Ecumenically Speaking

I've found the topic of religion too omnipresent lately to ignore it.

Religion is such a personal topic that I've always been a bit uncomfortable discussing certain aspects of it in a public forum. I've always enjoyed reading the scriptures and learning more about the lives of the various characters of the Bible. I don't even mind discussing various points of theology and the historical context that surround them. But, it's something different when I'm asked to speak of the most intimate relationship I have and the most personal beliefs I hold.

When I was in college, I first read Richard Nixon's autobiography. He grew up in a Quaker family in southern California. While his father was a fire and brimstone convert, his mother was very genial and forgiving. But still very formal. Even in her everyday conversation, she would salt her sentences with "thee" and "thine" and "thou"; she took the scriptural reference to praying in closets literally and would isolate herself before she began to speak to the Lord. When her son began his public career and was about to make a public appearance, she would often send word that he was in her thoughts. It was her religious euphemism that she was praying for him.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand the intense personal thoughts that surround one's religious convictions and taking them public is a difficult process.

Last night, I pulled a book off the shelf that I've not read in a while. It's called The Four Witnesses by Robin Griffith-Jones. The book is more or less a personality profile of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Since each came from different backgrounds, their experiences as Apostles, not to mention their writing styles, were quite different. And apparently, so were their memories. So while each account is similar and tells the same essential story, the different perspectives allow each reading to be unique.

Take, for example, the wedding at Cana. Although all of the Apostles were present, only Luke chose to include this particular account in his gospel. Considering it's widely considered to be Jesus' first miracle, I'm surprised only he remembered the story.

Modern historians and theologians can argue amongst themselves as to whether the wedding was Jesus', if the wedding actually occurred or was a parable, or even where the city of Cana was located. I'm content to believe that the wedding actually occurred and it occurred somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee, a little north of Nazareth.

I became very interested in the directional language Luke used to describe the post-wedding travels. For instance, he writes: "After this he (Jesus) went down to Capernaum" and in the next verse "and Jesus went up to Jerusalem."

I find it improper to read books that describe geographic locations without being intimately familiar with them. Additionally, I find it essential to understand the historical context. So, last night, I immersed myself in the topography of the area surrounding the Sea of Galilee.

Knowing that Capernaum was East of Cana and Jerusalem was to the South, I was confused why Luke would write "down" to describe traveling East and "up" to describe traveling South. It added a new perspective that Luke was describing travel in terms of elevation and not latitude and longitude.

Now, I don't know that that has to do in regards to any eternal perspective, but it does help understand the style of the author and his times.