one of those moments

So there's this class that I've been putting off taking and I could never figure out why because it's a stupid, introductory, 100-level class that's required for my major. It should be easy and probably pretty fun, but in the past I would enroll in it, but then drop it because I just didn't want to take it for some reason. Well at this point, there's no escaping it. I'm a Senior, I'll be done soon, I have to take it. I had it yesterday morning and I walked into the class, sat down amongst all the wee freshmen, and commenced to mentally roll my eyes, questioning the necessity of the class. And then the professor came in and she was all blond and skinny and tan and perfectly dressed, and at that point the mental eye rolling went into overdrive and I just shook my head and slouched down in my seat, wondering how I was going to endure the semester. But then she started to talk. She told us how she's 34 and had just gotten married two months before, and she talked about how almost all of her siblings got married before she did, and how she had kind of gone from occupation to occupation, etc., etc. And that's when I realized that the reason I hadn't taken this class before now was because I needed to take it with her, and I needed to hear what she had to say. I love it when you can look back and see how things worked out exactly the way they were supposed to. It wouldn't have been nearly as meaningful of a class if it had been taught by someone who hasn't been through the same things that I'm going through: being single while the culture around you promotes getting married ASAP and most of your friends got married years ago, at 19/20; not really knowing what you want to do with your life, but trying to pick yourself up and move on even though things haven't really turned out the way you thought they would. I love that when she talks about the wait being worth it, I'm not thinking "um . . . your life appears to have gone exactly as planned, so please cease speaking to me." So now I'm actually kinda excited about this class that I've been putting off and dreading for so long. Seriously, I love moments like this!

the righteousness rat race

Today in New Testament we discussed the clean/unclean aspects of the miracles Jesus performed and some of the stories that are told in Matthew. We talked about how the Law of Moses compartmentalized everything into being either clean or unclean and if you touched something that was unclean (lepers, dead people, things having to do with death, bodily fluids, etc.), that impurity was then transferred to you and you would have to then purify yourself. But despite all this, Jesus went out of his way to touch unclean people and spend time with those who were seen as unclean or sinners.

So then, if Jesus focused his time and efforts on the "sinners" and unclean, what does it really mean to be Christlike? Do we get too caught up in being righteous and following the letter of the law that we forget to love and embrace the people who could most use it? I think too often we reach out to people because it's what we're supposed to do, not because we actually care. There were many times as a teenager that I felt like I was the Young Women's service project but there were also times when certain people reached out to me and made a difference, all because I felt like they genuinely cared about me; I wasn't just a good deed to cross off their to do list. Religion shouldn't be a rat race to see who is the most righteous. We shouldn't avoid people who are "unclean" for fear they'll rub off on us.

I see things like this a lot with addicts. We tend to do bad things and we'll be the first to admit that, but I can pretty much guarantee you that if you try to spend time with us, we're not going to hold you down and inject heroin into your veins or make you smoke a crack pipe. The thing that most helps me when I'm dealing with someone who has issues is to realize that events in their lives helped make them that way. No one just decides one day to start doing drugs or randomly sleep around or go steal a car. Chances are they've spent a good part of their lives feeling like they weren't good enough in some way (not to mention, of course, serious issues like abuse, addicted parents, etc.). So why on earth would you treat someone like a project or look down on them when all they want is to be loved? Love is a many splendored thing. Love lifts us up where we belong. All you need is love! (Sorry, Moulin Rouge was just on t.v.)

Don't worry that I'm completely horrible at this. I think my motives for doing things are suspect a good bit of the time and I'm sure that comes across in my actions. So I guess my question would be is this a case where you fake it til you make it, despite the fact that people can see right through you? Or should you not do certain things because because they're fake? I know that feeling like I was being treated like a service project did a whole lot more harm than good, but would I rather have just been ignored? There's got to be a balance in there somewhere, right? If you can figure out where that balance lies, please let me know!

Matthew

O.k., this one is super, super long and I don't blame you if you choose to skip over it, but it's also got some super, super interesting stuff in it. It's super meaty. I hope you take time to read it.*

Who knew the Bible had so much debate to it? It's old; you would think the debate would be over and done with. Not so much. And I like it. Apparently there is something called the Synoptic Problem. The problem basically is this: the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) have a lot in common. In some places they say the exact same thing, word for word. So did they all just magically come up with the exact same things to say in the exact same way? Or did they copy from each other? Biblical scholars (which obviously does not include me) say that Mark was written in the 60's and Matthew and Luke were written in the 80's, which would lead you to believe that Matthew and Luke copied parts of Mark. But then there are also parts of Matthew and Luke that are the same and that aren't found in Mark. Historians have theorized that these things come from another source, which they call "Q". Q stands for "quelle" which is the German word for source. This document (if, of course, it existed) no longer exists today, but is a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Some say it may have actually been the Gospel of Thomas. So . . . if you're following me here, my point is that Matthew and Luke both have parts that are word for word from Mark, parts they have in common that may have come from document Q, and parts that are unique to that particular book.

So, that being said, what makes the book of Matthew unique? Why did the author choose to include those things? To understand these things, you have to know a little bit about what was going on in the Holy Land during the time Matthew was written. The big issue during that time had to do with the Gentiles. The early members of the Christian church were (obviously) Jewish, and there was a big debate about whether anyone who wasn't Jewish would be allowed to become a Christian. Some believed that they had to convert to Judaism first before they could become a Christian. They couldn't quite decide whether they were still Jewish or something completely new. So then Paul comes along, has a vision, and proposes that everyone should be allowed to join the Christian church. Much debate ensues.

So then who was Matthew written for? Non-Christian Jews? Or other Christian Jews who were having a hard time accepting Gentiles into the church? Well, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as more Jewish than in any of the other gospels, yet at the same time, the "heroes" of most of Matthew's stories are Gentiles. Interesting combination.

I should also add that Matthew is formatted a bit differently than the other Gospels. I had never thought of this before, but obviously when it was written, it wasn't nicely divided into chapters like it is now. Originally, Matthew had an introduction and five books (much like the five books of Moses in the Old Testament), followed by a climax/passion. Each book starts with a narrative about Jesus, then has Jesus giving a sermon, and then ends with the phrase "and Jesus ended these sayings." Book 5 ends with "and Jesus ended all these sayings." So pretty much if you're going to read Matthew, you shouldn't read it in modern chapters, but by the original books.

So let's start with the introduction, which comprises Chapters 1-2. The introduction chapters are purely Matthew-there's no Mark or Q in them.

• Verse 1. Matthew included three theological statements in this one sentence. First, Jesus' name isn't Jesus Christ. Christ isn't a last name, it's a title. The Greek word "Christ" is equal to the Hebrew word "Messiah." So, he's saying that Jesus is the Messiah. Second, When he says "son of David" Matthew is telling us that there is a NEW Kingdom of God, and that Jesus is the Davidic King. Third, Matthew says "son of Abraham". Part of the Abrahamic promise is that ALL nations (meaning Gentiles) will be blessed.
  
• Verses 2-16. The long, boring genealogy that we all tend to skip over. Admit it, you do it too! However, in this genealogy, it's interesting that three women are mentioned. Thamar (v. 3), Ruth (v. 5), wife of Urias-Bathsheba (v. 6). It is also interesting that all three of these women were Gentiles, and they also had some scandalousness going on. Much like . . . Mary, who apparently was much gossiped about back in the day. I guess the whole pregnant before married thing was quite scandalicious.
  
• Verse 16. So we get to the end of the genealogy and discover that this is the genealogy of Joseph. But wait! Joseph wasn't actually Jesus' father, so what's up with that? I've heard a lot of people say that it's just proving that Joseph would have been the King of Judea had Judea been free and Joseph and Mary were cousins, blah, blah, blah. Yes, it's true that Joseph may have been of the royal lineage, but so were a lot of other people. Joseph could have been King, not would have been King. So then what's the dealio? Why are we given a genealogy that isn't Jesus'? Well, let's move on to...
• Verse 21. This verse says that Joseph will name the child. Turns out that in antiquity, naming the child was part of the adoption process. So now that Joseph has named and adopted Jesus, the genealogy becomes his. It's also interesting to note that Old Testament Kings were adopted metaphorically by God. Matthew flips it around and the literal Son of God is adopted by Joseph, of the Davidic line. Also, the name Jesus is Greek for Joshua, so in his actual lifetime, Jesus would have been called Joshua, which means salvation.
  

O.k., this is way too long. I'll write up some more tomorrowish. Hope you found it interesting and it made you think a little.

*Please remember that everything I'm saying is from notes I've taken in my New Testament class. You may agree or disagree with what I say, but I'm just reporting what I've learned and found interesting.

she's gone wiccan

Well, maybe not wiccan, but definitely new age-y. Every year or so I go through a new age-y/Buddhist/spirituality kick. Not that I'm leaving my Church or anything, but I do start coloring mandalas, meditating, thinking about doing yoga (occasionally I'll do a little downward facing dog and child's pose, but that's about it), and reading up on all sorts of what I call "New Age, You Go Girl" literature. Technically it isn't all new age, but it is about being a powerful woman. Here is what is currently on my bedside table. Some I've read before, some are new. And a couple aren't actually NAYGG books, but they're still good.

• "The New Feminine Brain: Developing Your Intuitive Genius" by Mona Lisa Schulz
• "Women Who Run With the Wolves" by Clarissa Pinkola Estes
• "Wise Women: Over 2000 Years of Spiritual Writing by Women" by Susan Cahill
• "The Witch of Portobello" by Paulo Coelho (fiction)
• "Start Where You Are: A Guide to Compassionate Living" by Pema Chodron
• "Living by the Word: Selected Writings 1973-1987" by Alice Walker
• "Dematerializing: Taming the Power of Possessions" by Jane Hammerslough
  

I think it's good every once in a while to declutter your mind, retreat from the world just a little bit and remember that spirituality and religion aren't the same thing. Are you the kind of person who lives their religion as a checklist? Prayer-check. Family Home Evening-check. Scripture reading-check. Do you go through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do or do you actually feel it? Does it bring you joy or does it just bring you more things to add to your to-do list? My new age-y kicks seem to always come at a time when I'm just going through the motions, but not really feeling it. They always seem to help me refocus my priorities and realize that I'm doing things for all the wrong reasons. So if you're ever feeling the same way, I hope you won't be scared off by any kind of new age stigma (i.e. thoughts of pagans celebrating the Solstice, etc.) and you'll consider checking into it. This doesn't mean you need to start buying crystals or anything like that, but just try to get more in touch with the world and not the worldly.