The Season of Blood    

 

Harry T. Cook
Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook
4/11/14

 

 

With Passion Week and Easter at hand, millions of Christians of all stripes will hear once again the myth-ridden story of Jesus of Nazareth and his death in whom and in which, it is said, those interested in eternal life for themselves must believe.

 

The theology is that human beings were born in sin and must have that sin forgiven along with all the singular sins great and small that have sprung from it. According to the one called St. Paul, "The wages of sin is death,"* meaning that a death must occur to efface said sin and so spare the life of sinners. Thus the second clause of that passage: "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," or as the signs at who- knows-how-many thousands of evangelical churches proclaim: JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS.

 

The theologians call it "the blood atonement," which goes right along with the eye-for-an-eye theory -- both barbaric ideas whose time has long run out at least in that small part of the world in which reason rules.

 

Atonement in its secular sense is usually thought of as compensation for trespass against an individual. Indeed, reconciliation by way of atonement with those whom one has hurt is necessary because one-on-one antagonisms can turn an entire community sour.

 

How, though, should a community itself atone and for what? One does not have to look far to see that for which society could atone: Income disparity made worse by malign partisan politics added to a sometimes willed ignorance or, worse, disregard on the part of haves of what the have-nots must endure; the despoiling of the environment; the profligate consumption and the throwaway culture that aids and abets it.

 

Atonement for such wrongs cannot be made in the form of a general confession, or, for that matter, in the familiar sacrament of penance. Words and intentions will not suffice, meaning that a community whose members acknowledge the reality of societal trespass upon the dignity of the economically and socially defenseless as well as upon the fabric of Earth herself must mobilize for action in a world-aware manner.

 

The Hail Marys and Our Fathers of the past, mumbled for absolution on the cheap after three minutes in the confessional, or fasting on Yom Kippur or during Ramadan, will have to be replaced with learning about what an intentional community can and should do to alleviate the indignities of social neglect and oppression and to remediate the damage human beings have done to the environment.

 

Such initiative, if pursued with purpose and integrity, will inevitably entail sacrifice. The goal of such sacrifice, however, is not the atoner's eventual resurrection to eternal life or anything like that. It is about setting things to right here and now for those living and those who are yet to live.

 

The animation of dead tissue is long since the purview of such fantasy writers as Mary Wollstonencraft Shelley. The idea of spiritual resurrection is less creepy but as fantastical nevertheless. Both partake in the human desire to believe death isn't the end but that immortality is somehow in the cards.

 

Despite the incredible contentions of such books as "Heaven Is For Real," the real reality is that death is death and what of immortality we may reasonably desire will rest in the memory of our survivors -- and, for the more prominent, in the history books.

 

When I passed my 75th birthday a couple of months ago, I began to wonder how I would be remembered by those who have risked their own reputation and sanity to love me.

 

I want to have given my children and grandchildren reason to think that this particular father and grandfather did and said and wrote such things as may be deemed useful, humane, wise and enduring in attempts to set right what my generation and those before mine did wrong or, out of negligence or cowardice, allowed to happen.

 

Of course, I will know nothing of how my kids and their kids will think of me when I am gone. But should I have bequeathed them memories of a man who was part of the solution rather than of the problem, that will be resurrection enough.

 

*Epistle to the Romans, 6:23

 


Copyright 2014 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 

Readers Write 
Essay 4/4/14: Nobody Else's Business  

 

Cathy Petrolje, Zeeland, MI:  

 Could not let this essay of yours go unanswered, I believe that the Bible is the one and only true way.  I believe that Christ died for my sins and yours, and will sometime be with him in eternity.  My belief is that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  If a woman should be able to have an abortion than maybe they should think twice about what they are doing and use preventive measures when engaging in sexual relations.  With all your knowledge you could be doing so much out there in bringing the lost souls and others to the Christian faith, without faith we would be nowhere in this world.  Sometimes in your essays you just use big words instead of speaking to everyone.

 

Laren S. Jones, Mooresville, NC:

 I could not agree with you more! The only reason to object to gay/lesbian marriage is to separate them from society and deny them the benefits of marriage that heterosexuals share. I should think that including gays and lesbians into a stable union would be a plus and not a negative. To include gays and lesbians in the institution of legal marriage would wipe some of the stigma and shame that many associate them with. I do not regard being gay as a choice, but Mother Nature's way of slowing down the birth rate in the World. The Fundamentalists quoting the Bible is archaic in this day and age. The Bible was written by man and in its many translations has had words changed that effect the entire meaning of any given sentence. I believe that the Bible was meant to be a handbook, not a reason to be exclusionary. Gays and lesbians cannot help who they are and should not be chastised and excluded from the few benefits that heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman offer. The sanctity of marriage allows spouses to be at the hospital bedside of their loved one, but does not allow the same for the partners of gays and lesbians, no matter the fact that they may have been together for more years than most marriages have lasted! Really? Commitment is commitment and who are we to exclude those who are different than we are? Haven't we, as a group, learned anything from the past?

   

 

 

Peter Lawson, Valley Ford, CA:
"Maybe those who oppose abortion or even birth control unknowingly harbor those same fears. Just wondering." Maybe so. And maybe it is a deep-seated anxiety on the part of dominant men that their hegemony will be eroded, or ended, when they can't control the sexual/reproductive process. Or to put it more graphically, do dominant men ever let their women get on top? I love your stuff. Keep stirring things up.

 

Susan Brownlee, Stamford, CT: 

Nobody else's business is right! What a dumb country we live in with people trying to manage our personal bodies and affairs. That shouldn't have to be made clear, but you did and for that I thank you.

 

 

Doris Boruff Peterson, Omaha, NE:  

Have just purchased your What A Friend They Had In Jesus: The Theological Visions of Nineteenth-and Twentieth-Century Hymn Writers" from Polebridge Press and am so grateful to you, for although I have believed precisely what you wrote, I have never heard or read anyone mention any of it. I look forward to your weekly essays. Thank you for speaking out.  

 

 

Joel Pugh, Dallas, TX:  

Good Teaching. Keep it up! Sadly, the Methodist Church in Pennsylvania and here in Texas still teaches discrimination based on a rule that they put into their Book of Discipline in 1972.  In 1973, the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Psychiatric Association acknowledged that their previous teaching that Homosexuality was a "disease" was in fact, wrong.  Unfortunately, many people with bad teaching before that date just cannot cope with science and struggle to embrace bad teaching. I guess most of the pain in this world is a result of bad teaching.

 

Roberta Hawley, Lexington, KY:  

I hope you don't mind that I sent a copy of today's essay "Nobody Else's Business" to the scourge of the Blue Grass State, Sen. Mitch McConnell. He's always in our business and should cut it out. Yours is a bright light shining. Let it shine.

 

Florence Kohler, Cincinnati, OH:  

You may be right about gay marriage, though I can't imagine anyone I know wanting it. But you are wrong, wrong, wrong about abortion. That is never right. And it is of public concern, just as murder is.

 

Frankie Nolan, Boulder, CO: 

You may not know it, but you have quite a following here. People still remember your speech at the Humanist Institute several years ago. I sent your essay on to several people and told them to subscribe for themselves. Thank you for your clear thinking and sparkling prose.

 

 

Blayney Colmore, La Jolla, CA:
Funny that so-called conservatives would object to gay marriage. Marriage must be among the most conservative instruments devised by humankind. Conservatives with consistent views might celebrate victory over the once rampant fears of promiscuity openly gay people aroused (one wonders how much unconscious longing may be what motivates that). I am loathe to admit that I do understand the abortion controversy, though I am not persuaded of the integrity of all those who oppose it. Should you believe that a two-celled fetus is a full human -- an opinion that seems far-fetched to me -- then you would oppose abortion (along with war). And I think smoking outside one's home can be regulated since second-hand smoke has been shown to cause harm. But gay marriage? Conservatives should declare victory.


Brian McHugh, Silver City, NM:  
[You wrote: "Maybe those who oppose abortion or even birth control unknowingly harbor those same fears. Just wondering."] Maybe Jesus, unmarried, was saying something about heterosexual marriage. Just wondering. Maybe those who oppose abortion or even birth control unknowingly harbor those same fears. Just wondering.

Cynthia Chase, Laurel, MD:

The problem as I see it is that something that was hidden has come out in the open, making many -- who really knew about gayness all along --very uncomfortable. Gays and lesbians are claiming a place at the table, with pride and dignity.


John Bennison, Walnut Creek, CA:  
All the contorted arguments to defend so-called "traditional" marriage could be considered downright silly, if it wasn't so sad. The problem - and the distinction that is so often missed -- isn't that it's nobody else's business, but that human sexuality is everybody's business. We may look different, act different, believe different things, but we are all sexual beings to the core. That's why sexual discrimination is altogether different from other forms of discrimination. I say, if we have to reduce the term "marriage" to nothing more than the sexual union of two persons of the opposite sex, then let the sexual bigots have it. Human beings will inalterably seek oneness however possible. What the advocates of same-sex unions seek -- beyond equal legal rights now accorded others -- is what everyone wants; namely, acceptance. And there's the rub.

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.