Month: March 2018

St. Mark, the gospel writer, noted that when Jesus died:

Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

(Mark 15: 37-38)

In three of the four accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, we have a mention of the curious fact of the rending of the temple veil, or curtain. The curtain in view here is probably the barrier that guarded the entrance to the “holy of Holies”, the most sacred part of the Hebrew Tabernacle (and later, the Temple in Jerusalem). Within this chamber resided the Ark of the Covenant (until it became lost to history). This chamber represented the presence of God. No one was allowed to enter except the High Priest, and even he could only enter once a year on Yom Kippur (the great “Day of Atonement”). The barrier was for the protection of the people, who could not survive a direct encounter with the presence of God.

Ancient Jewish tradition would suggest that this barrier was formidable (though debate about the thickness exists; see a full discussion by Baptist seminarian Charles Bumgardner at his blog). It is unclear whether the veil was a single thick panel, or a single panel hung in such a way as to create a maze. It may even have been two panels. (For a lengthy discussion, see the article “The Veil of the Temple in History and Legend” by Daniel M. Gurtner).

According to a 2014 news report, a group of women in Israel are struggling with the challenge of recreating the Veil: “The women of the veil chamber,” as they call themselves, have founded a little workshop in the biblical Samarian community of Shiloh that is filled with weaving devices and wool. . This curtain is no thin wisp of cloth: The size of the veil itself, a single rag-like object measuring 20 meters high, 10 meters wide and 10 centimeters thick, is a project of immense complexity in and of itself.
(From Israel Today. I have not found any follow up reporting on their progress).

I might pause to note that some debate also exists also as to which curtain was torn. Some early theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, believed that the torn curtain was not the one protecting the Holy of Holies, but a more visible and external curtain, hanging in front of the outer courts. There would have been two curtains in the temple, since the temple followed biblical blueprints initially given for its predecessor, the mobile Tent of Meeting (or Tabernacle): “You shall make a screen for the entrance of the tent, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, embroidered with needlework.” (Exodus 26:36, English Standard Version)

In his Commentary on St. Matthew, Aquinas noted that the deepest mysteries still remain hid from us:

And these two veils signify a twofold veiling, because the inside veil signifies the veiling of heavenly mysteries, which will be revealed to us: for then we shall be like to Him, when His glory shall have appeared. The other veil, which was outside, signifies the veiling of mysteries which pertain to the Church. Hence, the outer veil was rent, but the other one was not, to signify that mysteries which pertain to the Church were made known by Christ’s death; but the other veil was not rent, because heavenly secrets still remain veiled. Hence, the Apostle says: “But when Israel shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away” (II Cor. 3, 16). Hence, by the Passion, all mysteries, which were written in the Law and the prophets, were opened, as it is stated: “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him” (Lk. 24, 27).
(St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on St. Matthew, available online).

The important point for us isn’t the nature or location of the curtain, but rather the deeper meaning and symbolism behind its rupture. Even this may have multiple layers of possibilities. As I was preparing this article, I discovered one blog article that linked the tearing of the veil to the Jewish custom of tearing one’s clothes at a time of great distress, such as grief from the death of a loved one. The idea is that God was tearing His clothes at a moment of deep anguish.

A more common interpretation would be something like this:

The rending of this veil means that access into the presence of God is no longer limited to the high priest; in the era after Christ’s death, all believers may boldly come before the Almighty’s throne. … Clearly, with the death of Jesus a cataclysmic change happened in the way we approach the Father, as well as with God’s relationship to the temple. It was, John Calvin writes, “an opening of heaven, that God may now invite the members of his Son to approach him with familiarity.” (R.C. Sproul, Ligonier Ministries).

Jesus’ death has accomplished something wondrous. God has destroyed the barrier that separates us from His presence.

An article by Glenn Stanton in the Federalist cites new research calling into question the near dogma that Christianity in America is dying amid a relentless tide of secularization–That the gates of science and progressive politics are doing what the gates of Hell could not, namely prevailing against the Church. It turns out that this is only partly right; It is progressive politics from within the churches, not outside it, that has taken down many of the once great Protestant denominations.

Yes, these churches are hemorrhaging members in startling numbers, but many of those folks are not leaving Christianity. They are simply going elsewhere. Because of this shifting, other very different kinds of churches are holding strong in crowds and have been for as long as such data has been collected. In some ways, they are even growing.

The Stanton article points out growth in nondenominational churches that are Evangelical in outlook, and states that these groups gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. “They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches.”

Over time, even as the “nones” increase their share of the population, at the expense of weakly affiliated religious people, the “strongly affiliated” have not only held steady but even grown slightly, and currently number about 40% of U.S. adults. One third of American adults pray multiple times a day, and believe that The Bible is God’s actual word. Stanton points out that church attendance today is higher than at the time of the founding of our nation.

The 2017 study in question is “The Persistent and Exceptional Intensity of American Religion: A Response to Recent Research “ by Landon Schnabel of Indiana University, and Sean Bock of Harvard (Sociological Science, 4, 686-700).

Holy Week is upon us, as Christians celebrate Palm Sunday. This day recalls the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, as adoring crowds waved palm branches and shouted “Hosanna to the son of David!” One of my favorite parts of Palm Sunday is the singing of the hymn, “All Glory, Laud, and Honor”, while (at least in one of my old churches) children march around with palm branches. The hymn is rendered beautifully in the following recording by the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge:

This hymn is based on “Gloria laus, et honor” by St Theodulph of Orleans, a ninth century poet and bishop, who died in 821. It was translated to English by John Mason Neale (1818-1866):

Refrain:
All glory, laud and honour,
To Thee, Redeemer, King,
To Whom the lips of children
Made sweet hosannas ring.

Thou art the King of Israel,
Thou David’s royal Son,
Who in the Lord’s Name comest,
The King and blessed One.

The company of angels
Are praising Thee on High,
And mortal men and all things
Created, make reply.

The people of the Hebrews
With palms before Thee went;
Our prayer and praise and anthems
Before Thee we present.

To Thee, before Thy passion,
They sang their hymns of praise;
To Thee, now high exalted,
Our melody we raise.

Thou didst accept their praises;
Accept the prayers we bring,
Who in all good delightest,
Thou good and gracious King.

The eminent physicist Stephen Hawking has died at age 76, and his death is being mourned throughout the world, even as his contributions to theoretical physics are celebrated. He struggled valiantly against a neurodegenerative disease that robbed him of just about everything but his mind.

He was also one of the more prominent atheists of our time. His bold pronouncements often garnered a lot of attention. He famously dismissed philosophy as out of date with respect to science and therefore having nothing more to add to our understanding of the Universe. He made the criticized statement that universes can spontaneously come onto being: “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

About death and the afterlife, he stated in 2011:
I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”(The Guardian).

He is noted to have challenged contrary beliefs with some grace (Jude Smith in Christian Today). His ex-wife, Dr. Jane Hawking, who was then (and is currently) a practicing Christian, reported on this in a recent interview with Christian Connection. “…at first we lived in harmony each respecting the other’s point of view – and because he had been giving such a damning diagnosis I could well understand why he would not be inclined to believe in a loving God, let alone given how complex his researches into the origins of the universe were. He has to be able to see the proof of everything in mathematical terms.”

She recalls him as having great energy and a sense of humor. In one mirthful exchange, Hawking admitted to his wife that science is often a faith based enterprise.
I remember once asking him how he knew which theory to work on, to which he replied: ‘Well you have to take a leap of faith in choosing the one that you think is going to be most productive.’ I said: ‘Really? I thought faith had no part to play in physics?’ (Jane Hawking, in The Telegraph).

Although this marriage would unravel, they eventually were able to remain on good terms. Jane’s faith gave her great help and comfort, in the midst of his diagnosis and subsequent disability.

“Faith was my rock and a blessing because I believed that there was help and support for me in all the challenges I faced and that things would resolve themselves eventually.”

Her determination early on prevailed and gave him back a will to live at a crucial moment when he had lost it. Though not acknowledged as such, it seems that in the midst of his deepest darkness, he was given a gift of grace from God, that supported him and enabled his later contributions.

On 5 March 1953, the brutal Stalin era of the Soviet Union came to an abrupt end, as the dictator died of a hemorrhagic stroke (the presence of gastrointestinal and cardiac hemorrhage has led to the credible theory that he may have been poisoned with warfarin by his own associates). His daughter, Svetlana, was present, and gave an eyewitness account:

My father died a difficult and terrible death. It was the first and only time I’ve seen someone die. God grants an easy death only to the just.

The hemorrhaging had gradually spread to the rest of his brain. Since his heart was healthy and strong, it affected the breathing centers bit by bit and caused suffocation. His breathing became shorter and shorter. For the last 12 hours the lack of oxygen was acute. His face altered and became dark. His lips turned black and the features grew unrecognisable. The last hours were nothing but a slow strangulation. The death agony was horrible. He literally choked to death as we watched. At what seemed the very last moment, he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane or perhaps angry, and full of the fear of death and the unfamiliar faces of the doctors bent over him. The glances swept over everyone in a second. Then something incomprehensible and awesome happened that to this day I can’t forget and don’t understand. He suddenly lifted his left hand as though he were pointing to something above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was incomprehensible and full of menace, and no one could say to whom or at what it might be directed. The next moment, after a final effort, the spirit wrenched itself free of the flesh.

(Source: Alliluyeva, Svetlana, Twenty Letters to a Friend, 17. New York, Harper, 1967.)

“The Last Jedi” reminds viewers that even a fictional secular religion will likely reflect the spiritual economy of its time. (Chaim Saiman)

Months ago, in anticipation of the release of “The Last Jedi”, I wrote a blog post on the “Star Wars” universe as a significant modern parable that can connect to a number of the themes and ideas of Christianity. The latest movie has been interpreted by many as repudiating some of the tenets of the preceding movies.

Two recent articles reflect further on the religious themes of “Star Wars.” Writing in CNN, Daniel Burke observes,

“Star Wars” is, at heart, a story about the rise and fall of an ancient religion.

That religion was intended to be a space-age version of Zen Buddhism. This reflected the interest in eastern religions becoming popular in the California of the 70’s.

Suffice it to say, “Star Wars” borrows quite a bit from Buddhist symbols, teachings and practices. One writer calls it “Zen with lightsabers.” …
Throughout “Star Wars,” the Jedi talk often about mindfulness and concentration, attachment and interdependence, all key Buddhist ideas. Two — mindfulness and concentration — are steps on the Eightfold Path, the Buddha’s guide to spiritual liberation.

Irv Kershner, director of “The Empire Strikes Back”, once said that the character of Yoda was created to evangelize for Buddhism.

Mushim Patricia Ikeda, a Buddhist teacher and social justice activist, said Yoda reminds her of the monks she studied with in Korea: wise, cryptic and a little impish.

“The Last Jedi”, the most recent movie, on the other hand, seems to have turned against the religion of the Jedi. After trekking to Luke’s remote hideaway, bearing his old light saber as a relic, Rey is a supplicant to the religion that has died down to one. Luke stares blankly for a second, then tosses the thing over his shoulder and walks away. As she pursues him, he rather grumpily tells her that the Jedi order is finished, and he won’t train her. Later he and Yoda’s glowing spirit hold a conversation about the sacred Jedi books that Luke possesses: “Page-turners they were not,” opines Yoda.

Writing in The Atlantic, Chaim Saiman notes that

From A New Hope through The Force Awakens, learning to master the Force required faith, ritual, and ancient wisdom—all of which are hallmarks of institutionalized religion. But in The Last Jedi, a grizzled Luke Skywalker dismisses the Jedi mythos, and presents a more modern take on theology that accords with the “spiritual but not religious” trend that finds younger Americans to be less interested in organized faith but more open to spiritual experiences.

Both articles are quick and entertaining reads.

In the last few decades a new debate has emerged among historians, in light of revelations obtained from Communist Archives, the Mitronin Archives, and the Venona Project. The debate centers upon the extent to which in the 20th century the U.S. was facing an existential threat from Communist infiltration in all levels of government and society. Was McCarthy right?

McCarthyism arose during dark times, following the Soviet theft of the secrets of the U.S. atomic bomb, the Communist takeover of China, and the fall of Eastern Europe under the “iron curtain”, seemingly with the complicity of the Truman administration. McCarthy exploited the unease.

Senator Joe McCarthy was an ambitious senator from Wisconsin, from 1947 to 1957. He rose to national fame after a February 9, 1950 speech in West Virginia, in which he claimed to have in his hand a piece of paper that contained a list of Communist spies in the U.S. government. Four years later, he was disgraced. His downfall was heralded by withering criticism from famed journalist Edward R. Murrow, and by a fiery retort on the Senate floor by Army counsel Joseph Nye Welch: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Writing in 2003, senators Collins and Durbin wrote, “Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses.” (Collins, Susan and Levin, Carl (2003). Preface (PDF). Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations. U.S. Government Printing Office). McCarthy personally flamed out spectacularly; consumed by addictions to heroin and alcohol, he died of liver failure at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1957. He was only 48.

McCarthy’s name lingers on as a dirty word, as Harvey Klehr notes:
To accuse someone of McCarthyism or to label a person a McCarthyite is not to issue a compliment. The implication is that a person so named has made scurrilous and unwarranted accusations and is engaged in unethical and sleazy maneuvers. The late Senator from Wisconsin even gave his name to the period. The McCarthy era is commonly depicted as one where America, consumed by a paranoid and irrational fear of domestic communism, went on a witch-hunt. (Harvey Klehr in Frontpagemag.com).

An article in The American Prospect” notes the following:
McCarthy’s claims were ultimately discredited, of course—along with the senator himself. But today the story is taking a new turn. A growing number of writers and intellectuals are beginning to argue that for all McCarthy’s bluster and swagger, he may have been right after all. And I don’t just mean writers on the right. Editorializing in the Washington Post in 1996, Nicholas Von Hoffman concluded that “point by point Joe McCarthy got it all wrong and yet was still closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him.” Still more dramatically, the London Observer opined that historians who had vilified McCarthy for two generations “are now facing the unpleasant truth that he was right.”. In his book Blacklisted By History, M. Stanton Evans writes: “The real Joe McCarthy has vanished into the mists of fable and recycled error, so that it takes the equivalent of a dragnet search to find him.”

The Venona Papers are one of the sources of information shedding new light on Communist espionage. Venona was a secret counterintelligence program conducted by the National Security Agency and its precursors from 1943-1980. The program, so secret that even Harry Truman was in the dark, intercepted and decoded thousands of messages from the Soviet Union’s secret police (NKVD).

As the Washington Post reported:
The recent publication of a batch of Venona transcripts gives evidence that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were rife with communist spies and political operatives who reported, directly or indirectly, to the Soviet government, much as their anti-communist opponents charged.

… The sum and substance of this growing body of material is that: Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, executed in June 1953 for atomic espionage, were guilty; Alger Hiss, a darling of the establishment was guilty; and that dozens of lesser known persons such as Victor Perlo, Judith Coplon and Harry Gold, whose innocence of the accusations made against them had been a tenet of leftist faith for decades, were traitors or, at the least, the ideological vassals of a foreign power.”

In response to McCarthy’s attack John E. Peurifoy, deputy undersecretary of state, said that in the previous three years the government had investigated over 16,000 of its employees and had failed to find a communist. “If I can find a single one, he will be fired by sundown,” Peurifoy declared. The Venona transcripts contain the code names of about 200 persons, although some of these were clearly persons who had unwitting contact with Soviet agents. The Venona documents indicate that there were perhaps a dozen Soviet agents in the State Department alone. It is now clear that the Truman administration wasn’t looking very hard.”

Further reading:
The Washington Post.