as that is how the Romans understandably heard it. But that is because they misunderstood it.

Maggie Koerth-Baker flags a gorgeous but gruesome piece of nature footage:

From the "Cute Animals Devouring Other Cute Animals" file, I bring you this BBC video showing a mob of starfish ravaging the carcass of a seal pup. […] The video speeds things up with time-lapse photography, which only adds to the alien creepiness as you watch thousands of starfish (plus sea urchins and giant meat-eating worms) damn-near gallop across the ocean floor. How do starfish eat a seal? Glad you asked. Turns out, they latch onto the seal's side, pop their stomachs out through their mouths, dump digestive juices onto the seal flesh and then slurp up the dissolved "soup".

Bon appetit.

A pictorial timeline.

Matt Sigl sums up a decade of progress:

It is no small irony that Justice Scalia's stinging dissent in Lawrence V. Texas, the landmark Supreme Court court-case of 2003 that ruled the antiquated anti-sodomy laws still on the books in many states unconstitutional, provides the logical framework for same-sex marriage with ringing clarity. He writes:

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

This from a man who quotes Cole Porter Lyrics in official Supreme Court decisions. But Scalia's fears were not unfounded. The Lawrence V. Texas decision, announced the week of gay pride in a serendipitous coincidence, was the first domino to fall in a decade that saw a cascade of progress for gay civil rights, most importantly and most famously, the right to marry.

In 2001 The Netherlands (of course) were the first nation in the world to recognize same-sex marriage. In 2003 Ontario followed suit, with Canada granting universal marriage rights to all citizens in 2005. By the end of the decade seven different countries (including South Africa!) have full legal marriage for same-sex couples. Many others have newly enacted civil union laws. And in America, after the shackles of legal and institutionalized homophobia were loosened with Lawrence, same-sex marriage became, just as Scalia predicted, not a lofty dream but a logical necessity and social inevitability. Within six months of the Lawrence decision the ice had thawed enough to allow for the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to demand the that Bay State offer the same marriage license to all its inhabitants, gay or straight. In the culture war equivalent of the sinking of the Lusitania, the Massachusetts ruling promised a battle over gay marriage that would last years if not decades.

In another ironic twist for the Scalias of the world, the mass of media coverage on same-sex marriage, fueled by the right's hysterical response to the nuptials, only made gay people look more sympathetic. Here were women in white dresses, and men in tuxes, often with children in tow, kissing on city hall steps and sharing wedding cake. Weddings like any other. The wholesomeness of the images was almost comic. And yet, the defenders of traditional marriage keep repeating, ad naseum, as they attempted to enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, that these marriages were a "threat" to the very fabric of society.

The slow-jam remix (or the Dish's complete coverage of the Tiger Woods scandal):

An impressive amateur video from 1991 is long but worth a look.