Chopping Down Thor's Oak

Dearmer, Percy (1904). The Little Lives of the Saints illustrated by Charles Robinson. London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co.

In today’s Huffington Post blog, Diana Butler Bass wants to Retire St. Boniface.

Boniface was an 8^th century English missionary to Germany.  See what I wrote about him last year.  What I remember about him is how his last confirmation on Pentecost ended badly.

It's not that surprising that I forgot the other thing he is known for.  He was trying to convert pagans who worshiped trees.  So to show them that there was nothing divine about trees, he felled an ancient sacred oak tree.  When nothing bad happened to him, the story goes; people switched sides and became Christian.  

Now to our sensibilities, this is a horrible thing to do.   And our Christian history is stained with too many incidents of lack of respect for other cultures and the environment.   And it still goes on.  Lots of Christians still think that God is going to blow this earth up anyway so we might as well exploit and squeeze as much out of it as we can.  Save the earth?  Why the hell should we save the earth?  Jesus is coming back pretty soon and he’s bringing the nukes with him.

Of course that’s not a biblical worldview at all.   And I don’t think that was Boniface’s worldview either.  I want us to stop judging ancient people’s by our standards.  Boniface was doing what seemed right (and pretty courageous) by his time, his place and his worldview.  Look at it from his perspective.  To him these people were beholden to trees, which were simply another part of God’s creation.  As far as I read the story, he didn’t advocate a mass deforestation to exploit the commercial value of the land.  He destroyed one tree to show them that tree had no power over them.  

 Would it be okay to do that today?  Absolutely not.   But we can say it is not right to do that today without vilifying a brave man of God who wanted to show the people that they were not beholden to trees.  

We progressives are always wanting to be sensitive to other cultures (to such a fault that some people don’t want to denounce female genital mutilation for fear of “interfering with culture”).  And yet we are quick to judge people in history by our modern (or post-modern) standards.  Do not historical figures deserve the same willingness to understand their culture and their world view as other cultures today?  And if we are not willing to do that for history, what makes us think we can do it for cultures today?

So I say give Boniface a break.  We don’t have to throw him under the bus to find other ways besides destroying other culture’s sacred objects to share the Gospel.

A Disturbing Contrast

St. Nicholas and the Schoolboys" by Gerard David (c. 1460 - 1523)

Once I figured out what pinterest was all about I became a very enthusiastic pinner.  I pin everything from food to fashion to saints to bible stories to cute kitties. 

 So of course I have a St. Nicolas' board. And while looking for artwork illustrating the various legends and tales about the saint I came across this painting by Gerard David.  I found it very disturbing.

Well the story it illustrates is pretty disturbing.  A wicked butcher who had no meat to sell lures three school boys into his shop, murders them, chops them up and pickles them.  Fortunately Nicolas is on the case and brings them back to life.  Your typical fairytale horror tale that is supposed to help children deal with the dark side of life.

But what I saw in this painting was not a kindly man protecting children.  I saw three naked boys with a bishop.  I think you can guess what images THAT brought up.  The boys are naked in all the art connected with this story but there is something about the innocence David captures in this, and the way the bishop towers over them.  Creepy creepy creepy.

To me this painting brings out the stark contrast of what the church is supposed to do, protect children.  And what it often has not done.  Kind of a sour note for a fun day but there it is. 

 

On a Happier Note, If There Wasn't a St. Valentine, there Should Have Been One

The truth is, we know nothing for sure about anybody named Valentine other than he was martyred like many other early Christians on February 14 and is buried outside of Rome. Maybe there wasn't even one Valentine. Valentine was actually a pretty common name and there were a lot of Christians martyred in Rome. 

Around this time there was another one of those Roman Pagan celebrations of romance.  We do love our pagan celebrations.  It's way too complicated to get to the bottom of it.

But around the middle ages you get this wonderful story about a St. Valentine, that like most beautiful stories, is a true story, regardless of whether or not it really happened.

The Roman Emporium Claudius was smart enough to know that bachelors make better soldiers than family men so Roman soldiers were forbidden to marry.  But Christian soldiers, ever the proponents of "Family Values" wanted to get married.  Valentine was the priest to oblige them.  His acts of civil disobedience ended him up in jail.

His  jailor had a lovely blind daughter who came to visit him.  He shared the gospel with her and she became a Christian.  Some stories even claim he restored her sight.  I prefer to think of her as blind, loving Valentine only through his stories of Christ. Theirs was a loving friendship, based on Christ.  There's a romance for you.  When he was taken away to be executed, he left her a note encouraging her to be strong in Christ.  He signed it "Your Valentine"

If it didn't happen, it should have happened.  And I'd be all for recovering a St. Valentine's Day about civil disobedience, not letting the State tell you who or whether or not you can marry, and friendship.  And chocolate, because chocolate is good.  As long as it's Fair Trade.  Happy Valentines Day. 

The Death of a Church

No I don't mean the Lutheran Church of Small Town killed by their own cliques and refusal to change.  I don't lose sleep over those deaths.

I'm almost done reading The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died  by John Philip Jenkins and this is a hard read because it is SO depressing.  And disturbing.  It's disturbing not just for the loss of  the rich  diversity  of ancient Christian traditions but also because IT IS STILL GOING ON TODAY with Christians in the Middle East.  There is a very good analysis of the situation by Robert Hunt in A New Year of Violence against Christians.

We were all raised on stories of the Western church growing despite persecution.  You know, the "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" kind of stuff.  But the truth is,  a church can be killed through persecution.  And it seems that the Roman church really only survived because it had stronger armies and more political clout.  That's really enough to shake your faith.  

In "Lost History" Jenkins does a very good job of  breaking the "Oh Islam was a peaceful tolerant religion in the middle ages" myth while also recognizing this was a time when WHOMEVER was in power thought it was perfectly acceptable to annihilate anyone who did not conform.  It's not that Islam is particularly violent.  Or that Christianity is violent.  It's that PEOPLE are violent and power hungry and if they can use religion to further their goals, they will.  

It's very  dark and depressing and  I don't know what else to say other than 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life,^* and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.²³⁴⁵

And pray for the churches of the middle east.  

Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr; 1170

 

When Thomas Becket was a young man he was an unlikely candidate for Martyrdom.  

Chancellor of England and good friend of King Henry the II, he lived the good life (for medieval times anyway) He enjoyed the wealth and power that came with his high position.

Then Henry II decided to make him archbishop.  At this time there was a power struggle going on between the King and the church and Henry no doubt thought putting his good buddy in such a position would strengthen his position.  He thought Becket would take his side.

The King was in for a surprise.  

Perhaps Thomas Becket surprised himself.  He rose to the occasion.   As he described it he changed from being “a patron of play actors and a follower of hounds to a shepherd of souls”.  He led a much more austere life, looked after the interests of the church and did not take Henry’s side in his quarrels with the church.
 

Becket became such a throne in Henry’s side that in a rage he is said to have demanded “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”  There is always someone to indulge the king and on December 29, 1170, four knights murdered the archbishop in front of the altar in his cathedral.

The people were shocked by this brazen murder of their Archbishop. Beckett was soon declared a saint and King Henry subjected himself to a public whipping by monks of the abbey as penance.

You just never know what you are capable of until you are called.  

And if God puts you in a position, God must figure you can handle it. 

Almighty God, you granted your martyr Thomas the grace to give his life for the cause of justice: Keep your household from all evil and raise up among us faithful pastors and leaders who are wise in the ways of the Gospel; through Jesus Christ the shepherd of our souls, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.
 

Marburg Colloquy & World Communion Day

On October 1, 1529, Prince Philip brought Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli together in an attempt to reconcile their theological differences.   He was trying to unify all the Protestants in a political alliance against the Holy Roman Empire.

Out of 15 theological points, Zwingli and Luther were able to agree on 14.  But the last one was the sticking point.  They could not come to an agreement regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Both rejected the Roman Catholic understanding that the bread and wine actually changed substance.  But Luther insisted while it was still bread it was also in some way, Christ's body.  It was as Jesus said "Take and eat, this IS my body"  

Zwingli just could not 'see Jesus' body in that bread.  The bread "signified" Christ's body.   Philip's hope for a unification of the two parties were dashed.  And Luther behaved VERY badly, refusing even to shake Zwingli's hand.

Today is World Communion Day, which I've never bothered to investigate what that actually means.  Probably not a good day to talk about the differences in understandings of Holy Communion.  Supposedly we've worked that all out with the Reformed tradition and the Methodists now.  I confess I have not studied the agreements, but I'll take the word of those who worked on it that our agreement on the Sacrament is sufficient.

My argument has always been we should all be able to come to the table together, regardless of how we understand how it works.  After all, does anyone imagine the twelve disciples had a clue, much less a shared understanding of what was going on at the Last Supper?  I still pretty much believe that although I did have an experience several years ago that showed me why some agreement is helpful.

It was my first year at my new parish.  Come Palm Sunday I was told we always did a joint service with the Methodist church in town and this year arrangements had been made for a drama group to enact the Last Supper.  Well enough.  Then it was suggested we have communion and the the other pastor and I preside.  This was before we had an agreement with the Methodists for table fellowship.  

I said as much to the planning committee and was told "We ALWAYS have communion together-what is your problem?"  Oh dear --first year here and I'm refusing to commune with my neighbors.  That won't do.  I called up my bishop and asked what I should do.  His answer was no answer, I was on my own on this one.

Well since I had always thought it was stupid that we couldn't all commune together anyway, I agreed.  The experience was jarring.  The Words of Institution were not said.  And I was simply handed the bread without the words "the body of Christ, given for you"  And I wished I had not agreed to preside.  I felt I could have participated as a member of the assembly but I should not have been "presiding".  

I had much more respect for Communion agreements after that.  

Oh and after that my congregation told me they had "never" had communion together with the Methodists at that service before.  We never did again under my pastorate.

On that note - Happy World Communion Day!

More Proof Christians are a Mixed Bag

William Wilberforce, Renewer of Society, July 30, 1833

He campaigned for tirelessly for the abolition of the slavery and the slave trade.  Every year for 18 years he introduced a measure to do away with slavery.  Every year it was defeated.  He kept introducing it.  He would not back down.  He would not shut up.  He would not go away. Finally days before his death,  all slavery in the British Territories was outlawed.  A year later 800,000 slaves were freed.

Wilberforce also campaigned for the welfare of animals.  He founded the royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

And yet he opposed unions and women's rights.  He was probably one of those moralistic do-gooders, common to the Victorian age who looked down on many of the people he worked to "help" and often much of the "help" was not so helpful. 

That's Christians for ya.  A mixed bag.  God love em.

Princess Olga of kiev - Another Fascinating Woman from history

The Orthodox celebrate her feast day on July 11, but she shows up today with her grandson Vladimir (who was killed on this day) in the LBW

It was her grandson Vladimir who is responsible for converting Russia to Orthodox Christianity but it was certainly Olga who planted the seeds.

Olga was born in 890 to a Viking family .  She married Prince Igor  who was the son of Rurik known as the founder of Russia and they ruled Kiev which is made up of the modern day nations of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland.

In 945 , when Igor was murdered by a slavic tribe who got tired of paying tribute, she became regent for her son.  They sent messengers suggesting that Olga marry their prince.  She declined and killed the messengers.  She had 20 matchmakers who had been sent buried alive.  She asked for better ambassadors and when they showed up she scalded them to death in a bathhouse.    She went to the land of the people responsible for killing her husband for a feast in memory of her husband, got them all drunk and had them killed, and burned down their town.  Do not mess with Olga!  She was an effective, if ruthless ruler.

Sometime after her son came of age and took over as ruler she became interested in Christianity and visited Constantinople.    It is said the emperor Constantine was quite taken with her and proposed marriage.  She was baptized and asked Constantine to be her godfather and afterwords said she couldn't possibly marry him because she was like a daughter to him.

There is nothing about what led her to embrace Christianity.  Perhaps all the vengeance and violence brought her no peace and satisfaction for her husband's murder.  Perhaps the innocent lives she took lay on her conscience and in the end it was only the promise of grace and forgiveness that could bring her peace.  Or perhaps it was as is told that when she saw the splendor of the  Hagia Sophia Basilica she figured they must have the best god.

Olga never was able to persuade her son to convert to Christianity but he was not against the new religion and did not hinder anyone else from converting.  And you have to believe she was a significant influence on her grandson Vladimir who did become a Christian and was responsible for bringing Orthodox Christianity to Russian.  In 1547 the Orthodox Church declared her to be a saint equal to the Apostles.

Hans Nielsen Hauge, Renewer of the Church, 1824

I have kind of a love-hate relationship with Hauge. 

I have always served congregations more or less influenced by his movement.  Right now definitely more.  Sometimes it seems like everything that is wrong with midwestern American Lutheranism is laid on him.  Legalism, Pietism, anti-clericalism, congregationalism, individualism, judgmentalism, small-mindednessism...all those isms ALL HIS FAULT!

Then I started learning more about him and this guy's had kind of a bum rap.  

And a lot of that which passes today for "Haugeism"  I believe would make his hair stand on end.  I got people in my congregation who argue against any change or innovation claiming proudly "This is a HAUGIAN CHURCH!"  who don't have any idea what he was about.  

Hans Nielson Hauge was born April 3, 1771 on  a farm in Norway.    He never had much of a formal education but from a very young age he was drawn to God.  As a young man he had an intense religious experience in which he felt very close to God and experienced great peace about the love of God and salvation.  

Hauge felt called to share this experience so that others could know this love and peace.

The thing is, from what I can make of how Norway got to be Lutheran --it seems like the the Danish King just said "Okay now we are Lutheran" but there no grassroots movement or reform or renewal  - everything that was corrupt and stale about the Roman Catholic Church stayed the way it was only now everyone called themselves Lutheran.  

There was a lot of corruption among the clergy and church hierarchy at the time. It was against the law for lay people to preach and Hauge was persecuted, arrested and served time in prison for daring to preach.  This explains that left-over anti-clericalism and suspicion of educated people.  

Back then there was good reason to suspect church authority.  And maybe there is now but I highly doubt Hauge meant there to be the lack of respect for education and church authority that passes for Haugeism today.

Hauge just wanted people to experience the love of Jesus.  

 He didn't want them to be afraid of hell.  He felt the church had become stale and dry and non-responsive to the needs of the people to hear and experience the Gospel in their lives.  

Modern day Haugeism has seemed to hang on to the reaction against what was wrong with the church at the time but lost the heart of Hauge's message - that Jesus loves you!

I think it's very possible if Hauge came back today he'd be persecuted by the very people who bandy his name about.

John Wesley, 1791; Charles Wesley, 1788; Renewers of the Church

Wow.  I've been blogging for more than a year.  This is what I wrote last year about the Wesley brothers.  It's still good.

The Lord got his oysters tonight.

Actually when you read the lay preacher's allegory of Christ fishing for oysters ---it's not that much different than what Origin and some of the early western church fathers did with scripture.

On my trip to and back from Omaha I listened to some lectures from the Teaching Company.    I LOVE these lectures.  Right now I'm on the History of Christian Theology taught by Phillip Cary - he's one of my favorite.  He's got an excellent series on Augustine.  One of the lectures was on Christian reading that explained the difference between Typology and Allegory in Christian interpretation, which was always a little confusing to me and this was very helpful.


So I know that Luther did away with allegory and brought back the literal meaning of scripture which was a good thing.  To a point.  But you know you have to give those guys credit for trying to make ancient stories about a desert God and a desert people relevant to Greeks and Romans.  And it makes me feel kind of good to know that Augustine was a little perturbed by verses about dashing babies heads against rocks that he found a less literal way to make that helpful.  Which just goes to show you that Augustine and other church fathers were NO fundamentalists!


oh and BTW, if you decide to buy some lectures from the Teaching Company - NEVER pay full price!  At one time or the other during the year they all go on sale.  If a series you like is not on sale, just wait - it will be after a while.

Hilary of Poitiers 367

Some people think that biblical scholarship can be a challenge to your faith.  I find delving into church history much more challenging.   Particularly the whole Trinitarian/Arian controversy.  Really one could argue that it was the side with the monks who beat up the most monks or paid of the emperor was that was responsible for our current trinitarian doctrine.

Eventually I came to the conclusion the right side won.  Or the side closest to the truth won.  But I REALLY think Arius gets a bad rap.  He did not deny the divinity of Christ.  He was just trying to conserve monotheism and the  integrity of God the Father.  I like to make conservative "traditionalist" go crazy by reminding them Arius was the conservative in the controversy.  They don't like that but it's true.

All this to say Hilary was on the "right" side. Got himself exiled for a few years when his side was out of favor.  That's what's also so disturbing about this controversy.  You had years where one side was in favor and then the other side.  Some like Hilary stuck to their guns but others switched sides according to what was in favor.  Did they switch sides to save their jobs?  Or were they just folks who trusted others to tell them what to think?  Or were they like me at some synod assemblies.  I listen to one side of the argument and say "well that makes sense, I think you have a point" only to hear the OTHER side and change my mind again?   There were good arguments on both side of the Trinitarian argument.  And dubious arguments on both sides as well.

But I think Hilary was a beautiful writer and share this prayer with you that is quoted in Pfatteirchrs' "New Book of Festivals and Commemorations"

Almighty God and father, I regard it as the chief duty of my life to make every thought and word speak of you.  The gift o speech which you gave me cannot have a more noble use than to serve you….That is what I desire to do.  But I need to pray for your help and mercy so that when I spread the sails of our faith you will fill them with the breath of your Spirit to drive us onward.   I need not be afraid.

In our need we will ask for what we lack.  We will study the writings of your prophets and apostles with unflagging attention and knock on the doors where meaning is keep.  But it is for you, Lord, to give when asked, to be present when we seek you and to open when we knock.

St. Nicolas, December 6

Behind all the mystery of Santa Clause, there is a real person.

Nicholas was bishop of Turkey during the 4th century who was known for his generosity and concern for the poor. 

"St. Nicholas Giving Gold to the Three Poor Girls", detail of a painting by Fra Angelico

One of the stories told about him concerns a man who lost all his money. Because he could not provide a dowry for his daughters, they would be unable to marry and would be forced to turn to prostitution to survive. 

Late at night, while the poor man and his daughters slept, Nicholas tossed a small sack of gold through the window. Surprised by the mysterious gift, the eldest daughter now had a dowry and was able to marry her beloved. Again Nicholas brought another sack of gold and the second daughter was able to marry. 

When he came with a gift for the youngest daughter, Nicholas was seen for by her father, who told all of his humble generosity.

Nicholas was imprisoned and exiled under the Roman Emperor Diocletian who was known for his ruthless persecution of Christians. 

Nicolas also participated in the Council of Nicea which formulated the Nicene Creed. 

In fact, there is a story told of him being so agitated by Arius's arguments that he went up to him and SLAPPED him. He should be in Sorority Life.

He was so beloved and well known for his concern for the poor that after his death, people would impersonate him and give out gifts to the poor.


He showed up in Holland as  on a white horsd as Sinterklaas visiting children on the eve of their feast day. The Dutch brought him to America and combined him with the English Father Christmas, were he exchanged his bishops’ vestments for secular clothing. 

The Santa we are most familiar with was influenced by the Nordic God Thor or Odin, the god of peasants and common people. 

Thor was an old and friendly stout man with a long white beard and wore red. The Nordic influence gave Santa is home and factory in the North Pole, along with his sled and reindeer. 

Somewhere, hidden in all the legends and pagan myths, there is a real person. 

A kindly, humble, Christian soul with whom the poor and children identified, who exemplified Jesus words that the Kingdom of God was “for the least of these” 

Christians need not ban Santa from our celebration of Christ’s birth among us. 

But let’s emphasize who he really is. 

He is not the Great Judge who determines who is “naughty or nice” He is not the Great Provider who gives us whatever we want. 

He is an example to us of remember the poor and needy—a reminder that Christmas is a time of giving. During this holiday season, instead of letting Santa do our giving for us, let him be an example for us so that we can be Santa for the children and poor of the world

Here is a great Link about the Real Saint Nick.

Hilda, Abbess of Whitby , 614

Hilda was born in 614 and raised in the court of King Edwin of Northumbria. She entered the convent and established many monasteries and centers of learning, advocating for greater reading of scripture and better education for clergy.

This is another one of those fascinating stories of a woman in medival times, who was educated, and had great influence among important men.

What I also find very interesting and timely was her response to the decision at the Synod Of Whitby to follow the Roman traditions of the church, rather than the celtic traditions. If you know anything about history of the Irish church, you know that it was very different than the Roman church. Hilda preferred the Celtic way (I think the Synod made the wrong choice myself) but unlike some chose to leave and establish separate monasteries in Iona and later, Ireland, Hilda chose unity over her own preferences and used her influence to encourage others to stay in the church and go along with the decision made by the Church Council.

Hmmm. That's all I'm going to say about that.

I LOVE Halloween (and All Saints too)

What do Christians do with a holiday when pagans refuse to stop celebrating it? Most of our Christians feast, including Christmas and Easter, are a result of that dilemma. Halloween is no different.

All this nonsense about Halloween being some sort of satanic cult celebration is just rubbish. There is nothing demonic about the origins of Halloween. The celebration originates from a Harvest Festival from Celtic Ireland around the 5^th century BC. This was before anyone ever heard of the devil. As is the case with most cultures who depend on a harvest, this feast was a time to mark the passing of summer into the long nights of winter. It was believed at the time that during these times of transition, the boundaries between our world and the world of the dead was weakened, allowing the spirits of the recently dead to cross over and make contact with the living. This is where we get the idea of ghosts and goblins for Halloween. Large bonfires would be built and grain and animals were sacrificed. There were never any human sacrifices.

When Rome invaded Ireland they thought this was a pretty cool festival and pretty soon in spread to the rest of Europe. It was so popular that as Christianity spread, the church found it impossible to get people to quit celebrating this pagan festival. So it did what it always did with popular pagan holidays. It co-opted and baptized it and gave it a Christian meaning. In the 8^th century the pope declared November 1 "All Saints Day". It was as if the church said, "If you are so all fired determined to remember the dead and dwell on death, remember all the saints who have died and gone to heaven"

Halloween has always been a big deal for our family. I would make elaborate and original costumes for my kids. (Which half the time would have to be covered up with heavy winter coats for trick or treating). I would carve pumpkins. My husband would take great care in decorating the porch to be just spooky enough to delight, but not terrify the younger children who came to trick or treat (and we always gave out the best candy). If you are going to boycott Halloween because of its pagan origins you may as well throw out Christmas and Easter as well.

Many culture s have feasts and celebrations that help us deal with the reality of death. And many of those feasts take place at harvest time. It is natural for people close to the land to think of death at harvest. One season of life and growth has ended. Harvest means the death of most food-bearing plants. Death in this sense means completed – they have served their purpose. And yet they yield seeds for a new harvest. Those who worship the Risen Christ and look forward to New Life after completing their purpose on this earth can certainly celebrate that. Halloween is as good a time as any to proclaim Christ's victory over evil.

My kids are away at college now. My daughter came home last week to get her flapper costume and will be trick or treating for UNICEF. My son will probably be playing World of War Craft. I have a pumpkin to carve and I have candy for the few who will venture out on this very cold fall night. This Lutheran Pastor says HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

PS - Yes some of this is a repeat from tomorrows sermon. So?

Cosmos & Damian - September 26

September 26 is the commemoration of St. Cosmos and Damian, third century Syrian martyrs believed to have been twins and doctors.

These are two rather obscure saints but I've always been interested in the basilica dedicated to them since I visited it on my 2004 Trip to Italy.

I splurged for a private tour and our guide was art historian Elizabeth Lev, who is kind of famous now. It was some of my best spent money on this vacation. She was excellent.

I think you could easily miss this gem of a church - it isn't very exciting on the outside, but the inside mosaic and the historical significance of the church should it put it on your "to see list" when (not if) you go to Rome.

Although Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century, Christians were not emboldened to build a church in the middle of the pagan dominated forum until two hundred years later in 526 AD.

Interesting that it was dedicated to twin saints and Romans have a thing for twins (think founders Romulus and Remus) And the basilica was built right across from a temple dedicated to twin gods Castor and Pollux.

You go inside this unremarkable building and are presented with a gorgeous 6th century mosaic. It is all the more impressive because the church has been raised higher than its original floor and you are much closer to the mosaic than normal and can really enjoy it.


The mosaic is of St. Peter and St. Paul presenting each of the twins to Christ in heaven. They are both wearing togas. At one time Rome was a symbol of oppression and persecution of the faithful. Now saints wear Roman togas in heaven. It is Liz who pointed out that the faces of Cosmos and Damien are dark and Semitic, preparing the Romans for a religion that is from that part of the world.

Anyway you really should check it out on your next trip to Italy. And if you go to the Vatican, get Liz to give you a tour if she's still doing that. Wish I had.

Hildegard, Abbess of Bingen, died 1179 - Another Radical Feminist

My daughter wrote a paper last year in that women in the middle ages were better off than women after the renaissance and I think she made a good case. 

 Of course, she didn't come up with that idea herself. Just look at some of the women and their influence in the middle ages. Queen Eleanor. Joan of Arc. Julian of Norwich. 

And the lady we commemorate today, Hildegard of Bingen.

It's a little shocking for our modern sensibilities to learn that Hildegard was sent away from her family to a convent when she was only eight. Hildegard was one of ten children --when she was sent to the convent she was taken under the wing by an abbess named Jutta. She probably got much more attention and nurturing and certainly, education than had she stayed at home.

Ever since the story of Katie Luther's escape from the convent in the pickle wagon Lutherans tend to think of convents as terrible places. 

 But I think convents were avenues of freedom for medieval women. 

Convents gave women like Hildegard opportunities to be leaders and even preachers. Hildegard traveled all over Germany and as far as Paris and people came far and wide to hear her and even asked for written copies of her sermons. She advised bishops, popes, and kings.

Her writings combined science, mathematics, music, art, social justice, respect for creation and theology. And all this was based on visions that some believe were simply the result of debilitating migraine headaches! It makes you wonder what beauty we are missing because we no longer search for meaning in suffering.

Mary - Theotokos

Icon by Kenneth Dowdy

Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her. ~ Martin Luther

Mary is the Mother of God.

Sometimes Protestants don't like to hear that. Even on our Lutheran Calendar, we call this day of her commemoration, "Mary, Mother of Our Lord" rather than "Mary, Mother of God"

But if you have any understanding of the Holy Trinity or even of the Incarnation, you have to confess Mary as Theotokos, or "God Bearer" as the Church did at the Third Ecumenical at Ephesus in 431.

Protestants sometimes veer off into ancient heresies with simplistic formulations like Mary was the mother of the human part of Jesus and God was the Father of the Divine part of Jesus. BUZZZ! WRONG!! Jesus is fully human and fully divine and Mary carried the whole Jesus, God in Flesh in her womb. If you don't get that , you need to go back and study your church history, Nestorius in particular, because he had the same problem. His side lost. The Church, in her wisdom, decreed that you cannot separate Jesus into a human and divine part.

Unfortunately I don't think today's problem with thinking of Mary has anything to do with confusion about the nature of Christ. People would actually have to have some theological background for that. I think it's partly our discomfort with the whole idea of Incarnation. Of God actually being in a womb and being born in blood and pain and messiness. We are always trying to keep God out of the messiness of our lives. Far better to keep God off far away - because then we can imagine we can leave the messiness of this world to get to God, rather than accept that God comes to us in our messiness.

There may be some sexism involved in the push to diminish Mary's role in our redemption. God forbid there be anything female about God or salvation. Although I haven't noticed that that either the Roman or Eastern church, both whom highly exalt Mary have been particularly respectful of the role of women who aren't both virgins and mothers.

I always enjoyed the way Sojourner Truth ended her famous "Ain't I a Woman" speech:

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.