progressive involvement

Lectionary blogging: The Transfiguration: Luke 9: 28-36

2010-02-08T22:39:23-07:00

²⁸Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. ²⁹And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. ³⁰Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. ³¹They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. ³²Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. ³³Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” —not knowing what he said. ³⁴While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. ³⁵Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” ³⁶When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.

Translation: And it happened, after these words, eight days, and he took Peter and John and James, he went up into the mountain to pray. And it happened, as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothing flashing white.

And behold! two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah, being seen in glory, they were speaking of his exodus, which he would make full in Jerusalem. But Peter and the ones together with him were being weighed down with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men, the ones standing with him.

And it happened, as they were departing from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here, and we might make three tabernacles, one to you, one to Moses, and one to Elijah," not knowing what he said.

As he was saying this, a cloud happened and was overshadowing them and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud. And a voice happened out of the cloud, saying, "This is my son, the one having been chosen. Hear him." And when the voice had happened, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and they told no one in those days anything which they had seen.

The primary source for the transfiguration of Jesus is Mark (9:2-8). In Mark, Jesus makes his first passion statement in 8:27, followed by a call to take up one's cross, followed by transfiguration. The Lukan context is similar. Luke also moves from first passion statement to sayings about taking up one's cross (9:18-27). In fact, Luke introduces the transfiguration by inserting the phrase "after these words" (meta tous logous toutous), thus linking the transfiguration even more directly to Jesus' sayings about suffering.

Luke changes Mark's "six days" to "eight days." This identifies transfiguration even more strongly with resurrection. The "eighth day" was known as the Day of the New Creation in the early church. The transfiguration is a proleptic sign of that New Creation.

In Luke, Jesus leads Peter, James and John "into the mountain." (Mark has "a high mountain apart by themselves.") In Luke, Jesus then prays. This is a familiar theme of Luke's. Jesus is often praying in Luke's gospel (3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 9:28, 11:1, 18:10, 22:44). Indeed, Jesus is said to be praying twice in this short lection, and it was while he was praying that his appearance was changed.

Luke punctuates certain parts of the story with the use of key words such as egeneto--"it happened"--and idou--"behold." The transfiguration account begins with egeneto. After the first mention of Jesus praying, egeneto appears again, this time to underline the changed appearance of Jesus: "And it happened, as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothing flashing white."

In regard to Jesus "changed" appearance, Mark uses metamorphothe, but Luke uses heteron. The two words are quite similar in meaning. Metamorphothe means "changed, metamorphosized," while heteron means "changed, different, other, altered."

Luke may have made the change because he will accent "seeing" in his account. Where Mark has "he was transfigured (metamorphothe) before them," Luke has "the appearance of his face was changed." (See also the comment on last week's lection, Luke 5:1-11, for the importance of "seeing" in regard to the conversion of Simon Peter.) Joel Green:

Luke's transfiguration scene places a premium on the motif of sight. The "appearance" of Jesus' face changed, Luke's audience is invited (along with the apostles) to "behold" Moses and Elijah on the mountain with Jesus, these two OT figures "appeared" in glory, and the apostles "saw" Jesus' glory.

Another major Lukan emphasis will be to link the story with themes from Moses and the exodus. When Moses and Elijah appear, they are said to be "speaking of his exodus, which he would make full in Jerusalem." NRSV translates as exodon as "departure," which is a legitimate translation, but misses the force of the word and its connection to several other exodus themes in Luke's portrayal.

One connection with the exodus is, of course, the presence of Moses. Another is the changed face of Jesus which recalls Moses' changed appearance in Exodus 34:35. (The Revised Common Lectionary acknowledges the link with the selection of Exodus 34 as the Old Testament reading for the day.) Similarly, "tabernacles," another exodus connection, will be mentioned by Peter.

For Luke, the mission of Jesus is a type of exodus. As Moses led the people from slavery into freedom, so Jesus would do likewise. (Another more subtle indicator is that Mark lists Elijah first, but Luke mentions Moses first.)

This "exodus" would be "made full" in Jerusalem. Jesus would be killed in Jerusalem, but he would be resurrected there also. The transfiguration thus gives fresh imperative to Jesus' association with Jerusalem. Not long after, in verse 51, he will "set his face" to go there. That the "exodus" would be fulfilled is another reminder that Jesus will liberate his people, and, for Luke, will do so in an even greater way than had Moses.

The three disciples are then said to be "weighed down with sleep." (This is reminiscent of the coming scene in the Garden of Gethsemene (22:45-46) where the disciples are also said to be sleeping.) In this instance, as then, sleep seems incomprehensible. Because incomprehensible, it is a sign of mystery. We do not know why the three disciples were "weighed down with sleep."

Whatever the case, the disciples' sleeping stands in sharp contrast to when the three disciples become "fully awake." Sleeping, they see nothing, but when "fully awake," they "saw his glory." Sleeping might be said to be the natural condition of human beings in the every day world. Our senses are dulled. Our apprehension is difficult. But, when "fully awake"--that is, when visited with an experience of the divine--we may become able to see "his glory."

Again, "it happened" (egeneto) that just as Moses and Elijah were departing from Jesus, Peter wanted to preserve the moment (before they get away?) by erecting three "tabernacles," one for each of the men seen in "glory." Peter wants to build something he thinks is permanent. He wants to preserve the glorious epiphanic moment by creating religious shrines. By visiting the shrines as a religious act, one might be able to glimpse again the divine glory.

Luke is quick to add, as Mark had done, that Peter didn't know what he was saying. The mission of Jesus is not about worshipping at shrines or even the practice of religion. The mission of Jesus is about death and resurrection.

Moreover, Peter is getting ahead of events. He apparently believes that this theophanic moment is the goal and that Jesus' "glory" is the end of the story. Peter wants a deliverance from bondage--he wants an "exodus"--but without the suffering and death which will be a necessary part of it. As Jesus will soon say in 9:51, "it is necessary" (dei) for him to go to Jerusalem.

At that moment, a cloud "happened" (egeneto). This, too, is reminiscent of the exodus. Moses had entered a cloud on top of a mountain (Ex 24:18). The cloud represents the presence of God. Luke will use the word "cloud" three times in two verses! The cloud "was overshadowing" the disciples and, not surprisingly, they were afraid "as they entered into" it.

A voice "happened" (egeneto) out of the cloud, "This is my son, the one having been chosen." The voice recalls the voice at Jesus' baptism. Then, it had said, "This is my beloved son" (3:22). This time, the voice identifies Jesus as "the one having been chosen." We already knew that God loved Jesus. Now, God tells us that Jesus is "chosen" for the specific mission of deliverance which, through his coming death and resurrection, would be "made full."

Having already highlighted the visual aspect of seeing, now Luke emphasizes the aural sense of hearing. "Hear him!" God says. Having seen "his glory" (9:32), they are now to hear not only what the Chosen One has to say in the future, but also what he has just said about the costs of discipleship. As Luke had explicitly connected the transfiguration story to Jesus' words about suffering, he now intends the disciples to hear the necessity of taking up their cross (9:23-26).

After the voice "had happened" (genesthai--like egeneto, a form of ginomai), the epiphanic moment now passed, the disciples see only Jesus alone. After all is seen and heard, Jesus is the only one left standing.

Throughout scripture, mountains and clouds are "windows into heaven," as someone has put it. They signal the divine, the heavenly realm, the presence of God. The third major mystical sign is the appearance of angels. Angels are not needed in this story, however. Instead, we have a voice directly from God.

The transfiguration is punctuated with these mystical signs--the mountain is mentioned twice, clouds three times, the voice of God twice. We are definitely removed from the world of every day human experience and are in the presence of the divine.

It will not last. We know this from our own experience. Some time or other, we all, I believe, have some numinous encounter. We are all mystics. We all get glimpses of the heavenly realm. In this world, however, the experience of the divine is fleeting. The every day world cannot hold all of God's potentialities for long. Nor can you bottle it up and save it for later, as Peter tried to do.

The transfiguration was a mystical experience for the disciples. It prepared them for the inevitable sufferings which they would soon encounter on the way to Jerusalem. They are assured, however, that suffering and death will not be the final word. They have been given a vision of Christ's ultimate victory to sustain them.

The transfiguration, then, is a sign of God's grace and compassion. When times are difficult, as when the disciples head toward Jerusalem with Jesus, the memory of their encounter with God, and God's own witness to Jesus, will help them follow on the way. It does the same for us.

2000 Habitat houses

2010-02-07T19:27:28-07:00

The Thrivent Financial for Lutherans program, "Thrivent builds with Habitat for Humanity," completed their 2000th Habitat house in Minneapolis, MN in December. The four year program built houses in 46 states. Thrivent contributed $125 million for the initial program, which was followed by an additional $15 million which will build another 181 homes in 37 states in 2010.

Metro Denver Habitat was a partner in five of the homes, which were built with matching contributions and volunteer labor by "Holy Hammers," a coalition of (mainly) Lutheran and Episcopal congregations in the Metro Denver area. Thrivent will "partner" in an additional five homes this year, to be built as part of the Bails Townhome Project, a 24-townhome development located in the thriving Virginia Village neighborhood, near I-25 and Colorado Blvd. Situated within ½ mile of the Southeast corridor light rail, the BTC is Habitat’s first Transit Oriented Development in metro Denver.

Thank a liberal

2010-02-06T17:36:59-07:00

Now making its rounds on the interbuzz:

Joe gets up at 6:00 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance--now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast--bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist whacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It’s noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

If you do not have skin cancer, and have ever stood outside without having a peeling sunburn within moments, thank the ozone layer, thank the ban on CFCs, and thank a liberal.

If you have not died in a heat wave, drought, hurricane, flood, wildfire, or other climate change disaster, and like the idea of your children and grandchildren not living in desert wastelands, thank a liberal.

If you have ever breathed clean air or drank clean water, thank a liberal.

If no woman you know has died or been maimed in a back-alley abortion, thank a liberal.

If you have never been lynched, or had your children firebombed in a church, thank a liberal.

If you are glad we don’t live in a right-wing dictatorship along the lines of what conservatives overtly and covertly created in Iran, Guatamala, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, the Congo, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, the Phillipines, Indonesia and many others, thank a liberal.

If you have ever used Medicare, thank a liberal.

If you have not gotten cancer from radiation, thank the Nuclear test ban and thank a liberal.

If you have ever sat on a public seat, drank from a drinking fountain, stood on a bus, or done anything in public without worrying about being beaten up for being in the wrong section for your skin color, thank a liberal.

If you’ve ever driven on an interstate highway, thank a liberal.

If you grew up in a family of less than 12 kids, like the idea of being able to choose if you have 12 kids or not, if you don’t live in an overpopulated third world slum, or just think birth control is a good idea, thank a liberal.

If your family benefited from the GI Bill of Rights, FHA Mortgages, and so forth, thank a liberal.

If you have ever bought anything from Europe, and are glad the Marshall plan kept it from remained a bombed-out shell or falling to communism or neo-fascism, thank a liberal.

If you are glad that the Nazis don’t control half the world (conservatives opposed joining World War 2 until it was forced on them) thank a liberal.

If you have ever eaten food (agricultural subsidies), flicked on a light switch (rural electrification) or benefited from the Tennessee Valley Authority, thank a liberal.

If you ever drank a beer or a glass of wine without being thrown in jail, thank a liberal.

If you are not a land-owning white male, but have voted, thank a liberal.

If you have not died from tainted meat, been prescribed something useless or poisonous by a quack doctor, have not given your children cough syrup which turned out to have heroin as its secret ingredient, thank a liberal. (and Nixon)

If your workplace is safe and you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights without being lynched, thank a liberal.

If you’ve ever seen a national park, and it hadn’t been strip mined and clearcut into a desert wasteland, thank a liberal.
If you have never suffered from an economy of massive deflation, and have never even heard of an economic phenomenon called a “panic”, thank a liberal.

If your children go to school instead of working in coal mines, thank a liberal.

If you’re a Native American and have not been killed or died in a concentration camp, or if you live near Native Americans and are not at war with them, thank a liberal.

If you have an industrial or high-tech job – or really, any job other than those available in a slave-powered cash crop economy (ie, a third world economy) thank a liberal.

If you’re not a slave or “indentured servant” (white slave), don’t think protection of slavery belongs in the constitution, if you’ve never been chained to a boat where half the passengers die, been whipped, had your family split up, been forced to “breed” with another slave you’ve never met, been raped by your boss, or killed for not being profitable, thank a liberal.

If you oppose political parties starting massive wars to destroy America, just because they lost the election, and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in process – if you just don’t have that much fanatical hatred of Lincoln’s policy of to restricting slavery to states where it already existed, thank a liberal.

If you’re part-Irish, Catholic, Jewish, or for that matter anything not Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and are allowed to live in America, and are not harassed and attacked for failing to be born Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or if you’ve ever bought or used anything built by a non-ASP American, thank a liberal.

If you kind of like freedom of speech, and don’t want the state government to be able to censor you – (you think the 14th amendment is a good idea) – thank a liberal.

If you have ever bought or sold anything transported by the transcontinental railroad, or eaten food from a farm created by the railroad, thank a liberal.

If you think the US constitution is pretty cool, and have ever traveled to or done business with a country whose democracy was inspired by the American revolution, thank a liberal.

If you have not been drafted and used as cannon-fodder in some war caused by some petty insult between nobles, clan leaders, or other various overfed dictators, or suffered rape or looting in one of those countless wars, thank a liberal.

If you have not been tortured to death in a religious inquisition, thank a liberal.

If you don’t have to walk though ankle-deep sewage in the streets (because sewers are big gummint), thank a liberal.

If you have ever done anything that is a religious or superstitious taboo (ie, done anything at all) without being stoned to death or cast out as a heretic, thank a liberal.

If you have never been raped, and then had the rapist escape punishment on the grounds that he marry you, thank a liberal.

If you are not a slave toiling to build a pyramid for some lazy dictator who’s so spoiled he thinks he’s god, and won’t even see it until he’s dead, thank a liberal.

If you have not been killed as a human sacrifice in the name of some god, thank a liberal.

In short, if you’ve ever enjoyed anything of the post-stone-age world, thank a liberal.

…And if not, become a conservative.

Short course on perspective

2010-02-05T09:00:00-07:00

John Petty

Smart guy says more financial reform is needed

2010-02-04T09:33:10-07:00

Nouriel Roubini, the economist who predicted the financial system collapse, argues in favor of taxing the large financial institutions, in favor of the "Volcker rule," in favor of a "public option" in health care reform, and in favor of breaking up banks that are too-big-to-fail, but says the administration doesn't have the political support to enact these, and other, even more forceful measures.

Global warming threatens Colorado's ski industry

2010-02-03T10:12:32-07:00

A recently published report from the National Wildlife Foundation indicates that Colorado's ski industry faces difficult times ahead. Global warming means shorter and milder winters with inconsistent snowfalls. Since 1978, snow cover over the northern hemisphere has already declined between 3 and 9 per cent, with the western U.S. being hardest hit, a trend likely to continue as the climate continues to warm.

“The ski industry is an interesting beast,” Auden Schendler, the Aspen Ski Company’s Executive Director of Sustainability, said at a press conference Tuesday. “A lot of ski resorts run in deficit until March. One of the problems we could see is a compressed ski season as a result of global warming.” He said ski areas may be able to handle losing skier days in November and December due to a compressed season but if ski areas lose the busy March month because of receding snow levels, it could result in the closure of some ski areas.

“If you lose March, you go out of business,” Schendler said.

Snow-making can make up for some of the problem, but snow-making is an expensive undertaking and warmer nights make it “exponentially more expensive," said Schendler, due to water and electricity costs.

The report also touched on other environmental concerns due to climate change, specifically the pine beetle infestation, which has now reached 3 million acres, not including a new outbreak covering 124,000 acres in southern Colorado.

Tax the evangelicals!

2010-02-02T19:12:48-07:00

When you take the Baptist Road exit off the Ronald Reagan Highway, you'll be in--of course--Colorado Springs, where one-third of the streetlights are now dark, and the city has been laying off firefighters, beat cops, burglary investigators, and the vice team. (There was a "vice team" in the Springs?)

City parks no longer have trash cans because no one can be hired to empty them. The parks will no longer be watered because the city can't afford it. Citizens themselves will be asked to wheel their lawnmowers over to green spaces and mow them themselves--only until late June, though; the grass will probably be dead by then.

Recreation centers and swimming pools will be closed in March, public transportation eliminated on nights and weekends, and streets will no longer be paved. Meanwhile, the city's homeless population, situated in 220 various "camps," continues to grow.

The city managed to sell their police helicopters for $877,000, not near enough to cover the $22 million dollar drop in sales tax revenue in 2010 compared with 2007. Last fall, voters turned down a measure that would have tripled the property tax, but would have brought in $27 million, enough to cover the shortfall.

Admittedly, that would have been a hefty property tax increase. On the other hand, when the parks dry up, and new streets aren't paved, and the ones that are have trash in the gutter, home values will go down much more than whatever the property tax might have been.

In any case, there is only one possible remedy: Tax the evangelicals! Do the math. The Springs has about 360,000 citizens. Figure two thirds of them--240,000--are evangelicals. If they all chip in a hundred bucks apiece--evangelicals love the flat tax--that should cover the sales tax short-fall for this year.

Soon to cost the nation millions of hours of sleep

2010-02-02T14:01:11-07:00

Sid Meier's Civilization, one of the most successful computer games ever, will have a Facebook version coming out later this year. Your humble blogger has been playing this game, and its later iterations, ever since it came out in 1991. This one, says Sid, will be free.

Hint: Play the Iroquois. The mounted warrior is the best offensive unit in the early years of the game.

He's usually smarter than this

2010-02-02T10:06:25-07:00

Said Ezra Klein today: "Look at Iowa or Indiana or South Carolina or Arkansas. In some, Obama won slightly more low-income voters than high-income voters, and in some, it was reversed, but the margins were always close. There's just not much evidence -- at least that I know of -- that Obama built his candidacy on the back of affluent voters. That's why, unlike Hart or Bradley, he won."

In actuality, with the exception of African-American voters, then candidate Obama did not win the working class in any primary. Klein's own examples don't support his case. Iowa was a caucus. Hillary won the working class in Indiana and Arkansas, and South Carolina's primary was mostly influenced by a heavy African-American vote. In actual primaries in the heartland of the working class--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas--Clinton swamped him.

The Democratic Party has a "traditionalist" wing, and an "activist" wing. The "activist" wing, made up mostly of so-called "wine track" voters, is usually capable of pulling about 25% of the vote in the nominating process. Think Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, or Bill Bradley.

Yes, candidate Obama did considerably better than that. He expanded beyond the "wine track" because he was able to pull in 90% of African-American voters, who, under normal circumstances, would be in the "traditionalist" wing. If you move African-American voters from the "traditionalist" to the "activist" camp, the "activist" camp suddenly becomes viable.

The barest scintilla of hope for Colorado's forests

2010-02-01T17:53:31-07:00

The Atlantic Monthly carries an article this month by Jim Giles regarding the pine beetle infestation in western forests. The infestation covers an area the size of the state of Maine. Particularly hard hit are Colorado and British Columbia. The cause of the infestation appears to be drought coupled with mild winters.

Richard Hofstetter, beetle expert at Northern Arizona University, in collaboration with student Reagan McGuire, thinks trying to drive the beetles crazy might work. First, he bombarded the beetles with the sounds of Rush Limbaugh. When that (surprisingly) didn't work, he tried the recorded aggression calls made by male insects. In one experiment, this caused the male to eat the female. In another, the insects left entirely.

These were lab experiments. Next spring, Hofstetter will try his approach in an actual forest. Even if it worked, it would not be practical to outfit every tree in Colorado with a boom box. What might work is creating an "acoustic firebreak" to protect still-healthy forests. Good luck, Professor Hofstetter.

Lectionary blogging: Luke 5:1-11

2010-01-31T20:01:44-07:00

Once while Jesus was standing beside the lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, ²he saw two boats there at the shore of the lake; the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. ³He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. ⁴When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, ‘Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.’ ⁵Simon answered, ‘Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.’ ⁶When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break. ⁷So they signalled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. ⁸But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!’ ⁹For he and all who were with him were amazed at the catch of fish that they had taken; ¹⁰and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, ‘Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.’ ¹¹When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.

Translation: And it happened, in the crowd pressing in upon him to hear the word of God, and he was standing alongside the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats standing by the lake, but the fishermen were gone from them, washing the nets. And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon's. He asked him to launch out a little from the land, and he sat down in the boat (and) he was teaching the people.

And just as he finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch." Simon answered and said, "Master, we have worked hard through the whole night (and) we have caught nothing, but upon your word I will let down the nets."

And when they had done this, they enclosed a multitude of many fish and their nets were breaking. And they signalled to the partners in the other boat, the ones coming to take together with them, and they came, and they filled both the boats, so that they began to sink.

And Simon Peter saw, (and) fell down to Jesus' knees, saying, "Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man." For astonishment seized him and all the ones with him upon the catch of fish which they took together, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners to Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, "Do not fear. From now, you will be taking people alive." And they brought the boats upon the land (and) left all (and) followed him.

This is Luke's version of the calling of Simon primarily, and the first disciples generally. It has no precise parallel in the synoptics. In fact--and this is unusual--it resembles the post-resurrection story in John 21:1-11 in which the Risen Jesus, standing on the shore, instructs the disciples to cast their nets on the other side of the boat. Doing so, they haul in a "net full of fish"--153 of them, in fact, which is said by some to represent all the known nations of the world at that time. (This makes a person wonder about possible connections between Luke and the author of the fourth gospel.)

Our pericope begins with the Greek word egeneto, a word relating to creation, or something coming into being--literally, in this case, "it happened." This is usually a signal that something special is taking place.

Since 4:43, Jesus has been preaching the "good news." The crowd is "pressing in" to hear "the word--logos--of God." Logos, which we translate as "word," is thick with meaning. In this period of history, it meant God's communication with the created world. Much more than simply "words on a page," it combines the concepts of thought, power, and action.

Moreover, thus far in Luke, Jesus has been identified as being in the prophetic tradition of Israel. (For more, see notes on the two previous lections--Luke 4:14-21, and also Luke 4:21-30.) Prophets were said to bring "the word of God." By "pressing in to hear the word of God" from Jesus, the crowd is seeing him as being in the prophetic tradition.

The venue is the "lake of Gennesaret," more familiarly known as the "sea of Galilee." Gennesaret was also a town on the northwest shore of the lake, not far from Capernaum. In using the word "Gennesaret," Luke is using a variation of a word that appears in the Hebrew scriptures (Joshua 19:35). (He is also not using the fourth gospel's term, "the sea of Tiberias." Luke identifies the venue in terms of Hebrew tradition, not terms indicating Caesar's ownership.)

The lake supported a significant fishing industry, and a number of towns, with their harbors, ringed the lake. The fishing economy was not "free market." The lake, and all the fish in it, belonged to Caesar, which means that people had to get a license to fish it. The license would be sold by the local tax collector. (Matthew?)

Nor was fishing a solitary exercise. Usually, people banded together to get a license. Most often, these groups were related. James and John, for example, were in a "kinship group" that fished the lake, as were Peter and Andrew. (In this text, James and John are named as "partners" of Simon. Perhaps they were all in the same group. In any case, the focus in this text is squarely on Simon.)

The crowd is "pressing in" on Jesus, and so Jesus gets into one of two boats, "the one belonging to Simon," and asks Simon to put out a little from the shore. In the setting of the story thus far, the reason for this appears to be so that Jesus can get some distance from the crowd in order to communicate with them better. (That is not the real reason, as we shall see.)

The fishermen who man the boats are said to be away "washing their nets." Most translations give the impression that the fisherman were at some distance, but apobantes may also mean that they were "turned" from them, i.e. facing another direction. In any case, Simon is there, and does as Jesus says, which is to "launch out a little."

Incidentally, Joel Green (citing Bivin) identifies these nets as "trammel nets" which were made of linen. They were used only at night because, during the day, the fish could see them, but, at night, they could not. After a night of fishing with these "trammel nets," they would be washed in the morning.

Jesus sat down in the boat, the traditional posture of that time for the communication of an important message, and "was teaching"--the people. Edidasken is in the imperfect, suggesting action begun and continuing. Jesus' teaching never ends.

Immediately upon finishing his speech to the crowd, Jesus spoke to Simon and instructed him to "launch out into the deep" and let down the nets. ("Trammel nets" for day-time fishing? This will be a miracle on many levels!)

Jesus has been talking only to Simon, though other fishermen are assumed with the use of the word "they". When "they" did as Jesus said, they caught "a multitude of many fish," so many that their linen nets were giving way. Those in Simon's boat "signalled" to the "partners in the other boat." (The word translated "signalled" is kateneusan--literally, a nod of assent.)

Those in the "other boat" now come to assist Simon and his crew. Their boat gets filled as well, to the point that both began to sink. This over-flowing gift of "a multitude of many fish" is greater than their power to haul it in. They are being swamped by God's benificience.

Then, Simon Peter saw. For the first time in Luke's gospel, Simon is also identified as Peter, although he will not get this name from Jesus until 6:14. Note also that Simon Peter saw--idwn de simon petros. The verb is in the primary position, which is a subtle emphasis. This is a critical moment in the on-going process of Simon's conversion.

Let me explain: In Luke's gospel, Simon is mentioned for the first time in 4:38--"After leaving the synagogue he (Jesus) entered Simon’s house." Jesus initiates the action, as you might expect, but note the kind of action. The first mention of Simon in Luke's gospel is that Jesus enters his house.

The house, psychologically speaking, is a symbol of the ego or the self. When we stop and think about it, this makes a certain obvious sense. As it always has, the house represents class, wealth, taste, status, even, in many cases, a person's psychology, and presents it to the world, To say "he entered Simon's house" is to say, at a psychological level, that Jesus entered into the complete reality of the person of Simon.

The next time Simon is mentioned is 5:4: Jesus gets into a boat, "the one belonging to Simon." Again, Jesus initiates the action. This time, he does not enter into Simon's personal space, but rather into his "economic space." He enters Simon's boat, and, in so doing, he enters into Simon's occupation, his means of livelihood, his way of participation in the economic system.

Next, Jesus tells Simon "to launch out a little from the land." Then, Jesus teaches. After that, Jesus tells Peter to "launch out into the deep." In sum thus far, Jesus has entered into Simon's personal, public, private, and economic life. He has told Simon to go out a little bit. He has taught in the presence of Simon. Now, Jesus tells Simon to go "into the deep." Go in completely and utterly. It is, in effect, a call to lose himself in every way--especially as he is defined by his own ego, under the current economic arrangements.

Simon replies, "Master." (Peter will again use this title for Jesus in chapter 9, as will John, for the first time.) Then Simon says, in effect: We have fished and fished and fished in (Caesar's) lake and don't have a thing to show for it. But, if you say so, we will fish. Next, they are swamped in fish, and next after that, "Simon Peter saw." Old Simon as well as New Peter saw. He got it--or better, Jesus got him.

Simon's response is, first, adoration. He falls at Jesus' knees. His second response is to say, "Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man." He now calls Jesus "Lord," but sees, as well, a chasm between himself and his Lord. To buttress the point, this is the first time in Luke's gospel that the word "sin" (hamartolos) is used. As Eduard Schweizer notes, hamartolos means "missing the mark"--not sin as moral failure, but sin as distance from God. This is what Simon sees about himself.

Jesus tells Simon not to fear. Fear is a natural response when one gets a glimpse between one's self and God. Nevertheless, the word from Jesus is: me phobou--Fear not! Your old self is gone. Your new self, which flows out of God's life and abundance, has a mission: "From now, you will be taking people alive."

Yes, the Greek text doesn't say quite what people have been led to believe. The word is zogreo. It is formed from zoos, which means "alive," and agreo, which means "catch." Considering that the related word agra had already been used twice to speak of catching fish, the subtle change in the Greek word to zogreo would argue for putting the emphasis on "alive"--not just catching, but catching alive.

Thus, the call of Simon. It was a detailed and intense process, from entering Simon's house and his boat, to prodding him a little then a lot, and leading him even "into the deep." Losing himself is not loss, however, because there is life and abundance on the other side. Simon Peter saw, through which came a new identity and a true mission.

"And they brought the boats upon the land (and) left all (and) followed him." Their means of livelihood is de-activated. They no longer participate in the established economic system. They "left all"--not only their means of support in the current system, but their old identities, and their traditional connections. Simon is no longer defined by his past, but by his future. Which is why they followed Jesus.

This story is not completely focused on Simon. He has "partners," late in the story identified as James and John. They share in the astonishment, and Luke makes a point of saying that they participate in the manifestation of God's bounty--"the catch of fish which they took together."

The process of Simon's conversion is not complete--he won't get the name of Peter from Jesus until 6:14. Then again, no one's conversion is ever complete. Every day, as Luther said, we must be born anew--shaken away from our old attachments each and every day, which is necessary because these attachments harden each and every day. No one's conversion is ever complete, and Simon's wasn't either. Nevertheless, he is now on the way.

Two prize fighters after a tough bout

2010-01-30T21:23:03-07:00

John Petty

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee

2010-01-30T11:22:00-07:00

He bobbed, he weaved, he rope-a-doped their jabs--and then he delivered a couple of haymakers of his own. It was a boffo performance by the President. Fox News, first reduced to talking over his answers, wound up cutting away entirely. They threw in the towel in the 8th round.

Obama snookered them before he even arrived. The meeting was already scheduled, but, at the White House's suggestion, the Republicans agreed to have the event televised, a mistake they surely will not make again.

Most of the questions seemed more like speeches. Work in all the regular themes--tax cuts, reduce big government--pose them to the President, then take credit back home for "standing up to Washington." The GOP members appeared to think that the recitation of "talking points" would be sufficient to rock the President back on his heels. As it turned out, Obama responded with respect, then rebuttal, and, in some cases, a blistering rebuke.

This is the problem with insularity. When you speak only to people who agree with you, after awhile your arguments get lax and turn into incantations. All the people you know cheer these incantations, and never is heard a discouraging word. You come to believe that the incantation itself is the argument. It works in your world, and you are surprised when others find it wanting.

Biblical fundamentalists, for example, almost never engage other points of view. Their arguments work in their world, but get little traction outside it. For example, the book of Matthew says that Judas died by hanging while Luke says he dove into a pile of rocks. When asked to resolve this question, they say that Judas first hung himself, then the rope broke and he landed in the rocks. This argument works in their world, and they seem flummoxed when people outside their circle respond with, "That works for you?"

The Congressional Republicans served up their "talking points" and the President swatted them away. When Congressman Pence said the Republican plan--across-the-board tax cuts, natch--would produce twice the jobs at half the cost, Obama countered smoothly, essentially saying that nobody outside this room believes that, but if anyone did he'd be a fool not to take it seriously, but since they don't, he doesn't.

And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn't say, great. The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

When the topic turned to health care reform, Obama demonstrated that he understood their own internal politics perhaps better than they did. They can't come to agreement with the administration on anything because, if they did, they would be pilloried among their own base. Their own internal politics precludes any bipartisan participation, which makes it impossible to reach bipartisan agreement.

For that very reason, the encounter isn't likely to change much in Congress. As long as the hardest-right of the GOP base holds the rest of the party hostage, the GOP Congressional delegation has zero "whiggle room." The rest of the country, however, saw the President go into the lion's den, engage the opposition, and come out the victor. Following upon a successful State of the Union message, it has been a good week for President Obama.

Happy Kansas Day

2010-01-29T12:47:16-07:00

John Petty

True words

2010-01-28T19:45:06-07:00

John Petty

State of the Union Review

2010-01-28T18:35:08-07:00

I had to catch the State of the Union on replay, which meant that I heard the commentary before I heard the speech--the commentary was inane, the speech pretty good. As is typical for State of the Union speeches, a good portion was platitudinous fluff, i.e. paeans to the resilience of our spirit, the nobility of our people, and "a better future for our children." To wit:

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.)

Did anyone catch this in the opening? "But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run...victory was very much in doubt." Those who still seem to see themselves as representing the Confederate States of America might see that battle some differently.

Some of his critics have said the President seems too professorial and doesn't have the common touch. He has obviously heard that criticism and was clearly trying to speak to working citizens and connect with them at several points. This passage was typical:

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

In another move to distance himself from the Big Banks and Wall Street, the first thing he said about the economy was how everyone, including himself, hated the bank bailout. Nevertheless, he felt he had to support "the last administration's effort to create the financial rescue program." (Translation: Bush started it, and you supported him.)

Secondly, he would impose a fee on the Big Banks--opposed by Wall Street, he didn't mind noting--"to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need." The dour expressions on the faces of his opponents should, as Joan Walsh notes, find a place in Democratic campaign commercials this fall.

The fees are to reimburse the government for some of the costs of the bank bailout, which is good, but much more than this is needed. How about breaking up the Big Banks? Anything "too big to fail" needs to be made smaller.

Finally, after one year of putting up with hypocritical abuse from the opposition, he reminded them and the American people that most of their economic woes are attributable to the policies of the previous administration. To the consternation of many, he had not pinned the recession on his predecessor, as Reagan did in 1982--not, that is, until just now:

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

That said, and it needed to be, the President seemed to make a point of introducing a number of Republican-friendly measures, such as: small business tax credits, elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment, nuclear power plants, so-called "clean coal," a federal spending freeze, and opening up offshore drilling. (At least he didn't say "drill, baby drill.")

The President did three things well: (1) He reminded people of how we got into the financial crisis, but (2) left the door open for cooperation with the opposition in a number of areas, and (3) labored, with some success, to get ahead of the public mood on banks and Wall Street.

What he didn't do as well: (1) Foreign policy got relatively short shrift, which, considering the peoples' priorities right now, probably worked. (2) He encouraged passing health care reform, but took no specific lead; (3) He accepted Republican frames on deficits. ("Families across the country are tightening their belts, and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.") This is just flat wrong. In a recession, the government needs to spend. In 1937, FDR thought budget-balancing was the thing to do, which promptly increased unemployment.

Much comment also focused on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who was peeved when the President criticized the recent Supreme Court decision reaffirming the ludicrous idea that corporations are people and money is speech. Justices usually just sit there like bumps on a log, which is supposed to convey seriousness-of-purpose and nonpartisanship. Frankly, Alito's reaction didn't bother me as much as it bothered Glenn Greenwald. Any pretense of Supreme Court bipartisanship already went out the door with Bush v. Gore. Besides, he just mouthed "not true." He didn't yell "you lie!"

Requiscat in Pacem, Howard Zinn

2010-01-28T09:49:38-07:00

He's most famous for being the author of A Peoples' History of the United States, in which he explores history from the point of view of the common people, and not from the point of view of senators, generals, or tychoons. The history of the civil war, for example, is not only the story of Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, but of the entirety of the peoples' experience of that war, including the ways individual citizens shaped events. Emancipation was partly because of Lincoln, yes, but also partly because of black peoples' own experience and action to procure it.

2010-01-27T21:30:00-07:00

John Petty

As a matter of historical interest, the Republican response to the President's State of the Union message was delivered from the place where Jefferson Davis gave his second inaugural address on February 22, 1862

2010-01-27T21:24:49-07:00

ht: Digby

What if Hillary were president?

2010-01-27T08:52:34-07:00

This is the one-year mark of the Obama presidency and the major magazines and news agencies have had various summaries and interpretations. My own view is that I largely agree with President Obama's policies--if a pollster asked me if I supported the president, I would answer "yes." The problem, and it's a big one, is that the White House messaging operation has been a disaster. How you could take a popular issue, like health care reform, and turn it into a political negative is political malpractice of the highest order.

So I was wondering: What if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee last year and were president now? I have little doubt she'd have won the election. The campaign was decided when the financial crisis struck on September 14, 2008, After that, everyone knew the Democratic nominee was going to win. To that point, the race had been roughly tied. The financial crisis gave then-Sen. Obama a 7 point lead and he won by 7 points.

What would a (Hillary) Clinton presidency look like? On foreign policy, she would have, of course, pursued many of the same priorities she now pursues as Secretary of State, such as "smart power," and womens' rights. She seems also to take a generally multilateral approach to conflict situations, which she can get away with because she has a reputation as a "hawk"--a reputation that, based on her approach to Afghanistan, seems to be justified.

In terms of domestic policy, my view is that her positions across a wide range of issues, including health care reform, would have been substantially the same as those pursued by President Obama. In fact, the compromise health care reform that has emerged this year--to the extent you can determine what it is--is in some ways, such as mandating universal coverage, similar to Hillary's position during the campaign. (Some say that John Edwards' health care reform proposal pushed both Clinton and Obama to the left.)

The political strategy, however, would probably have been different. During the campaign, she had said that health care reform would be a major project of her second year in office. The first year would have been focused on the trademark Clinton issues--"It's the economy, stupid"--of job growth in particular, and economic growth in general.

She probably would have supported the stimulus. If anything, she might have made it bigger. She likely would also have supported the bailout--which continued, keep in mind, the Bush administration policy--though with this important difference: There would have been something in it for the middle class. During the campaign, and after, she called for the resurrection of an FDR program, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, that would help people stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure.

There would have been no pretense of bipartisanship in a Clinton presidency--no expectation that the clouds would part or celestial choirs would sing--which, ironically, might have actually produced some bipartisanship. When she went to the Senate, she was hated by many GOP members precisely because she was known as a partisan Democrat and a fierce combatant. They came to respect her though, and came to regard her as a worthy opponent, which in turn led to some actual results.

She would have governed as a Democrat, in other words. Her main political strength would have been her appeal to the working class. Hillary connects with Main Street, which is demonstrated well in this iconic photograph. By going to bat for the middle class on the stimulus (and on health care reform and other issues), she would have solidified and broadened that support.

This is not to criticize President Obama, who brings his own gifts and skills to the job, and who must also bear, politically and personally, the burden of having his presidency undermined by those who want to brand him as "the Other." Make no mistake, there would have been misogyny aplenty in the undertow of American politics if Hillary had been elected, but I don't think it would have worked to try to paint her as "not one of us." Let us hope it doesn't work with President Obama either.