Stu's Blog

Now or Later?

Today’s reading from “The Imitation of Christ”¹ suggests:

Whatever I can desire or imagine for my own comfort I look for not here but hereafter.

Dan Kimball says one of the common complaints he hears from those who like Jesus but not the church² is how Christians rail on about the afterlife. It’s all about getting to heaven. I do look forward to the next life but also believe that I’m called into a new way of life right now and that this life is not devoid of joy. It is true that this life has hardship and pain but I can’t go so far as to say that there is no comfort nor any delight whatsoever in this life.

For if I alone should have all the world’s comforts and could enjoy all its delights, it is certain that they could not long endure. Therefore, my soul, you cannot enjoy full consolation or perfect delight except in God, the Consoler of the poor and the Helper of the humble. Wait a little, my soul, wait for the divine promise and you will have an abundance of all good things in heaven.

True enough. At least for me, one day this present life will cease, along with it all the joys and sorrows as I presently experience them.

If you desire these present things too much, you will lose those which are everlasting and heavenly. Use temporal things but desire eternal things. You cannot be satisfied with any temporal goods because you were not created to enjoy them.

What! Was God’s creation not good?³ We’re we not given stewardship of creation to care for and enjoy?⁴ Is this life and all of creation a prison doomed to destruction that we must escape? This thinking leads to the concept that we are saved for heaven rather than for God. I think rather that we are being called into a new way of life that includes both now and later.

Kimball and Kempis in dialog

I am currently reading “Imitation of Christ” and “They Like Jesus But Not The Church”¹during my morning routine and I wish I could get Dan Kimball and Thomas à Kempis in the same room and be a fly on the wall. “Imitation of Christ” is a classic and much about spiritual growth through devotion and discipline. “They Like Jesus” is a contemporary work dealing with the disconnect between church and culture. Kimball narrates his journey of breaking out of the “bubble” while Kempis seeks to enter more deeply. This paragraph from Kempis prompted this post:

If we were to uproot only one vice each year, we should soon become perfect. The contrary, however, is often the case—we feel that we were better and purer in the first fervor of our conversion than we are after many years in the practice of our faith. Our fervor and progress ought to increase day by day; yet it is now considered noteworthy if a man can retain even a part of his first fervor.²

I believe in discipline. I have a morning routine that is such a fundamental part of my life that on the rare occasion that I don’t go through my morning ritual (fodder for another post perhaps), I suffer anxiety about getting my reading done before the day is over, for time is unfortunately unrenewable. Use it or lose it. The above quote is nonetheless disturbing. There’s an old saying that only a fool will continue to do the same thing hoping for different results. Make no mistake, Kempis is no fool. If anything, he seems to be highlighting the fact that personal devotion and discipline is not enough or all there is. Kimball is helping us to see why we shouldn’t isolate ourselves from humanity in general and non-Christians in particular. Kempis is too concerned with avoiding spiritual contamination: “We should enjoy much peace if we did not concern ourselves with what others say and do, for these are no concern of ours.”³ How shall we ever love others if we are more concerned with our own peace than their concerns? Do your devotions and disciplines and then get out in the world and mix it up.

Why Women Get A Bad Rap In The Bible

I wrote previously posing the question as to why women so often get a bad rap in the bible.

Phyllis Bird has written an article for the Anchor Bible Dictionary ¹ that explores how women are portrayed in the Old Testament. She reminds the reader of the distinctively male perspective that is so characteristic of the bible in general and particularly of the Old Testament. The view of women presented in the Old Testament is shaped by the male authors and conforms to the male dominated values of patriarchal society. Nonetheless, women played important roles in society and had areas of great influence. Sometimes their influence and power were not presented directly and must be inferred by how they were portrayed. Bird’s article helps the reader to be aware of these issues and to look for clues that are hinted at, particularly in the more negative types of characterizations. It is precisely at these points that the potential for female power is likely to be suppressed. This short review highlights some of the key issues that stood out to me as I read Bird’s article.

Women in the Old Testament are generally portrayed as nameless second-class people without a voice in a world ruled by men. Since Scripture comes to us from the hands of men, women never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Their words, even considering how seldom direct female dialog appears, is never directly from their lips or writings. This is not surprising since the authors of Scripture are males formed out of a male dominated society guided by male values. Women and their stories become the objects that accomplish the purposes of the male authors. This hardly portrays women fairly or fully. The authors were selective in their purposes and the portrayal of women suffered doubly in that not only do we have a uniquely male perspective, but also what is provided is done in such a way as to further the agendas of the authors.

Modern methods of anthropological study, literary, rhetorical, and structural criticisms all help to read between the lines of Scripture, and reveal the multifaceted and important roles women played in the history of Israel. Women were restricted and dominated in many arenas, as they have been throughout all known history and cultures, yet they had significant roles, exercised authority in their given areas of responsibility, and had a hand in shaping society and ultimately the history of Israel.

Women, with few exceptions, were denied the opportunity to lead men.² This precluded positions of institutional responsibility and leadership. On the contrary, men were expected to exercise authority over women. Legal rights of women were generally secondary and inferior to those of men. Married women were considered to be the property of their husbands.³

Women were given unique roles and responsibilities that only women could fulfill. They found both fulfillment and restriction in these roles.⁴ Such roles were most often played out in the realm of the family unit. A woman was uniquely suited to be a wife and mother, and the fundamental evidence of successful motherhood, having many children, was a means to personal fulfillment. It was also an opportunity to shape a new generation as the role of the mother included the teaching of the children. Failure at this primary role put a woman at great risk. Without children to provide care in later life, the loss of a husband due to death or divorce left a woman without property or means of support. She would be in a very desperate state indeed!

Failure in the role of mother or wife also was treated as a disgrace and viewed as divine punishment.⁵ A woman having lost her family was an outcast of society. She could very easily be viewed as a threat to normal society values and might even be forced to resort to prostitution to survive.⁶ Therefore, women were under great pressure to produce for the good of the family, in providing care, nourishment, material needs such as clothing, and especially children.

Purity was a fundamental religious and social concept in ancient Israel. Foreign women threatened the religious and social fabric and were generally portrayed as dangerous, symbolically representing immorality and embodied evil.⁷ Bird notes that the degree of fear expressed towards foreign women reveal the latent power to influence society they actually possessed.⁸ With few exceptions, foreign women were therefore generally marginalized in Scripture to protect the dominant male values.⁹

There is much more to be learned from Bird’s article. She presents a well-balanced view that brings out more positive characterizations than this review might suggest. This review has highlighted Bird’s observations of the negative portrayal of women in the Old Testament, as it is clear that women do not speak with their own voice and are generally demeaned as a result. Those in power retain the privilege of writing history and this is true of Scripture as well. I am reminded of Leviticus chapter twenty-seven where the monetary value of men and women is spelled out. If a male of age between twenty and sixty years was worth fifty shekels, a woman was worth thirty (Lev 27:3-4). We see here the evidence of sinful human nature at work that claims higher valuation for the self than for the other. We must remember this tendency to present women as lesser second-class citizens lest we succumb to a devalued view of women that would shape our expectations and beliefs in a dishonoring way. We do well to bear in mind that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).

Complaining 101: you must be a whiner

On the heels of 1 Chron 29:14,¹ I was reading Num 11:1-15 in the TNK² and this caught my eye: “Now our gullets are shriveled” (Num 11.6a TNK). If you ever needed a primer on complaining, look to Numbers 11. A good complainer must be 1. ungrateful, 2. a creative articulator, 3. know how to whine, and finally, 4. be willing to gorge themselves on what they complain they lack. If you are human, you probably know from personal experience a little about each of these essential qualities, but hopefully don’t excel to the degree that these folks did. The translation of v6 is somewhat ambiguous³. I like shriveled gullets. It has zing! Really good whiners don’t use plain vanilla language. Even Moses does a bit of whining: “Where am I to get meat to give to all this people?”  (Num 11:13 ESV) The NLT says whine/whined/whining is vs 10,13,18,20. The TNK substitutes weeping in vs 10 which leads me to believe that weeping is occasionally an appropriate substitute for whining. The BDE ups the ante by including vs 4 when you look for weeping. But I prefer whining as weeping is somewhat ambiguous. So what can you expect in return for a good whine? How about fire from heaven? “and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some” (Num 11:1 ESV). If that doesn’t finish it, you might just get what you asked for. “18 Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the hearing of the LORD, saying, ‘Who will give us meat to eat? For it was better for us in Egypt.’ Therefore the LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall not eat just one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, 20 but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you. (Num 11:18-20 ESV). This is serious stuff, but you too can be a first class whiner if you try, and it seems that complaining is part of the human condition. We have no need for instruction as this comes quite naturally. Where does this come from? Is there an antidote? Please, no simple moralisms. Been there, tried that.

Concoctions and rotting thighs

Why do women get such a bad rap in the bible? Num 5:11-31 prescribes a bizarre test for suspected wifely unfaithfulness. If a man is overcome with jealousy, though he has no evidence whatsoever, he can appeal to the priest to perform a ritual to determine whether his wife has broken faith. The priest is to concoct a bitter potion and force the women to drink it. “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water” (Num 5:17 ESV). The potion will trigger a curse if there is guilt. “May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen’” (Num 5:22 ESV). Some translations say that her belly will swell and her thigh will rot.¹ Now mind you, the jealous husband has no proof whatsoever, yet the poor wife is subjected to a humiliating procedure that borders on magic. And what of the jealous wife? What concoction can she expect her potentially wayward husband to be forced to drink to demonstrate his faithfulness? There is no such provision to prove manly faith. This embarrassing passage is trying to help us see the great value in faithfulness, but the lesson comes from a context that has thankfully become very foreign to us. Then again, we might not be that terribly different after all. In any event, why are women picked on like this? Stay tuned for an answer.

Let’s fight about pistou Christou

Somehow I ended up here this morning. Several people that often capture my interest are central to this thread: Piper, N.T. Wright, Richard B. Hayes. Somewhere in the heat I found this. I’ve been reading Harink’s book ¹ (sad to say I’m stuck in the third section only because I have a lot of other reading that needs attention right now) and have really enjoyed the read. In Guretzki’s summary, he quotes Harrink: “According to Harink, Barth, along with John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas, is significant because he understood the notion of pistou Christou in Paul to referring to “the faith of Christ” rather than as has been long preached from evangelical pulpits, “faith in Christ,” the standard translation of the phrase ever since Luther. Beyond this, Harink sees Barth’s commentary on Romans as being essentially apocalyptic in tone, such that “God’s faithfulness is revealed in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ; specifically, in the faithfulness of his standing ‘among sinners as a sinner,’ placing himself under God’s judgment.” ² I’ve read a bit of Sanders and Dunn and once wrote a paper on Romans 3:21-26 where I engaged pistou Christou, so this discussion always gets my attention. I get interested to see if 1. anything is being said that I haven’t thought about, and 2. how much heat can be generated over this issue. Admittedly, the second point of interest is more for amusement, while with the first, I actually hope to learn something. My amusement is sort of turning more to sadness as I reflect on the hostility that arises in these discussions. For those of us who want badly to be right, we can put out a lot of heat and often look for a fight. This touches on something that I’ve been meditating on. Is God a fighter? The O.T. witness certainly portrays him that way. In some circles, God is described as Christus Victor. This comes from a view of the atonement that emphasizes divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Another important image is the cross as being an instrument of subjection to hostile powers that somehow overcomes them by refusing to resist but takes on all the evil and subsumes it in such a way that it is made impotent, overcome, perhaps even annihilated in some mysterious cosmic way. There’s something to be said for both views. I find it interesting that the view that you hold most dear seems to shape how you are likely to engage discussion and life. So let’s get on with it and fight. Choose your weapon: sword or cross. Maybe you need both.

Who’s side are you on?

“You will all fall away because of me…” (Matt 26:31). To fall away might mean to stumble, desert, be repelled, be offended, refuse to believe. Close to the end of the journey, deep friendships were about to be tested, torn apart. God will act in ways that are contrary to our expectations, beliefs, and human nature. We risk abandoning God at these times. Our ignorance and delusion lead us to reject God though we think we are actually following God. We risk following an idol unawares. We are susceptible to this error especially in this North American culture when we affirm consumerism, prosperity, nationalism, democracy, capitalism, racism, religiosity, and christianityism.  God is on the side of the poor, alien, widow, orphan, sick, incarcerated, the person on the other side of the lake, the wrong side of town, the other side of the tracks, the powerless, oppressed, disadvantaged, and even or maybe most of all, the enemy. Who’s side are you on?

Words, words, words

“My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments, 2 for length of days and years of life and peace they will add to you. 3 Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 3:1-3 ESV). What is meant by the word “heart?” I’ve been reading the Revised English Bible of late and it renders the closing phrase: “inscribe them on the tablet of your memory.” This makes sense, helps to understand “heart” in this context. I was reading the awful story of the unnamed women in Judges 19 along with an analysis by Phylis Trible in her book, Texts of Terror, where she draws attention to a subtle Hebrew wordplay. In this terrible story, the unnamed women, taken as a concubine by a Levite, runs home to father after a falling out. It is unclear whether she left in rebellion or out of anger at the Levite’s behavior. In any event, the Levite follows her to dad’s house to “appeal to her and bring her back” (Judges 19:3 REB). Trible suggests an alternate rendering of the Hebrew: “to speak to her heart, to bring her back” (Trible, 67). She cites two more examples of similar Hebrew word usage. After the humiliation of Jacob’s daughter Dinah by Shechem, Trible renders Genesis 34:3 as “he loved the young woman and spoke to her heart” as opposed to the more traditional “spoke tenderly to her.” The other example is from the promise of restoration to wayward Israel placed on the lips of Hosea who declares Yahweh’s intention to bring Israel to the wilderness to, in Trible’s rendering,  “speak to her heart” (Hosea 2:14-16). I mention this to point out the need for good words to get across the intended meaning. Something is always lost. Translating across barriers of language, culture, and time only add to the difficulty, but no language can ever convey exact meaning. I propose a sacramental view of language where language becomes a window or lens that opens and facilitates understanding and knowledge to some degree. Knowledge is made present and real in some mysterious way through words. Knowledge, by the way, is not just information. Consider what is meant by “Adam knew his wife.” This is entirely different than saying “Noah knew that the waters had subsided.” Knowledge can be relational. Consider John 10:25-38. Jesus has been asked to “speak plainly” whether he was the Christ or not. His answer, of course given in words, refers to “works” that “bear witness” to who he is and who he is related to. “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know…” (John 10:37-38 ESV). Words here serve to illuminate works that are difficult to understand. What God is doing is often confusing. Thankfully, we have words that open a window onto, provide a lens to perceive the action. We desperately need some good words.

The mother of all errors

“… for in the heavenly mysteries, opinion humanly conceived, even if it does not always give birth to a great heap of errors, is nevertheless the mother of error.” (Calvin, “Institutes,” 1.5.13) All theology is human construction. God doesn’t drop this stuff out of the sky. How do we make sense of what we believe? I’ve been pondering the word “charam” of late. An O.T. term, it can be translated: “to ban, devote, exterminate, annihilate, destroy utterly.” After marching around the walls seven times and creating a tremendous racket by blowing horns and yelling, the Book says: “And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted (charam) to the LORD for destruction” (Jos 6:17a ESV). I believe this Book, but how am I to understand this story? Theology to the rescue! Theologians help us to understand the reasons for war, genocide, slavery, and much else that troubles humanity. Oppression related to ethnicity, gender, social strata, politics, beliefs, behavior, ancestry can all be explained by creative theology. Most of us don’t have time for this. We just want a little bit of happiness and don’t really mean anyone harm. We don’t have the energy to figure this out so we uncritically accept what the authorities tell us, whether we get it at home, church, synagogue, mosque, university, or nowadays more often the tv. Why bother thinking when someone else has already thought for you? Does God call us to exterminate? That seems extreme to our Western sensibilities, but we blandly accept, even require, just war. It’s just war and there’s money to be made! Only make sure it doesn’t happen on our soil. At the end of the day, we all suffer from human opinion. The human mind might be the most violent and destructive weapon there is. Those who choose the way of the sword become slaves to it. This is simple theology, human opinion trying to make sense out of the Book. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Mat 26:52 ESV) What are the options? I propose trading charam for a cup. John finishes his retelling of the ear cutting incident not with a philosophical reason but a practice to be lived into. So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11 ESV)

Walls are in again

“Military intervention to maintain the global status quo will become a constant feature of international relations, whether this is justified in terms of fighting drugs, fighting terrorism, containing “rogue states,” opposing “Islamic fundamentalism,” or containing China”– . Walden Bello. I recently watched “Encounter Point,” a movie about a novel solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and seeing the Wall brought back memories. I was in Berlin in 1990 as that Wall was being dismantled. The human scars of the previous 30 years ran deep. I wan in South Africa several years later just after Apartheid finally ran out of steam. An enduring memory is the little Walls that suburbanites constructed around their houses for protection. Here in the U.S. some people, typically from the wealthier stratum, erect beautiful stone Walls around their mansions to keep prying eyes away. What stands out in my memory is that the ones in South Africa all were decorated with broken glass embedded in the mortar along the Wall tops. A quote from Encounter Point: “We are a military with a state, not a state with a military.” Indeed, the military knows how to build really good Walls. When people are unable to talk and resort to violence, it seems reasonable to put up a Wall for protection. Unfortunately, what really gets protected is the opportunity and breeding grounds for further violence. Germany came to its senses and tore their monster down. The U.S. seems to have missed the lesson. House Resolution 6061 (H.R. 6061), “Secure Fence Act of 2006“, was introduced on Sep 13, 2006, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on September 14, 2006, and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 29, 2006. Partial funding for a 700 mile Wall separating the U.S. and Mexico became available at that time. Some would like to extend the Wall the full 2000 miles and then do another 4000 miler to keep the Canadians out too. Just Vision, the organization responsible for Encounter Point, is of the mind that Walls are not the answer. I wholeheartedly agree. See the movie. You might find it in your local library. Or buy the dvd. Invite some Muslim, Jewish, and Christian friends over to watch it together.