That Which We Have Heard & Known

Occasional thoughts of an Anglican Episcopal priest

Category: Scripture (Page 34 of 43)

Just Get Along – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 13, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the OT lesson for Saturday in the week of Proper 5B (Pentecost 2, 2015)
Sirach 46
7 And in the days of Moses [Joshua] proved his loyalty, he and Caleb son of Jephunneh: they opposed the congregation, restrained the people from sin, and stilled their wicked grumbling.

One wonders if it is mere coincidence that group organization is the theme of the Daily Office readings recently. This praise of Joshua, son of Nun, assistant to Moses, is paired today with Paul’s admonition to the church in Corinth: “Put things in order, listen to my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.” (2 Cor 13:11) My week has been filled with organization and reorganization and failure of organization, preparing for hosting a bunch of overnight guests, the (probably) last vestry meeting of the summer, and heading off (in nine days) for the two week legislative extravaganza that is the Episcopal Church’s triennial General Convention. I’ve done a bit of “wicked grumbling” myself, forgetting Paul’s admonition to “put things in order” and “live in peace.” So … I repent. I hope those I may have upset will forgive me and I extend the hand of peace to those who have rubbed me the wrong way. In the famous words of Rodney King, let’s just all get along!

Only the Dead Could See – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 12, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the Gospel lesson for Friday in the week of Proper 5B (Pentecost 2, 2015)
Luke 19
41 As [Jesus] came near and saw the city, he wept over it,
42 saying, “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.”

On the hillside of the Mount of Olives, coming down toward Jerusalem from Bethphage, is a massive graveyard. Stone mausoleums hold, in one huge area, the bodies of dead Jews hoping to be first among the resurrected; in another large area are buried the bodies of dead Muslims also hoping to be first among the resurrected. Just across the Kidron Valley at the foot of the eastern wall of the city is a Christian burial ground filled with more dead hoping to among the first in the general resurrection. Just to the north of the Jewish tombs and overlooking the Muslim graves is a church designed by Antonio Barluzzi known by the Latin name “Dominus Flevit,” which means “The Lord wept.” It stands on the traditional site where Jesus stopped before entering the city, shed the tears Luke reports, and uttered this lament. It is a small church with a few chairs and simple altar; the altar window is plain glass. In the center of that window one sees the Dome of the Rock sitting atop the Temple Mount. When I was there, the vessels of the Holy Eucharist sat on a ledge in front of that window. As I sat in that church looking through the that window, the holy things of three Abrahamic faiths merged into a single picture: dome, mount, communion. The land and city within which they stood was not and never has been at peace, but here the things of peace sat. The only ones enjoying the peace which those things promise were the hopeful dead lying peacefully in their graves awaiting resurrection. The things that make for peace were not hidden; they were there in plain sight, but only the dead, at peace and hidden from our eyes, could see them.

Pretty Trippy – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 11, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the Epistle lesson for Thursday in the week of Proper 5B (Pentecost 2, 2015)

2 Corinthians
2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows.
3 And I know that such a person – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows –
4 was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.

OK. “Third heaven?” This is one of those “don’t read the Bible from a 21st Century point of view” passages. Paul’s cosmology is 1st Century; specifically, it is 1st Century Jewish. The Jews of Jesus’ and Paul’s day conceived of “the heavens” as being three-layered. The “first heaven” was the earth’s atmosphere where birds and wingéd things flew about, where the wind blew, where storms brewed. The “second heaven” was the realm of the planets, stars, and celestial bodies. The “third heaven” was where God lived; presumably, this is the realm to which Jesus was understood to have “ascended.” It’s not a scientific world view, which is not surprising in a pre-scientific world. If we read Paul’s account of “one person’s” experience – Who does he think he’s kidding, by the way? This is the old “Doctor, I have a friend . . . .” ploy! We know he’s talking about himself. – as a scientific description of an actual physical event, we’re going to consider Paul bonkers and, with him, everything he’s written (i.e., most of the New Testament). If, however, we read this as a spiritual experience, described in terms of the prevailing cosmology of his society, it makes a good deal more sense. We may choose not to believe that this experience has any value or validity, but we can’t simply dismiss it out of hand because of scientific inaccuracy; it was never intended to be scientifically accurate! ~ Nonetheless, I do have to admit that being “caught up to the third heaven” sounds pretty trippy!

Excuse Me? What? – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 10, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the Epistle lesson for Wednesday in the week of Proper 5B (Pentecost 2, 2015)
2 Corinthians
21b But whatever anyone dares to boast of – I am speaking as a fool – I also dare to boast of that.

What a way to start a bit of Scripture! The second sentence of a verse which begins with the exclamation, “To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!” Because I read the Daily Office, as the name suggests, daily, I know what comes before and to what the writer of the epistle is referring, but still and all . . . as a reading for the day, this is a strange place to have put the dividing line between lessons. It gives me, as a reader, the sense of coming into the middle of a conversation. ~ My spouse is in the habit of continuing conversations started days before. Just a few days ago she walked into our dining room, where I was working and concentrating on some financial files spread out all over the table, and the first words out of her mouth were: “And, anyway, the chipmunks eat tulip bulbs!” Excuse me? What? It turns out that she was referring back to, and continuing, a conversation we had had while gardening the weekend before. She’d replayed that conversation in her memory and now was continuing it out loud with me who, of course, was not privy to the rewind in her head. So I was lost. Only after stopping her and getting her to replay her memory tape out loud could I join in. ~ I often find reading the Bible to be like that, like I’m coming into the middle of a conversation and, indeed, that is what the reader of Scripture is doing. This is why study and paying attention to context are so important. Søren Kierkegaard called the Bible a love letter from God. That’s a lovely image, but I find Scripture even more dynamic than that. It’s a conversation and, like any conversation, it requires our full attention and participation. Otherwise, we will be left constantly in an attitude of “Excuse me? What?”

General Convention and Common Sense – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 9, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the OT lesson for Tuesday in the week of Proper 5 (Pentecost 2, 2015)
Deuteronomy 30
11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away.
12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?”
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?”
14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.

Every time I read this paragraph from Deuteronomy I think, “He’s saying God’s law is just common sense.” And then I recall college philosophy courses in which I learned that “common sense” isn’t common, at all, and that exactly what common sense is is a matter of some debate and has been since way, way back. From Aristotle’s koine aisthesis through Cicero’s sensus communis to Descartes’ bon sens and even Thomas Paine’s political twist in the pamphlet Common Sense that played such an important role in this country’s founding, there is very little agreement on what “common sense” actually is. Which should come as no surprise; going back almost to the day Moses received the law on Sinai there’s been disagreement as to what God’s law is and what it means. ~ In two weeks, I’ll be with a thousand or so of my closest friends at the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church and, at some point during the legislative hearings and floor debates about marriage equality or church structure or budget or whatever, I know I will hear someone say, “It’s just common sense” and some people will nod in agreement and others will shake their heads in negative wonderment, because for Episcopalians there just isn’t any such thing as a common “common sense”! There’s only common prayer.

Silicon Courage – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 8, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the Epistle lesson for Monday in the week of Proper 5 (Pentecost 2, 2015)
2 Corinthians 10

1 I myself, Paul, appeal to you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ – I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold towards you when I am away! – . . . .

Later in this morning’s pericope, in verse 10, Paul alludes to those who say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” I have known a lot of people like that. People who, when removed by distance or technology, are bold and forceful, even rude and insulting, but who in person are anything but. In two weeks, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church will take place. Every three years the bishops and representatives of the dioceses gather somewhere to conduct the business of the church: adopt a budget, pass resolutions about social and church issues, enact canons, make weighty decisions (which will mostly be ignored by church members). This year the Convention will decide whether to extend the sacrament of matrimony to same-sex couples; the House of Bishops will elect a new Presiding Bishop and the House of Deputies will vote its affirmation of that vote; decisions will be made about the structure and organization of the church and whether to change it in some way. In the run up to the Convention, there are numerous electronic fora which deputies and bishops may use to express their opinions about these and other issues. Many are taking advantage of Facebook groups, Google, Twitter, an old-style email listserve, and other avenues to forcefully express their opinions. I wonder, though, when we get to the Convention site (Salt Lake City this triennium) whether those same people will be as bold face to face. I’m looking forward to meeting some, not so much some others. It will be fascinating to do so. ~ “Dutch courage” was a term my German grandmother used to describe the misplaced confidence engendered by consumption of alcohol. Perhaps we need a similar descriptor for the boldness that digital distancing provides to those whose emails and Facebook postings are “weighty and strong,” but whose physical presence is not; perhaps “silicon courage”?

“By the Grace of God” – Blasphemy! (Sermon for Pentecost 2, 7 June 2015)

June 7, 2015 / / 0 Comments

====================

A sermon offered on the Second Sunday after Pentecost, June 7, 2015, to the people of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio, where Fr. Funston is rector.

(The lessons for the day are 1 Samuel 8:4-20;11:14-15; Psalm 138; 2 Corinthians 4:13-5:1; and Mark 3:20-35. These lessons can be read at The Lectionary Page.)

====================

CrownAs I read the lessons for today, I had one of those weird little flashes of memory when some small bit of trivial knowledge you had forgotten you knew floats to the surface . . . . In this case it was something from my 9th Grade American History class. My American History teacher loved to fill us up with the minutiae of our country’s past and the one that came to mind is the debate over what to call the President of the United States: the Founders had to determine how the president was to be introduced. There were, apparently, some who favored “His Democratic Majesty, by the Grace of God, President of the United States.” Other senators recommended “His Elective Majesty” and John Adams recommended the title: “His Highness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties.” All of this embarrassed George Washington who would have none of it; he wanted simply to be called “the President of the United States” and to be addressed as “Mr. President.” And thus it has been since then. The American president doesn’t even get “Your Excellency” as the presidents of other nations do.

The reason this came to mind, I think, is the story of the election or selection of Saul as first king of the Israelites, the first part of which we heard today from the First Book of Samuel. Let’s set the scene . . . .

This is the end of the period of the judges, which is a really poor translation of the Hebrew word shofet which describes what were essentially warlords. After the Hebrews had finished their trek across the desert of Egypt, after the first generation (whom God had forbidden to enter the Promised Land) had died, they settled the land which came to be called Israel and they become known as Israelites. But they were not a united nation in the sense we think of today. At best, they were a loose confederation of tribes with no sort of central administration. Whenever they were threatened from the outside, the leader of one tribe would be commissioned and anointed to lead their assembled troops. You know the names of some of these people: Gideon, Deborah (yes, there were female judges), Samson. They would lead the amassed warriors until the end of whatever crisis and then return to their life as a tribal leader.

Eventually, however, the people decided that this wasn’t a workable arrangement. So they come to the most recent of the judges, who was also a prophet, Samuel, and say to him (as we heard in the lesson), “Anoint us a king so that we can be like other nations.” Specifically, in our reading today, they say they want a king to “govern us and go out before us and fight our battles;” in other words, they want someone to go to war for them.

Samuel is very upset by this; he considers this to be an affront not only to himself but to God! So he prays to God and asks what to do. God reassures him, “They aren’t rejecting you; they are rejecting me, which they have done many times in the past.” And God tells him to give them what they want, but tells Samuel to warn them of what will happen, what it means to have a king who goes to war. He does so. He tells them, “Look – a king will turn you into slaves. He will take your sons and turn them into soldiers; he will make your daughters [I love this]; he will take your horses and your flocks and the produce of your fields. You will not like it, but when you call out to God, God will not answer you.” I think that last warning may be a statement that whomever they choose (and they end up choosing Saul) will not be king “by the Grace of God.” This is fine with the people: “We want a king,” they say.

So off they all go to Gilgal and, although we aren’t given the details in today’s lesson, they choose Saul to be king . . . and we know how that works out – Saul is a terrible king and has to be replaced. Eventually God would send Samuel to anoint David and David would then be succeeded by Solomon and, after Solomon, the kingdom would split and both Israel in the north and Judah in the south would suffer a series of pretty bad monarchs. But even David and Solomon, back to whose rule the people of God have looked for millennia as a sort of “golden age,” were not that great: David was guilty of essentially murdering a soldier, Uriah, and committing adultery with his wife, Bathsheba; Solomon had hundreds of wives and amassed great wealth at the expense of his people. None of them lived up to the ideal of kingship which God had pronounced through Moses at the very beginning of the Hebrews’ occupation of the Promised Land.

Interestingly, our Daily Office Lectionary this past week included (on Wednesday) that very description of kingship in a reading from the Book of Deuteronomy. As I was pondering today’s reading, I wondered if Samuel, or perhaps even God, had forgotten these words spoken to the Hebrews by Moses on the border of Canaan which he (as part of that disobedient original generation) was forbidden to enter. In his farewell discourse, speaking on God’s behalf, Moses had said:

When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, “You must never return that way again.” And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel. (Dt 17:14-20)

When I researched this apparent lapse in divine memory, I found one commentator who explained that the difference between what Moses says and what the Israelites did in demanding a king is the difference between peace and war. Moses’ ideal king was to be appointed when the land was “settled,” when the people were at peace; the ideal king was to look after the welfare of the people, not amassing wealth nor preparing for war. In the First Book of Samuel, the people demand a king to “govern us and go out before us and fight our battles;” they want a king to go to war. This is a far cry from the ideal approved by God through Moses.

Let that sit for a moment and let’s turn to the Gospel lesson taken from the third chapter of Mark. We are early in Jesus’ career, but a lot has already happened. He has been baptized and spent forty days in the desert discerning his mission. He has called the Twelve who are his inner circle and, together with them, he has walked through the countryside visiting villages, preaching his good news, healing the sick, and casting out demons. His reputation has grown and now he has come to his home town. The crowds are huge and they press in so tightly that he and his friends can’t even eat.

The situation is made more chaotic when Jesus’ family, Mary and his brothers James and Joses and Jude and Simon and Jesus’ sisters (whose names we are never told), show up to “restrain” him because they’ve decided his nuts! They’ve heard what he’s up to and they think he’s gone crazy. And not only are they there, some of the religious authorities from Jerusalem have come and they are saying that Jesus is evil! He’s in league with Beelzebul, either because he’s been possessed or, worse, because he’s intentionally working for the Devil.

Here is Jesus doing good works, healing people, feeding people, casting out demons, modeling a new kind of kingship, and his family says he’s a lunatic and the scribes say he’s Satan. He declares both assertions to be blasphemy, but he says that these blasphemies can be forgiven, there is only one unforgiveable sin: “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Now what is blasphemy? If I were to ask, you’d probably say something like “cursing God” or “speaking ill of God,” and in one sense you would be correct. Muslims might say that drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is a blasphemy and many believe that putting a crucifix in a container of urine, as artist Andres Serrano did several years ago, is a blasphemy. But none of those answers is technically, theologically correct. Blasphemy, as theologian Craig Uffman has written in a paper prepared for the up-coming General Convention, “is claiming God’s union with us in our doing that which is false, such as murdering, stealing, or any of the other ways we choose the opposite of the good.”

Blasphemy is when we claim that in what we are doing, in whatever incomplete, incorrect, sinful, false, inadequate thing we are doing, God is cooperating, that our will is God’s will. The most egregious contemporary example I can think of is the Nazi regime in World War II Germany, which claimed that in their oppression and annihilation of the Jews “Gott mit uns” (“God is with us”). Wehrmacht soldiers wore this slogan on their belt buckles. But God was not with them; God is not in, with, or supportive of any corrupt, false, oppressive, violent, or degrading act of sinful human beings. To claim otherwise is blasphemy, blasphemy against the Spirit of God, the unforgiveable sin.

Now, let’s go back to the Israelites demanding a king . . . I believe that this is why their experiment with kingship worked out so badly, worked out exactly as God warned them through Samuel, again and again as they anointed kings not as administrators of peace (according to the ideal set forth in Deuteronomy) but as warlords to “govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.” Those kings might have claimed, as European monarchs later would claim, that they served at the election of and “by the Grace of God.” God’s ideal, however, was very different.

I think that’s why that little tidbit of American history came to mind as I considered this lesson. I believe our Founding Fathers, particularly George Washington, were very wise in eschewing titles of nobility for anyone, but especially such titles and forms of address for our president. We certainly pray that God’s grace will sustain and guide our national leaders, but our leaders serve by the election and selection of the people; they cannot claim to serve “by the Grace of God” and if they do so, they blaspheme! I think that in every election in which I have voted (and I have voted in every election since becoming eligible to do so) there has been at least one candidate who has hinted (and some have said outright) that “God told me to run.” That makes me very uncomfortable because that is the very core of the sin of blasphemy, claiming God’s union with us in what we do, claiming that our will is God’s will. I think that in the acceptance speech of every politician who has successfully run for office during my adulthood there has been some sort of claim (hinted at if not stated outright) that God was responsible for their victory. That makes me very uncomfortable because that is the very core of the sin of blasphemy, claiming God’s union with us in what we do, claiming that our will is God’s will. We’ve had at least one president who claimed that God told him to take our country into war! That makes me very uncomfortable because that is the very core of the sin of blasphemy, claiming God’s union with us in what we do, claiming that our will is God’s will.

Look again at our opening collect this week, the prayer that began our worship today:

O God, from whom all good proceeds: Grant that by your inspiration we may think those things that are right, and by your merciful guiding may do them; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

We can certainly seek God’s inspiration and strive to follow God’s merciful guidance. In doing so, we are brothers and sisters of Jesus who said in today’s Gospel lesson, “Who ever does the will of God is my mother and my brother.” But we have to admit that, like the ancient kings of Israel, we are always going to fall short of the ideal! We strive to do God’s will, but because we are human there will be in everything we do that small bit of sinfulness, that portion of self-serving falsehood. By what we do and by what we leave undone, we will constantly err and stray from God’s ways like lost sheep, we will follow too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, and we will we offend against God’s holy laws. None of us can ever claim that our will is God’s will; none of us can ever claim that God is in union with us in what we do, because what we do is, at least partially, always corrupt, false, and incomplete. Beware of anyone, especially any leader, especially any politician, who claims otherwise.

The best we can do is the best we can do, always knowing that it will fall short of God’s ideal. Thus, we can never claim that our will and our falsehood is God’s. To do that is unforgiveable blasphemy. All that we can do is acknowledge our shortcomings, constantly seek God’s inspiration, and strive to follow God’s guidance. Then, by the Grace of God, we will be not kings ourselves, but brothers and sisters of the King. Amen.

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Priest as Pal – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 5, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the OT lesson for Friday in the week of Trinity Sunday
Deuteronomy 26
1 When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, and you possess it, and settle in it,
2 you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you harvest from the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you shall put it in a basket and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name.
3 You shall go to the priest who is in office at that time, and say to him, “Today I declare to the Lord your God that I have come into the land that the Lord swore to our ancestors to give us.”

Moses today gives us a different metaphor or two for the priesthood. He begins with the picture of priest-as-produce-manager, the receiver of baskets of fruits, grains, and vegetables which are to be placed before the altar of the Lord. Today’s pericope then ends with the priest-as-party-planner: “Then you, together with the Levites and the aliens who reside among you, shall celebrate….” (v 11) ~ I must say that these are more inviting roles than those that American Christianity has assigned the clergy: priest as principal prayer, priest as preacher, priest as pastor, priest as purveyor of religious solemnity. I get so dreadfully bored with all the seriousness put on the modern priesthood. ~ I visited a lady in the hospital this week. I was with her for about 45 minutes. She’s not a parishioner; she lives in another town and goes to another church and has another pastor. Thank God! She’s just an old friend and we spent most of our time laughing. She didn’t expect me to pray with her; she didn’t ask for an anointing; she didn’t share her diagnosis, prognosis, fears, or hopes; she just shared her friendship! It was a refreshing experience: priest as pal. It would be so nice if that happened more often.

Being Healed – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 2, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the Gospel lesson for Tuesday in the week of Trinity Sunday
Luke 17
11 On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee.
12 As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance,
13 they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”
14 When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were made clean.

Karl was a priest I knew. I met him nearly 40 years ago when I returned to Las Vegas as an adult and decided to attend the Episcopal Church parish nearest where I ended up living. He became my friend and mentor; he was one of the clergy who presided at my wedding; he and his wife were my son’s first babysitters; he shepherded me through the ordination process, presented me for ordination to both the diaconate and the priesthood; he gave me my first job as a clergy person and defended me when parishioners complained about my pastoral style. Most of what I know about being a parish priest I learned from him. The story of the ten lepers and their healing “as they went” was one of his favorites. The journey, being on the way, was his favorite metaphor for the spiritual life and the Christian faith. Arrival isn’t important, but moving along, going forward, being healed as we go, that is. That’s what it’s all about.

Blessed Silliness – From the Daily Office Lectionary

June 1, 2015 / / 0 Comments

From the OT lesson for Monday in the week of Trinity Sunday
Deuteronomy 11
18 You shall put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and fix them as an emblem on your forehead.
19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise.

To be honest, I’ve always believed the practice of orthodox Jewish men using phylactories as part of their prayer discipline to be a bit silly. But, to be even more honest, a lot of other religious practices including many of my own are also a bit silly. ~ When I did a little research into the meaning of silly, I found there is good reason for this. In its earliest origins the English word silly – which has come to mean foolish or stupid or feeble-minded – meant happy, fortuitous, or prosperous. Its closest contemporary cognate in another language is the German word selig, which carries the sense of blessedness, holy blissfulness, and happiness. Etymologists can trace the development of meaning attached to silly from “happy” to “blessed” to “pious” to “innocent” to “harmless” to “pitiable and weak” to “feeble-mind and foolish” over the course of less than 600 years of English linguistic history. ~ So, yes, using phylactories is silly; genuflecting, making the sign of the cross, wearing funny clothes (“vestments”), holding hands while praying over a Mexican dinner in a local restaurant . . . these, too, are silly. They are symbolic actions reminding us of the blessedness and holiness of life. We need more such reminders, many more. Which is why we need to remember them, to teach them to our children, and to talk about (and do) them at home and away, at night and in the morning.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 That Which We Have Heard & Known

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑