My theological sense seems to be in flux. Feel a decided disconnect with being a Sunday Monarchist and a Monday citizen (as a Xtian Century article put it, back in May '89).

Patty tells me most of the monarchy stuff in the Bible was added by order of King James. She is currently enrolled in Phillips Seminary, with the goal of being a Disciples minister. So I have little reason to doubt her, except to wonder how all the "Lords" have survived in any number of translations (even the Jerusalem). I'm aware the holy name "Jahweh" is normally translated "Lord", but surely someone would have thought of an alternative by now.

Take, for example, Paul's statement normally translated along the lines of "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

For some time I have struggled with the statement "Jesus is Lord." At one point, I thought it might be the one statement all the mainstream denominations could agree on. If this sort of accord could be reached, folk could worry about the meaning on their own time, as it were. But what does it mean? Having no models of a Lord beyond the British Parliment, the phrase can only have sentimental meaning — which is to say, it has no basis in reality, and no consequences.

Well, perhaps a better transliteration would be "Jesus is C.E.O." At least that has a basis in ordinary Western experience. For the moment, we'll assume that Jesus is a more ethical C.E.O. than Ken Lay, et al. In this model, our response would be an unquestioning obedience, as continued employment would require in the business world. Certainly an image the fundies would support, with the understanding that they have the corner on understanding Jesus' orders and have the sole right to deliver them to us proles.

The image I am enamoured of, with the recognition it mostly comes via Andrew Greeley, is of God as unreasoning lover. God seeks only that humanity return the love. And, as is true of human loving relationships, one does things to please the beloved. In the ideal, no one is "head" (to controvert Paul) but each is the equal partner of the other. Both the words "husband" and "wife" have elements of care-taking and service in them.

Jesus speaks of God as a mother hen, so perhaps God is the Bride & humanity is the bridegroom. But, if we believe that God provides food, warmth, and shelter, then God would be the husband. I believe the model works either way.

Even the prophet Jeremiah dreamed of the day that humanity would be so in tune with the loving God that it would be as if God's law were written on our hearts. There would be no need of external laws or unquestioning obedience.

The other struggle I am having is with the image of Jesus as Paschal Lamb. That I would be burdened with my sins except that Jesus was tortured in my behalf. People are kidding themselves when they contrast the O.T. God against the N.T. God; this sort of sacrifice is very O.T. The theology is O.T. What sort of loving God demands a sacrifice? And not just any sacrifice, but the most barbaric cruel sacrifice humanity of the first century can dream up?

If we buy Rabbi Kushner's notion that God does not play around with the laws of nature, then it makes sense that God would allow events to unfold naturally. Jesus' death was predictable because he spoke truth to power. And power destroyed him. I waffle on the physical reality of the resurrection, but there is no question that the teachings and the story have lasted over 2K years.

Yes, "God so loved the World that He gave His only Son"; but the "giving" here was in the sense that the world had a choice in how it would respond to Jesus. The world could listen and strive to follow the teachings, or the world could destroy the teacher. As is common, the world chose to destroy the teacher. Incidentally, each individual in the world has the same choice today. We can be true to our better selves, our inner angels, or we can take the easy road of transitory personal gain.

I'm aware that my views are at best unorthodox, at worst heretical. Many would see it as my wrestling match with Yhwh. Well – so be it!