my closing paragraph in my last post wasn't intended to trash the supernatural or miracles. i acknowledge the role of "miracles" in scripture as signs pointing to the coming kingdom of God; and i actually think we need to re-understand what miracles are, but that's a different post. my point in de-emphasizing the supernatural is that i think that most people view miracles and the like as the point of religion or faith. and, in fact, many people are atheists or agnostics because they do not believe in miracles and therefore cannot believe in God. thus i think the high emphasis that christians have historically placed on miracles and supernatural happenings have been damaging to the ultimate mission of the church.
i say this also because the more i think about how all of reality fits together and what christianity teaches about the human story, the more i realize how miraculous everything really is. for we, just like everything else around us, make up something that transcends ourselves.
our purpose, our function, is to be God's representation on earth. our purpose is to rule in his place. yet, adam screwed that up. but christ is the second adam. christ modeled what we were made to do, and now we are now to communally and individually embody him. we make up christ's body. communally, joined in agape, we are the closest thing on earth to its creator.
chaos--> sub-atomic particles--> atoms--> molecules--> cells--> tissues--> organs--> organ systems--> human--> church--><-- God
yesterday, a cousin told my wife how disappointed she is in her father because he doesn't go to church every week. if i were there i would have asked, "why? what's the purpose of going to church? is there an attendance quota we need to meet?"
i wonder how different things would be if we stopped seperating the supernatural from the everyday. i think about how my cousin's warpped understanding of what the church is affects her father's understanding of it. then i think about how the warpped understanding the church has had about itself affects the world's understanding of it. just sayin.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
finding jesus in ken wilber
in velvet elvis, rob bell, recommends the book, a brief history of everything, by ken wilber. rob received a lot of flack recommending a book by a zen buddhist philosopher. but i was intrigued that rob found this book so worth reading, and since i believe all truth is God's truth, i thought i would pick it up. i'm about half way through, and though i reject wilber's pantheistic view of God, i am finding a lot of thought-provoking content.
wilber explains that all of reality is made up of "holons." holons are nothing more than anything that is a whole, yet is also a part. for example, an atom is its own entity, but it is also part of a molecule. and likewise, a molecule is something in and of itself, yet is also part of a cell. wilber then explains that as holons go into deeper levels of complexity (e.g. atoms to molecules) there become fewer of them. to put it another way-- there are more atoms than there are humans, which are made of atoms.
the implication that human beings are holons themselves is obvious. i spend a lot of time as a social work student learning about systems theory. put simply, systems theory theorizes that human being are and function in systems. our bodies are made up of organ systems, and we live and work in social systems e.g. families, neighborhoods, communities, governments etc. we are wholes and we are parts. the big question i have in all of this is that just like atoms work together to create molecules, which work together to create cells, is there something greater that we create when we work together? or, just like there are forces that hold atoms and molecules together to work in a functionally, orderly way, what forces hold people together?
what are the implications in all of this for christianity?
the bible is rife with commands to love others, your neighbor, your brother and to love God. in fact, there is a strong connection with loving God and loving people. the bible, in many regards, is a book about relationships-- what happens when they are good, and what happens when they go wrong. the apostle paul teaches that the church-- a group of people loving each other and loving God-- are to be christ's body. maybe paul was one of the first systems theorists. he seems to be saying that people are to be bonded together by the force of love, or agape, and live in this higher, functional way. which leads me to wonder that maybe there is something deeper going on when people start getting emotional and all touchy-feely in intense worship services, or listening to speakers that seem to tap into something or hit a nerve.
what if the bible is the story of people plugging into the force that binds humans together and takes them to higher levels of complexity? just like sub-atomic particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, cells form tissue, tissue form organs, organs form organ systems, and organ systems form us... what do we form? what are we meant to form?
i think spirituality is rooted in relationships and community; and i'm really not interested in God being proven by miracles or supernatural phenomenon, which i think is what many people think of as "spiritual." jesus had some strong words for people begging him for miracles. so needless to say, i'm finding a lot of stimulating ideas in ken wilber's writings, and in many regards because of some of the ideas in his book, God seems realer and closer than before.
wilber explains that all of reality is made up of "holons." holons are nothing more than anything that is a whole, yet is also a part. for example, an atom is its own entity, but it is also part of a molecule. and likewise, a molecule is something in and of itself, yet is also part of a cell. wilber then explains that as holons go into deeper levels of complexity (e.g. atoms to molecules) there become fewer of them. to put it another way-- there are more atoms than there are humans, which are made of atoms.
the implication that human beings are holons themselves is obvious. i spend a lot of time as a social work student learning about systems theory. put simply, systems theory theorizes that human being are and function in systems. our bodies are made up of organ systems, and we live and work in social systems e.g. families, neighborhoods, communities, governments etc. we are wholes and we are parts. the big question i have in all of this is that just like atoms work together to create molecules, which work together to create cells, is there something greater that we create when we work together? or, just like there are forces that hold atoms and molecules together to work in a functionally, orderly way, what forces hold people together?
what are the implications in all of this for christianity?
the bible is rife with commands to love others, your neighbor, your brother and to love God. in fact, there is a strong connection with loving God and loving people. the bible, in many regards, is a book about relationships-- what happens when they are good, and what happens when they go wrong. the apostle paul teaches that the church-- a group of people loving each other and loving God-- are to be christ's body. maybe paul was one of the first systems theorists. he seems to be saying that people are to be bonded together by the force of love, or agape, and live in this higher, functional way. which leads me to wonder that maybe there is something deeper going on when people start getting emotional and all touchy-feely in intense worship services, or listening to speakers that seem to tap into something or hit a nerve.
what if the bible is the story of people plugging into the force that binds humans together and takes them to higher levels of complexity? just like sub-atomic particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, cells form tissue, tissue form organs, organs form organ systems, and organ systems form us... what do we form? what are we meant to form?
i think spirituality is rooted in relationships and community; and i'm really not interested in God being proven by miracles or supernatural phenomenon, which i think is what many people think of as "spiritual." jesus had some strong words for people begging him for miracles. so needless to say, i'm finding a lot of stimulating ideas in ken wilber's writings, and in many regards because of some of the ideas in his book, God seems realer and closer than before.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
my first book review
i'm reviewing books for the ooze's viral blogger site. check it out.
Rebecca Price Janney's new book entitled, Who Goes There: A Cultural History of Heaven and Hell, sets out to trace the history of American beliefs concerning the afterlife. The problem I found with this book, however, is that I continually had to remind myself that this is what the author was supposed to be doing. Because while much of the book is a history lesson, the author is simultaneously arguing a theological position, which I think she does unsuccessfully.
In the first chapter, Janney argues that Americans have a wishy-washy view of the afterlife believing most people go to heaven, while only the most wicked go to hell. She then says that this is dangerous because only Jesus can provide assurance of heaven. From there, Janney goes on a whirlwind tour through American history chronicling various Christian movements. During this portion of the book-- which is pretty much all of it-- I sensed in Janney's tone the notion that America was once a godly, Christian nation, and it has slowly descended into liberal unorthodoxy (prior to the 1960's people didn't have sex outside of marriage?? p. 179). In the epilogue,Janney argues that in the good (bad?) old days when life expectancy was like 30, people took comfort in the thought of heaven and lived by biblical principles because they feared hell. But now with modern medicine, the media, and technology, Americans do what they please without the fear of death. She then says that this ground is sinking sand, because the Christian hope of heaven and horror of hell are real and appropriate (p. 211).
My question to her is why? How have you shown this? Because what I just read basically says that when life was short and fragile, and when people were considerably more ignorant then they are today, they found comfort in the belief that they were going to heaven. I think Janney unintentionally argues is that Christian beliefs in the afterlife function as a comforting mechanism to those facing death. It's comforting to believe your loved one is in heaven, or that murderers are being punished. That was a comforting thought then, and it is a comforting thought now. Yet, she never gives any compelling reason to believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is what I believe her intention is.
But maybe this book was written only for believers, and the author assumes the reader already believes in Jesus. That's fine, but I still had other problems. In the epilogue, Janney says that Americans historically have believed and acted upon the literal belief of heaven and hell, and that this is what "tenacious" souls continue to accept as true (p.211). But right after she say this she quotes C.S. Lewis, who had beliefs concerning heaven and hell that would make literalists cringe. On page 214, she describes a 700 Club episode that featured a man who had a near death experience where he "went to hell." Not surprisingly, 1,200 (I'm assuming terrified) callers phoned in to get saved. I couldn't help but remember how Janney discusses NDE in a previous chapter. In this chapter, people who had NDE described a place of love and light where they were told sin wasn't a problem and that all religions lead to God. So the NDE guy on the 700 Club had a valid experience, but the NDE's from the previous chapter didn't? Concerning this, Janney says, "people will respond to God's truth when the Holy Spirit convicts them (p. 214)."
I really tried to keep an open mind when reading this. I have to disagree with the previous reviewer about Janney not being "preachy." I did find her preachy, and also confusing. But I will agree that she asks good questions, and I enjoyed the history lesson.
Rebecca Price Janney's new book entitled, Who Goes There: A Cultural History of Heaven and Hell, sets out to trace the history of American beliefs concerning the afterlife. The problem I found with this book, however, is that I continually had to remind myself that this is what the author was supposed to be doing. Because while much of the book is a history lesson, the author is simultaneously arguing a theological position, which I think she does unsuccessfully.
In the first chapter, Janney argues that Americans have a wishy-washy view of the afterlife believing most people go to heaven, while only the most wicked go to hell. She then says that this is dangerous because only Jesus can provide assurance of heaven. From there, Janney goes on a whirlwind tour through American history chronicling various Christian movements. During this portion of the book-- which is pretty much all of it-- I sensed in Janney's tone the notion that America was once a godly, Christian nation, and it has slowly descended into liberal unorthodoxy (prior to the 1960's people didn't have sex outside of marriage?? p. 179). In the epilogue,Janney argues that in the good (bad?) old days when life expectancy was like 30, people took comfort in the thought of heaven and lived by biblical principles because they feared hell. But now with modern medicine, the media, and technology, Americans do what they please without the fear of death. She then says that this ground is sinking sand, because the Christian hope of heaven and horror of hell are real and appropriate (p. 211).
My question to her is why? How have you shown this? Because what I just read basically says that when life was short and fragile, and when people were considerably more ignorant then they are today, they found comfort in the belief that they were going to heaven. I think Janney unintentionally argues is that Christian beliefs in the afterlife function as a comforting mechanism to those facing death. It's comforting to believe your loved one is in heaven, or that murderers are being punished. That was a comforting thought then, and it is a comforting thought now. Yet, she never gives any compelling reason to believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is what I believe her intention is.
But maybe this book was written only for believers, and the author assumes the reader already believes in Jesus. That's fine, but I still had other problems. In the epilogue, Janney says that Americans historically have believed and acted upon the literal belief of heaven and hell, and that this is what "tenacious" souls continue to accept as true (p.211). But right after she say this she quotes C.S. Lewis, who had beliefs concerning heaven and hell that would make literalists cringe. On page 214, she describes a 700 Club episode that featured a man who had a near death experience where he "went to hell." Not surprisingly, 1,200 (I'm assuming terrified) callers phoned in to get saved. I couldn't help but remember how Janney discusses NDE in a previous chapter. In this chapter, people who had NDE described a place of love and light where they were told sin wasn't a problem and that all religions lead to God. So the NDE guy on the 700 Club had a valid experience, but the NDE's from the previous chapter didn't? Concerning this, Janney says, "people will respond to God's truth when the Holy Spirit convicts them (p. 214)."
I really tried to keep an open mind when reading this. I have to disagree with the previous reviewer about Janney not being "preachy." I did find her preachy, and also confusing. But I will agree that she asks good questions, and I enjoyed the history lesson.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
my first celebrity commenter
today i was surprised to open my email and find a comment on an old post. the post was on a quiz that i found and posted that deals with annihilationism. the celebrity (at least to me and students of theology) who commented is the author of the quiz, biblical scholar edward fudge. apparently, even he enjoys arguing with heath.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
what is the meaning of this?
i had a good end to my work day yesterday. a co-worker, a couple months ago, had her kids taken away from her by her ex-husband. this guy, from everything i have seen from him and heard about him, is a douche, plain and simple; and he is out to make her life miserable regardless of how it hurts their kids. long story short, he won custody because certain papers weren't filed right, and the judge was sympathetic to him because he is in the military. anyways, this co-worker has been no angel herself and there are times, in the past, where i have questioned her fitness as a mother. however, last week she and i had little talk. it seems that this whole ordeal has caused her to come to some serious conclusions about her life, and she went on and on about how she quit drinking and going out and is seriously trying to get her life together. she told me how she cannot wait to get her kids back so she can be the mother they deserve. and she told me that God does everything for a reason.
last year anne and i were hanging out with some friends, and one of these friends brought his own friend a long. the tag a long friend is someone who drives anne and i nuts, and i'll give you an example why. he is a know-it-all, and not only is he a know-it-all but he's also an atheist. on top of that, he is just weird and says things that are totally inappropriate. so on this particular occasion, the topic of sex came up. and i cannot remember all the details of the conversation, but for some reason, weird, atheist, know-it-all, guy blurted out, "sex is meaningless. ALL sex is meaningless." now what bugs me about this is that i think he knows that anne and i are christians, and he said this simply to pick a fight. that didn't happen; we all just kind of awkwardly looked at him and changed the subject, but i have been thinking about night ever since. half of me wishes i would have asked him to explain. my guess is he would have said that sex is meaningless because ultimately everything is meaningless.
john ortberg tells the story of how the famous atheist, bertrand russell, would describe all reality as meaningless. ultimately, according to russell, we are all bits of carbon that exist for a short amount of time on this planet that will someday be consumed by fire and then frozen when the sun burns out. at that point the earth will be be a big floating rock and nothing that has ever happened on it will have mattered. thus, ultimately, there is no meaning. in the 15 billion or so years that earth will have existed, that will be nothing compared to the infinite amount of time that preceded its existence or the infinite amount that will follow. once again, i don't know for sure that weird, atheist, guy would have said that, but that would be my guess. how depressing...
now the thing is, is that sex does have meaning. biologically, sex has purpose-- procreation-- but in the context of human relationships sex can have a lot of meaning. for two humans who love one another, sex can be a way of communicating deep, passionate love. for two people who are just using each other for pleasure, sex can mean, "i don't really care about you as a person, but i'll use you to temporarily feel good." so just like words are sounds that mean something in a particular context, sex is an act which can also mean something in a particular context. but back to russell.
if all context is destroyed, then is all meaning destroyed? because, it seems, meaning must have context. perhaps, but in the end, believing that one day the sun will destroy everything rendering meaning meaningless is just that-- belief. it is based on faith. what if scientists are wrong? what if this reality isn't the only one there is? ortberg has a great comment concerning russell's thoughts. he says that russell's ideas just might be true, but even if they are, nobody lives that way.
yesterday my co-worker stood in the pharmacy smiling. i asked her if she got her kids back, and she told me she was going to pick them up tomorrow. she said God was in that court room. she said she prayed and prayed. she repeated her vow to change her life and clean up her act. she was full of joy. in the bible, God is often portrayed as a parent or a husband. the deepest human relationships are often pictures of who God is. so i couldn't help but think that while my co-worker was getting her kids back, maybe God was also getting back one of his.
last year anne and i were hanging out with some friends, and one of these friends brought his own friend a long. the tag a long friend is someone who drives anne and i nuts, and i'll give you an example why. he is a know-it-all, and not only is he a know-it-all but he's also an atheist. on top of that, he is just weird and says things that are totally inappropriate. so on this particular occasion, the topic of sex came up. and i cannot remember all the details of the conversation, but for some reason, weird, atheist, know-it-all, guy blurted out, "sex is meaningless. ALL sex is meaningless." now what bugs me about this is that i think he knows that anne and i are christians, and he said this simply to pick a fight. that didn't happen; we all just kind of awkwardly looked at him and changed the subject, but i have been thinking about night ever since. half of me wishes i would have asked him to explain. my guess is he would have said that sex is meaningless because ultimately everything is meaningless.
john ortberg tells the story of how the famous atheist, bertrand russell, would describe all reality as meaningless. ultimately, according to russell, we are all bits of carbon that exist for a short amount of time on this planet that will someday be consumed by fire and then frozen when the sun burns out. at that point the earth will be be a big floating rock and nothing that has ever happened on it will have mattered. thus, ultimately, there is no meaning. in the 15 billion or so years that earth will have existed, that will be nothing compared to the infinite amount of time that preceded its existence or the infinite amount that will follow. once again, i don't know for sure that weird, atheist, guy would have said that, but that would be my guess. how depressing...
now the thing is, is that sex does have meaning. biologically, sex has purpose-- procreation-- but in the context of human relationships sex can have a lot of meaning. for two humans who love one another, sex can be a way of communicating deep, passionate love. for two people who are just using each other for pleasure, sex can mean, "i don't really care about you as a person, but i'll use you to temporarily feel good." so just like words are sounds that mean something in a particular context, sex is an act which can also mean something in a particular context. but back to russell.
if all context is destroyed, then is all meaning destroyed? because, it seems, meaning must have context. perhaps, but in the end, believing that one day the sun will destroy everything rendering meaning meaningless is just that-- belief. it is based on faith. what if scientists are wrong? what if this reality isn't the only one there is? ortberg has a great comment concerning russell's thoughts. he says that russell's ideas just might be true, but even if they are, nobody lives that way.
yesterday my co-worker stood in the pharmacy smiling. i asked her if she got her kids back, and she told me she was going to pick them up tomorrow. she said God was in that court room. she said she prayed and prayed. she repeated her vow to change her life and clean up her act. she was full of joy. in the bible, God is often portrayed as a parent or a husband. the deepest human relationships are often pictures of who God is. so i couldn't help but think that while my co-worker was getting her kids back, maybe God was also getting back one of his.
Monday, March 23, 2009
belief in what?-- or-- random updates and thoughts on faith and belief
things have been good as usual. i am finally finishing my upstairs with the help of my realtor. it's been fun so far, and i'm about to make another trip to home depot in a little bit. i've been a little obsessed actually and i'm probably starting to drive anne nuts with how much i talk about it.
i'm finally done with my biblical perspectives class. i sent in my final paper last week, which after reading it the day after, really kinda sucked. it just did not flow well, and the last page or so was just a lot of bullshit to fill up space. sad to say, but that class was such a disappointment, and i am pretty happy to be onto more social worky stuff again. i guess i'm most disappointed because, out of all the classes i am taking for this major, this was the class that dealt with the subject i ponder the most. and not only that, but as far as college-level bible classes go, this is probably it for me, unless i go back someday for a masters in theology. but the class wasn't a total loss. it got me thinking about something i probably wouldn't have if i didn't take it.
there's a prof at cornerstone who recently wrote a book entitled "don't stop believing: why living like jesus isn't enough." the idea is that the right theology is important, and it's not just enough to live like jesus-- you have to believe certain things about him too. this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. for one, if you're trying to live like someone doesn't that imply that you have pretty strong beliefs about that person? and for two, what if living like him is really what it's all about and the theology is really just intellectual window-dressing? or, what if the theology isn't really the point?
in my aforementioned class we were discussing the fact that the apostles presented the gospel to the jews quite a bit different than they did to gentiles. to the jews, they went deep into jewish history and the prophets. they tried to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. however, to the gentiles, who were more concerned with defeating evil spirits, they emphasized how jesus has defeated darkness. here's my point: the apostles didn't care about explaining to the gentiles that jesus was the jewish messiah. why? A, because they probably wouldn't have cared, and B, they probably wouldn't have believed it anyway. they cared about defeating evil and so that's what the apostles focused on.
in a world where most people are skeptical of the supernatural, but are incredibly open to the idea of unconditional love, selflessness, generosity, forgiveness etc., can't you argue that what those people are really searching for-- when they search for those things-- is jesus? i think most people are really searching for a way to live. i think the most compelling thing in our culture isn't rational proof for the supernatural, but the experience of somebody living a different way. if the apostles didn't bother to get into theological debates with gentiles about jesus being the jewish messiah, but focused on what they cared about, then what does it look like to present jesus to a culture who is skeptical about the supernatural? how much does intellectual ascent to certain theological positions-- or better yet (because you can believe in theological positions without necessarily believing in a supernatural versions of them) the supernatural interpretation of a theological position-- really matter?
i'm finally done with my biblical perspectives class. i sent in my final paper last week, which after reading it the day after, really kinda sucked. it just did not flow well, and the last page or so was just a lot of bullshit to fill up space. sad to say, but that class was such a disappointment, and i am pretty happy to be onto more social worky stuff again. i guess i'm most disappointed because, out of all the classes i am taking for this major, this was the class that dealt with the subject i ponder the most. and not only that, but as far as college-level bible classes go, this is probably it for me, unless i go back someday for a masters in theology. but the class wasn't a total loss. it got me thinking about something i probably wouldn't have if i didn't take it.
there's a prof at cornerstone who recently wrote a book entitled "don't stop believing: why living like jesus isn't enough." the idea is that the right theology is important, and it's not just enough to live like jesus-- you have to believe certain things about him too. this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. for one, if you're trying to live like someone doesn't that imply that you have pretty strong beliefs about that person? and for two, what if living like him is really what it's all about and the theology is really just intellectual window-dressing? or, what if the theology isn't really the point?
in my aforementioned class we were discussing the fact that the apostles presented the gospel to the jews quite a bit different than they did to gentiles. to the jews, they went deep into jewish history and the prophets. they tried to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. however, to the gentiles, who were more concerned with defeating evil spirits, they emphasized how jesus has defeated darkness. here's my point: the apostles didn't care about explaining to the gentiles that jesus was the jewish messiah. why? A, because they probably wouldn't have cared, and B, they probably wouldn't have believed it anyway. they cared about defeating evil and so that's what the apostles focused on.
in a world where most people are skeptical of the supernatural, but are incredibly open to the idea of unconditional love, selflessness, generosity, forgiveness etc., can't you argue that what those people are really searching for-- when they search for those things-- is jesus? i think most people are really searching for a way to live. i think the most compelling thing in our culture isn't rational proof for the supernatural, but the experience of somebody living a different way. if the apostles didn't bother to get into theological debates with gentiles about jesus being the jewish messiah, but focused on what they cared about, then what does it look like to present jesus to a culture who is skeptical about the supernatural? how much does intellectual ascent to certain theological positions-- or better yet (because you can believe in theological positions without necessarily believing in a supernatural versions of them) the supernatural interpretation of a theological position-- really matter?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
a monstrous God of love?: my thoughts and feelings on the bible revisited
today i have to turn in a paper for my final biblical perspectives class, once again, discussing my thoughts and feelings on the bible. my real final paper isn't due till next week. i may or may not post that one. the idea with this one though is to see if the class has changed my thoughts and feelings.... this class unfortunatley was kind of a disappointment. but anyways, here's my second paper, which really doesn't reflect much from my class experience, but is fine because the only requirement is that the paper begin with "the bible is..."
The Bible is ultimately God’s story. It tells how God created everything, and chose humans to be his partners, as his image bearers, in taking care of his creation. It describes how humans abandoned their dependency on God and the fallout from that decision. From there the Bible tells about how God chose a specific people to be his vehicle in restoring his creation; how he chose them to live in relationship with him; and how they continually betrayed that relationship. The story climaxes with Jesus and his role as Israel’s, and eventually, the world’s redeemer. It describes the life of the early communities of Jesus’ followers; and ends with an apocalyptic vision of a new creation where God and humans dwell together at last. But this narrative of creation, fall and redemption that ends in the marriage of God and humanity can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.
The Bible is an incredibly messy, disheveled, yet beautiful story. In its description of human behavior, it is gut-wrenchingly real. The story of David’s affair with Bathsheba describes a man who is supposed to be of the highest moral caliber, yet sleeps with the wife of someone who was probably a close friend. After attempting to cover up the product of the affair, David sets the husband up to be killed in battle. Thus the Bible’s portrayal of humans is that they are creatures of contradiction, but sometimes the most seemingly conflicted person in the Bible is its central character-- God.
Its stories of mass human slaughter at the hands of God’s people are unbearably disturbing, and seem impossible to reconcile that they are orders from a God who is later revealed to be love itself. Yet in these stories, sometimes referred to as “texts of terror,” there are glimpses of God’s mercy such as when Rahab is spared in the battle of Jericho. It is this mixture of brutality, barbarism, love and compassion that can make the Bible difficult to be taken as “God’s word.” Indeed it seems ludicrous to believe that Jesus, when he teaches to love one’s enemies, is the incarnation of YHWH, warrior God of the Old Testament.
And therein lays the mystery and paradox, which is often for me, more difficult to swallow than the resurrection or the crossing of the Red Sea: a monstrous God of love? So my thoughts and feelings concerning the Bible are in a constant state of flux and evolution. On one hand, its jarring portrayal of God smacks of mere human invention. Our intuition tells us that the one true God should be blatantly clear and unambiguous. On the other, its incongruent picture of God is consistent with the confusing nature of the rest of reality. I maintain that it is inspired by the God who is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe its story of creation, fall and redemption is the true story underlying all of history, and at the center of all existence. But I don’t ignore that those propositions take an incredible amount of faith.
The Bible is ultimately God’s story. It tells how God created everything, and chose humans to be his partners, as his image bearers, in taking care of his creation. It describes how humans abandoned their dependency on God and the fallout from that decision. From there the Bible tells about how God chose a specific people to be his vehicle in restoring his creation; how he chose them to live in relationship with him; and how they continually betrayed that relationship. The story climaxes with Jesus and his role as Israel’s, and eventually, the world’s redeemer. It describes the life of the early communities of Jesus’ followers; and ends with an apocalyptic vision of a new creation where God and humans dwell together at last. But this narrative of creation, fall and redemption that ends in the marriage of God and humanity can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.
The Bible is an incredibly messy, disheveled, yet beautiful story. In its description of human behavior, it is gut-wrenchingly real. The story of David’s affair with Bathsheba describes a man who is supposed to be of the highest moral caliber, yet sleeps with the wife of someone who was probably a close friend. After attempting to cover up the product of the affair, David sets the husband up to be killed in battle. Thus the Bible’s portrayal of humans is that they are creatures of contradiction, but sometimes the most seemingly conflicted person in the Bible is its central character-- God.
Its stories of mass human slaughter at the hands of God’s people are unbearably disturbing, and seem impossible to reconcile that they are orders from a God who is later revealed to be love itself. Yet in these stories, sometimes referred to as “texts of terror,” there are glimpses of God’s mercy such as when Rahab is spared in the battle of Jericho. It is this mixture of brutality, barbarism, love and compassion that can make the Bible difficult to be taken as “God’s word.” Indeed it seems ludicrous to believe that Jesus, when he teaches to love one’s enemies, is the incarnation of YHWH, warrior God of the Old Testament.
And therein lays the mystery and paradox, which is often for me, more difficult to swallow than the resurrection or the crossing of the Red Sea: a monstrous God of love? So my thoughts and feelings concerning the Bible are in a constant state of flux and evolution. On one hand, its jarring portrayal of God smacks of mere human invention. Our intuition tells us that the one true God should be blatantly clear and unambiguous. On the other, its incongruent picture of God is consistent with the confusing nature of the rest of reality. I maintain that it is inspired by the God who is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe its story of creation, fall and redemption is the true story underlying all of history, and at the center of all existence. But I don’t ignore that those propositions take an incredible amount of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
