"God Can Take It"

One last bit from the book I've written about the last couple of days.


I enjoyed this section under "God Can Take It."   I couldn't help but think of an atheist friend whom I've never met, but we've been blogger, and now Facebook friends, for several years.  I know bits and pieces about her past so, while she sometimes posts vile things about God and my beliefs in Jesus - some things that make me cringe a little because they are blasphemous, I try to "listen" to her suffering heart, remembering from where she comes, and pray instead that Love will one day reach her and heal her. 




Speaking of interpreting the message of Job after "suffering on the scale of the Holocaust," the author says about the Book of Job, "We cannot read into it reassurances that things will work out for us in the end if we just trust God, for things do not always work out.  Interpretations of Job that do no more than confirm the absolute wonderfulness of God simply do not speak to the pain and suffering of real people.



... Those of us who choose to believe in a benevolent and powerful God, despite the suffering that we see all around us,...cannot use God, or our belief in God, to dismiss other people's pain.  Sometimes, this means listening to things that make us uncomfortable or challenge our beliefs.  It means allowing people to speak ill of things that we think well of - including (and perhaps especially) ourselves.  And it means listening compassionately to those who criticize, contradict, or seek justice from God or from the human institutions that claim to represent Him.  God can take care of Himself; our responsibility is to take care of each other. 



To meet our obligations to our fellow human beings, we need not believe that God is lacking in either power or goodness.  We just need to understand that He does not require our assistance in dealing with challenges to His authority.  We do not have to protect God from criticisms, complaints, and petitions...He can take criticism.  He can handle complaints.  And He has no need to fear when human beings ask Him to do things differently.  Too many people - often from positions of ecclesiastical authority - spend their time trying to make sure that God's feelings do not get hurt.  This is how we become the Comforters [used in this book to refer to Job's friends] when we should be listening - really listening with our hearts - to the suffering Job."




An excerpt from page 134  of  Re-reading Job:Understanding the Ancient World's Greatest Poem by Michael Austin

Job and Jesus

Just something I wanted to note from the book I mentioned yesterday.

"If there is one uncontestable theme in the Book of Job it is that God lies entirely outside human understanding. ... If anybody manages to read all the way to the end of Job without getting the point, Yahweh himself shouts it from a whirlwind for the last four chapters.  God is not the sort of being that humans can even begin to understand.

The problem with perspective goes both ways. Human beings cannot understand God, but, at the same time, Job's God shows little ability to sympathize with human beings.  God's speeches are not even as comforting as those of Job's friends. He shows no interest in Job's feelings or his pain. He sees some people making theological arguments based on false premises and decides to spend a few hours shouting sarcastic comments out of a whirlwind in order to set them straight.  The Book of Job, therefore, shows us two perspectives - human and divine - that cannot be reconciled to each other.  Job, therefore, introduces the argument that human beings have a desperate need for reconciliation with God, which is also a central theme of the New Testament.

As one who was both fully human and fully divine, Jesus Christ could inhabit both perspectives at the same time.  He could simultaneously experience both Job's agony and God's responsibility. As Paul writes in his first epistle to Timothy, 'there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (I Tim. 2:5)."  

An excerpt from pages 116-117  of  Re-reading Job:Understanding the Ancient World's Greatest Poem by Michael Austin

The Blasphemy (?!) of Job

Have you ever started reading the Book of Job, been amazed at how much he suffered, and how well he seemed to accept the bad things in life in the first chapter or two, and then read the bulk of the Book, and wondered what happened to this guy of whom was said  "In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing." (1:22)?    Because he totally did that!  




I finished reading a fantastic book, Re-reading Job:Understanding the Ancient World's Greatest Poem by Michael Austin, last night.  A Facebook friend read it last year, and highly recommended it. At times I enjoy reading how other people* understand biblical books, and so I put this on my Amazon Wishlist and received it for Christmas.  The author captured my attention from the first page.  There are many good points throughout the book, and I didn't start noting them much until I was in the last few chapters.  Here are a few things that took my attention there.




From the chapter, "Why Job's Redeemer Does Not Live - and How He Does"...

The author talks in detail about why this phrase from Job does not speak of Christ.


"But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last."

However, New Testament truths are in the Book of Job.



"When Job lists his virtues in his final speech, he says nothing about praying, fasting, or physically worshipping God in any way.  Rather he talks about how he has treated other people:"


see Job 31:16-20


Job, his friends, and the author of the poem simply take it for granted that 'virtue' is best seen as a measure of how well we treat other people.  The author has no desire to start a fan club for Yahweh. The poem says nothing about praying, sacrificing animals, or singing psalms of praise.  It doesn't even say anything about refraining from idol worship - the go-to definition of morality in the culture that produced Job  This is one of the more relevant connections between Job and the New Testament.  'Pure religion' in the Book of Job means something very similar to what it means in the Book of James: 'to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep [oneself] unspotted from the world' (James 1:27)."

(pg. 114)





When Job says things that many would consider blasphemous, remember the Jewish audience of this poem. Even to be in the presence of someone talking against God was serious.    "Jewish law took blasphemy very seriously.  Blasphemers had to be stoned, and those who heard the blasphemy had to do the stoning (Lev. 24:13-14)."


"... to sympathize with Job as he criticized God would have made them complicit in his blasphemy.  To remain free of sin, they had to abandon a friend in a time of great need."


"Much like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Job's Comforters fear being contaminated by something theologically objectionable. The priest and the Levite do not want to risk ritual uncleanliness by touching a dead body. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar don't want to risk the moral contagion of listening to Job's blasphemous complaints against God. In both cases, the representatives of the orthodox religion choose abstract theological purity above the physical and spiritual needs of another human being. For both Jesus and the Job poet, it is the wrong choice."  (pg. 116)



I might post more about this later. My arm is sore from being on the computer too long this morning! :) 




*  This is written by a Latter-Day Saint, but aside from relatively few references to Joseph Smith, books like Mosiah, Church teaching, or a Mormon hymn, I could relate to most everything.

New Year's Resolution

I think I want to make this my resolution for 2016...


Ephesians 4


²⁹ Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. ³⁰ And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. ³¹ Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. ³² Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.  (NIV)




or if you prefer the King James Version (the version I grew up with, and used for scripture memorization): 



²⁹ Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

³⁰ And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

³¹ Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

³² And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.   (emphasis mine)

 


Beautiful words, really.

A Jewish View

Sometimes I wonder how Jews view their stories in the Bible so today I asked my only Jewish friend about it. Here is what she said. She told me I could share it on my blog since I wanted to keep her notes. Thought you might find it of interest.



Me

Hey, hope you are doing well! If you have time one day, I'd like to hear the Jewish thought (or yours since I know you don't speak for all Jews) on Genesis. How much of it is literal, and how much of it is just Israel's story of God calling them as a nation set apart? How are the creation stories interpreted? Do Jews favor evolution over literalism? Is Abraham a historical figure? Is Adam or Noah? I'd appreciate reading your thoughts. Thank you! 



Naomi

Rashi, whose verse by verse commentary on the Torah is considered flat out indispensable, begins his study of the first words of Genesis with a question I think no Christian would ask: why does it start here? Why here? Why with the beginning of the world? Why with stories of creation and ancestors?


To Jews, the question is an obvious one - to us the Chumash, the 5 Books, are a code of law. Christians wonder why all rules about what priests wear should be mucking up the pretty stories. Jews wonder why all the stories should be in among what should be a law book.


The answer he gives is a legal one: G-d gave us the land - to make it legal, he had to prove his ownership of it. He proves that by showing that He created it, and it is therefor his to give.
What I am trying to say is, when we read these books our approach isn't "is it literal?" The approach is,what does it teach us? What can we learn from this or that story?



---------------------------------------

Mostly why I am interested in this subject is because I finished reading The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins by Peter Enns last night. 

Anxiety Help

Someone shared these on Facebook from a book she was reading.  I liked them, and wanted to keep them somewhere easy to find.

Veiling as a sign of equality?

In my last post, I mentioned reading Paul Among the People by Sarah Ruden, and talked about hair and veiling and Paul's instructions for women in the church to cover their heads.  A few of you offered your thoughts and interpretations you have heard. This is what Sarah Ruden had to say about this matter in her book.

Respectable Greek and Roman women traditionally wore concealing veils in public. Marriage and widowhood were the chief things that a veil signaled.  (For a Roman woman, "to get married" and "to veil oneself" were exactly the same word.)  The veil held great symbolism:it reminded everyone that all freeborn women, women with families to protect them, were supposed to enter adulthood already married, and that they were supposed to stay chastely married or else chastely widowed until the end of their lives.  The veil was the flag of female virtue, status, and society.  In the port city of Corinth, with its batteries of prostitution - including the sacred prostitutes of the temple of Aphrodite - the distinction between veiled and unveiled women would have been even more critical.

But on the other hand, society was changing fast: slaves ... gaining more status and security in households and settling down more often with slave partners; slaves being freed; divorce proliferating...- any or all of these things could have made the veil a matter of controversy. Women not entitled to the veil may have wanted it, and women entitled to the veil may not have wanted it.  Bruce Winter puts the emphasis on a new type of married, divorced, or widowed Roman woman on the scene in the first century A.D., more keen on showing off her elaborate hairstyle than on constantly wearing an old-fashioned veil. 

...

At the very least, there must have been among the Christians women with pasts.  Would not bareheadedness, the lack of a "symbol of authority" on their heads, have galled them? They were entitled to be there - but the norms of the time said that they had to be there in the outfits of degraded, vulnerable beings. It was against the custom and perhaps even against the law for them to be veiled.  At Greek religious festivals, "women's police" would circulate, making sure not only that respectable women were not flashily or revealingly dressed, but probably also that other women did not take on the exclusive, prestigious symbols of a matron or widow.  In Rome also, dress was regulated in detail: for example, any married woman found to have committed adultery would lose forever the right to wear a floor-length, heavily bordered stola and a veil.  Any woman who had ever been a prostitute was of course not allowed to wear them either.

I think Paul's rule aimed toward an outrageous equality. All Christian women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, respectability - or of privilege so great as to allow toying with traditional appearances.  The most hurtful thing about bareheaded, gorgeously coiffed wives might not have been their frivolity but rather their thoughtless flaunting of styles that meant degradation to some of their sisters - as if a suburban matron attended an inner-city mission church in hip boots, a miniskirt, and a blond wig.  Perhaps the new decree made independent women of uncertain status, or even slave women, honorary wives in this setting.  If the women complied ... you could have looked at a congregation and not necessarily been able to tell who was an honored wife and mother and who had been forced, or maybe was still being forced, to service twenty or thirty men a day.

(pgs. 85-88)

What do you think?

On Veiling and Hair and Paul

I have a relatively new Facebook friend and she's Jewish - my first Jewish friend! I met her on a HuffPo link. I liked one of her comments, and she requested me as a friend just like that!  I'm not sure how she'd label herself (if she would), but she told me that as a married woman she doesn't wear "trousers," but wears skirts that cover her knees, blouses that cover the elbows and she covers her hair in public.  She said single women don't cover their hair, but married women do in her community.  She also pointed out that her husband does modest things for her like not swimming in gender-mixed places.

I say all that because I was reading Paul Among the People by Sarah Ruden. She said she really did not like Paul because he sounded so misogynistic and homophobic, but as a scholar in classical languages, she started reading Paul in light of his contemporaries.  The book is "the apostle reinterpreted and reimagined in his own time."  She quotes Bible passages attributed to Paul, and compares them to other literature and known historical contexts of Paul's time.

One thing that really took my attention was about hair. It made me think, "Oh wow, the Middle East really hasn't evolved much from this thinking," and I don't mean that in a derogatory way because, likely, they have evolved, but they just still hold onto the traditions. That's more what I mean. I recall hearing people talk how in some places in, say, the Levant tribes do what they have done for centuries. And in many ways, I find that wonderful because there is something to be said for holding onto your culture and not letting social media or all this dang stuff available in the world make you lose something precious.

(I'm probably not saying that right, but I know what I mean in my own mind.)

So the subject was women's hair. More specifically she was talking about that passage concerning women in church covering their heads. From time to time I see a Christian group that practices this here, but despite my rather strict upbringing, it's one thing we never did in the Baptist churches I'm familiar with.  (Women didn't even have to have particularly long hair thankfully, since mine really doesn't grow long without growing into a shrub).  I have heard Muslims declare "See, you all are supposed to do what our women do...you just cherrypick that out and don't obey. You should be wearing hijab as well."  (Have you heard this, too?)

So I was going to write what she said about the veil, but figured first I'd ask for interpretations that you have heard regarding this passage. The main one I recall is that it was cultural and that our hair is our natural covering so we don't have to worry about veiling in the 20th century.

Instead of writing her thoughts on the veil, here is what she said about hair:

"Paul does not write of 'nature' (verse 14) by accident. The ancients believed that it was female hair's nature to inflame men, almost like breasts or genitals: men experienced women's hair as powerfully, inescapably erotic, in a way that makes our hair-care product companies look like an accounting textbook."  (pg. 88)

Then she quotes erotic passages from Ovid and Apuleius about hair and continues, "Notice the implicit association between hair on display and actual nakedness. This wouldn't make much sense unless both signaled sexual availability and both were thought of as automatically bringing on male desire."  (pg. 91)

What are your thoughts on hair, veiling, Paul's words on the subject, interpretations you've heard, what your church teaches on this matter, the fact that I added a new friend on Facebook based on a HuffPo link comment?  Anything?

Submission and The Greatest Among Us

Have you ever thought of hierarchy as part of the curse?  Or of Jesus turning hierarchy on its head with all those teachings of the last being first and the one who serves others being the greatest of all?  Note to all who want to be big shots served by others: in God's kingdom things are different!

I thought this was an interesting perspective. What do you think?

When his disciples argued among themselves about who would be greatest in the kingdom, Jesus told them that "anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mark 9:35 updated NIV). 

In speaking to them about authority he said,

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"  (Matthew 20:25-28).


This aspect of Jesus' legacy profoundly affected relationships in the early church, to whom Paul wrote:

 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8)

In the biblical narrative, hierarchy enters human relationship as part of the curse, and begins with man's oppression of women - "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Genesis 3:16).  But with Christ, hierarchal relationships are exposed for the sham that they are, as the last are made first, the first are made last, the poor are blessed, the meek inherit the earth, and the God of the universe takes the form of a slave.

Women should not have to pry equality from the grip of Christian men. It should be surrendered willingly, with the humility and love of Jesus, or else we miss the once radical teaching that slaves and masters, parents and children, husbands and wives, rich and poor, healthy and sick, should "submit to one another" (Ephesians 5:21).

This sort of mutual submission worked best in our marriage long before we knew what to call it.

That's because I don't respect Dan because he is a man. I respect Dan because when one of his friends moves, he's the first to show up with his Explorer to help. I respect him because he's the kind of guy who treats everyone with the same level of dignity, from his clients to the clerk behind the checkout counter. I respect Dan because he'll come right out and say, "That's not funny" when someone makes a racist or homophobic joke. I respect him because he likes to do things right the first time, even when no one is watching. I respect Dan because he has spent countless Saturday afternoons at my parents' house, planting bushes and installing showerheads and fixing the computer.

I respect him because I've seen him cry on behalf of his friends. I respect Dan because he is smart enough to win just about any argument, but that doesn't mean he always does.  I respect him because he gets as excited over someone else's success as he gets over his own....

I don't respect my husband because he is the man and I am the woman and it's my "place" to submit to him. I respect Dan because he is a good person, and because he has made me a better person too.

This is grace. And for us, it goes both ways.

(pg. 218-220 of A Year of Biblical Womanhood? by Rachel Held Evans)

A book about Jesus

First of all, Merry Christmas! 

Between me and Andrew, we got sixteen books this month!  I started reading Encounters with Jesus by Gary M. Burge this morning.  It says "Uncover the ancient culture, discover hidden meanings." Well, I love stuff like that.  A few observations so far. Sorry for the disconnected nature of this, but I wanted to note a few things that took my attention.

INDIVIDUALISM FOR ALL

Western society is individualistic, and that has translated to our faiths.  The author notes the ways "every community of Christians has framed its understanding of spiritual life within the context of its own culture."   He says, "Even the way we understand 'faith in Christ' is to some degree shaped by these cultural forces.  For instance, in the last three hundred years, Western Christians have abandoned seeing faith as a chiefly communal exercise .... Among the many endowments of the European Enlightenment, individualism reigns supreme: Christian faith is a personal, private endeavor. We prefer to say, 'I have accepted Christ,' rather than define ourselves through a community that follows Christ.  Likewise (again, thanks to the Enlightenment), we have elevated rationalism as a premier value.  Among many Christians faith is a construct of the mind, an effort at knowledge gained through study, an assent to a set of theological propositions. Sometimes knowing what you believe trumps belief itself."  (pg. 7-8)


UNCLEANNESS ABOUNDS

This book seeks to help us understand the encounters of Jesus in a more cultural context.  As I was reading I noticed how often Jesus didn't seem to mind being unclean in the religious, ritualistic ways of the Jewish people. Remember the story of Jesus visiting the demon-possessed man who lived among the tombs?  He ended up sending demons into a herd of pigs.  First of all

1. Gentile territory is unclean (or many Jews believe it so)
2. Tombs (unclean)
3. Pigs (unclean)
4. Demon-possessed man (surely this was unclean)

Then if you continue the chapter in Mark, Jesus is headed to a synagogue leader's house because his daughter was near death (dead bodies are unclean).  On the way, the bleeding woman touches his garment.  Granted, she made Jesus unclean by doing this, but he didn't scold her for it.  Jesus regularly interacted with the sick, those with oozing sores and other diseases that many of us might shy away from. Jews, who tried to avoid uncleanness, would likely shy away even quicker. 

Something I thought about as I read this: doctors must have been really unclean individuals.  They dealt with bleeding, oozing people, and, well, some of them died while they were tending them surely.

Actually all of society must be often unclean if you think about it. How easy is it to avoid monthly menstrual cycles, childbirth, other bodily fluids and so forth? How else do you have children without first becoming unclean?



HOW POWERFUL IS THE FLOW

The author provides this view of menstruation from Pliny the Elder in book 28 of Natural History.

"According to him, contact with the monthly 'flow' of women turns new wine sour, makes crops wither, kills skin grafts, dries seeds in gardens, causes the fruit of trees to fall off, dims the bright surface of mirrors, dulls the edge of steel and the gleam of ivory, kills bees, and rusts iron and bronze. Dogs that come near become insane and their bite becomes poisonous. A thread from an infected dress is sufficient to do all this. If linen that is being washed and boiled is touched by such a woman, it will turn black. A woman who is menstruating can drive away hailstorms and whirlwinds if she shows herself (unclothed) when lightening flashes. Pliny refers to Metrodorus of Scepsos in Cappadocia, who discovered that if a menstruating woman walks through a field while holding the hem of her toga above her belt, 'caterpillars, worms, beetles, and other vermin will fall from off the ears of corn.' But, he warns, don't do this at sunrise or the crops themselves will die."  (pg. 45)

He wanted to demonstrate the "superstition" surrounding menstruating women that may have influenced the region at this time.  I just found it interesting...seems a pretty powerful thing, huh?



Any surprises?  Thoughts?

How do you define 'biblical womanhood'?

I love what Rachel Held Evans concluded in her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood which I received for Christmas - yay!



"The Bible does not present us with a single model for womanhood, and the notion that it contains a sort of one-size-fits-all formula for how to be a woman of faith is a myth. 

Among the women praised in Scripture are warriors, widows, slaves, sister wives, apostles, teachers, concubines, queens, foreigners, prostitutes, prophets, mothers, and martyrs.  What makes these women's stories leap from the page is not the fact that they all conform to some kind of universal ideal, but that, regardless of the culture or context in which they found themselves, they lived their lives with valor. They lived their lives with faith. As much as we may long for the simplicity of a single definition of 'biblical womanhood,' there is no right way to be a woman, no mold into which we must each cram ourselves - not if Deborah, Ruth, Rachel, Tamar, Vashti, Esther, Priscilla, Mary Magdelene, and Tabitha have anything to say about it.

Far too many church leaders have glossed over these stories and attempted to define womanhood by a list of rigid roles. But roles are not fixed. They are not static. Roles come and go; they shift and they change. They are relative to our culture and subject to changing circumstances.  It's not our roles that define us, but our character.

A calling, on the other hand, when rooted deep in the soil of one's soul, transcends roles.  And I believe that my calling, as a Christian, is the same as that of any other follower of Jesus.  My calling is to love the Lord with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself.  Jesus himself said that the rest of Scripture can be rendered down into these two commands. If love was Jesus' definition of 'bilbical,' then perhaps it should be mine."  (pg. 295)

OT women: Hannah

I'm still reading the book I told you about in the last post, Out of the Garden: Women Writers of the Bible.   The latest discussions have been on Hannah. Remember the mother of Samuel?

There was something two or three writers mentioned about her prayer in the Temple.  What stands out to you about it? Do you remember anything you've been taught or deduced from it over the years?

I'm curious about your thoughts to see what stands out to you from this story - if anything.

From I Samuel 1,


There was a certain man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite^[a] from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. ² He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.
³ Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. ⁴ Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. ⁵ But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the Lord had closed her womb. ⁶ Because the Lord had closed Hannah’s womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. ⁷ This went on year after year. Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the Lord, her rival provoked her till she wept and would not eat. ⁸ Her husband Elkanah would say to her, “Hannah, why are you weeping? Why don’t you eat? Why are you downhearted? Don’t I mean more to you than ten sons?”
⁹ Once when they had finished eating and drinking in Shiloh, Hannah stood up. Now Eli the priest was sitting on his chair by the doorpost of the Lord’s house. ¹⁰ In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the Lord, weeping bitterly. ¹¹ And she made a vow, saying, “Lord Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head.”
¹² As she kept on praying to the Lord, Eli observed her mouth. ¹³ Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk ¹⁴ and said to her, “How long are you going to stay drunk? Put away your wine.”
¹⁵ “Not so, my lord,” Hannah replied, “I am a woman who is deeply troubled. I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the Lord. ¹⁶ Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out of my great anguish and grief.”
¹⁷ Eli answered, “Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him.”
¹⁸ She said, “May your servant find favor in your eyes.” Then she went her way and ate something, and her face was no longer downcast.
¹⁹ Early the next morning they arose and worshiped before the Lord and then went back to their home at Ramah. Elkanah made love to his wife Hannah, and the Lord remembered her. ²⁰ So in the course of time Hannah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Samuel,^[b] saying, “Because I asked the Lord for him.”

A few observations from OT stories

One time while visiting a local book warehouse, I found a rather small book in the religious section.  Out of the Garden: Women Writers of the Bible was different from many of the others, and I immediately snatched it up as a good book to trade for.  (For two of my own books, they will give me one of theirs.)  It's a collection of essays from Jewish and Christian women who were asked to choose a theme, person or story from the Old Testament in a quest to see how contemporary women read the Bible.

I started reading it a couple days ago, and have already found some thought-provoking stuff.  I enjoyed the alternate view of Lot's wife turning to salt. Such a clever ending to that essay by Rebecca Goldstein!

During a chapter on Rachel and Leah, I decided to jot down a few observations (some pointed out in the book; some my own).  These aren't necessarily new "aha!" moments for me, but I don't believe I've mentioned them here before.


Here goes:

--- Have you ever noticed how many barren women are mentioned in the Bible? 



--- The author mentioned this one: Rachel demanding from Jacob children lest she die (Genesis 30:1). And then she died having her second son (Genesis 35:18).

Also, why would she demand children from Jacob when it was clearly her inability to conceive? (It seems women in the past were often blamed for infertility when it was not their faults, but clearly Jacob was fertile.)  So why demand children of Jacob this way?  Any ideas?  (The author has one, but I'll see what you say first.)



--- Also, ever notice this verse from Deuteronomy 21, and how often it wasn't necessarily followed before it became Law? By God's decree even?

¹⁵ If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, ¹⁶ when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.



--- Read this from Genesis 30:

¹⁴ During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”
¹⁵ But she said to her, “Wasn’t it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son’s mandrakes too?”
“Very well,” Rachel said, “he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.”
¹⁶ So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. “You must sleep with me,” she said. “I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he slept with her that night.

The joys of polygyny? Jacob seems reduced to a token between his two wives who decide it's fair to exchange a night in his company for plants.


I'll see if I have more as I continue the book.

The Bible as a Mirror

"Every war needs killers and they can always be found. We always put ourselves in the skin of the victims and not of their killers - we never put ourselves in the skin of a Nazi or Khmer Rouge.  Yet between them and us there is very little difference, no more than between the victim and us."  (from this post)


Thanks to those who took the time to comment on my last post about those yucky Bible passages. I was nodding my head at times as I read each of them. They are things I've either encountered in this book, The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark, or not so long ago in other books.  It was kind of neat seeing them restated by all of you!

So what does the author suggest we do about those disturbing passages in the Bible?  Instead of glossing over them, ignoring them, or cutting them out of our text, we should retain and condemn them!

His argument throughout the book is that while the Bible may be inspired by God, it is not inerrant. It argues with itself and he believes God wants us to wrestle with the text, with what is stated and then come to just solutions for our societies.

Why acknowledge these texts are there? Why not cut them out completely? Because they are there.  And they shape many of our backgrounds more than we realize. He suggests the Bible is a mirror. It shows the good and bad of human nature.  It shows what we are capable of. What we are capable of justifying in God's name!  How many of us are appalled at radical Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and say "God is greater" right before blowing themselves up and often killing fellow Muslims?  How many of us are stunned that the Crusaders and people today of their same mindset can kill others because they believe God would have it that way?  And Jews who believe the land is theirs and if people are in the way they've got to go. Either they need to leave or face unpleasant consequences.  All because God - the scapegoat - said so. 

The Bible shows not perfect people, but imperfect prophets, kings, patriarchs and ordinary folks. Yes, even amongst the "chosen people."  You want to destroy your enemies? You want to keep virgin women as your own after conquering their people?  OK, write the history and say God commanded it.  Simple as that.

"The Bible reflects our doubt and our mediocrity.  It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between."  (pg. 218)

The author quotes John Collins who states, "There is no reason in principle why a text that is shocking might not be inspired. Such a text can raise our moral consciousness by forcing us to confront the fact that immoral actions are often carried out in the name of religion ... Rather than ask whether a text is revealed (and by what criteria could we possibly decide?), it is better to ask whether a text is revelatory, whether we learn something from it about human nature or about the way the world works. A text that is neither historically reliable nor morally edifying...may be all too revelatory about human nature."  (pg. 219)



You may recall this post from the American who was hosting a book club in Kosovo.  I remembered her words this morning as I thought about what to write in this post. 

...Is their bitterness, their fear so great that they could do to Serbs what Serbs did to them?  Could soft-spoken Veton burn a Serb village because his own was burned by Serbs? Would sweet, wide-eyed Enver, who loves basketball and never misses a class, stand by and watch while atrocities were committed?  Could any of these bright, kindhearted young people kill Serbs because they are Serbs?

And if I were in their shoes, what would I be capable of? Have I come to grips with the darkness in my own heart?


Thom Stark in The Human Faces of God believes God can speak to us through the texts. Whether they are passages that inspire us, make us feel the love or shock or disgust us. They mirror humanity, and show us what we are capable of doing to each other.


Feel free to share the texts that inspire or disgust you the most. What do you think of the author's idea that "their status as condemned is exactly their scriptural value"?  Do you think people are capable of all sorts of evil or just the rare few?  Any other thoughts?

Those Yucky Bible Passages

So I'm reading a book someone recommend many months ago and I got for my birthday.  Anyway there is a question in the last chapter about what we should do about disturbing biblical passages.  The main ones discussed were the ones about the genocide against Israel's enemies. You know where they are commanded by God to kill every man, woman and child. And in others where one could stay alive if she were a virgin woman (I suppose for sex slave purposes), but not if one were not a virgin - and definitely not a man.   Still others where God seemingly cared more for trees than people.  (Sounds like some extreme environmentalists I've heard of.)

I was going to share the author's words about those, but figured first I'd ask you.

Should we allegorize them?  Excise them from the text? Ignore them? Condemn them? Learn how to defeat our own enemies from them? Celebrate them as God's plan for keeping the line for the Messiah safe?

All, some, or none of the above.  Please tell me how you view them. How do you deal with them and explain them to others?

Torah and China: On Marrying Your Rapist

So I was reading No Tears For Mao by Niu-Niu this morning (my second book on China this week) and came across a chapter that reminded me of a disturbing section of the Old Testament about men who rape women being commanded to marry them.  Like any woman who has just been violated wants to marry the scum bag.  (So she says from her 21st century perspective ...)

I remembered when David's son raped his half sister and when he sent her away after the rape, she cried out that this was even more wrong!  My Bible's study notes read:


Though Tamar was no longer a virgin, Amnon could spare her some humiliation if he would own up to what he had done to her. By Israelite custom she would be forced to remain unmarried for the rest of her life. She therefore sought to be married to Amnon which, because of his sexual assault, was her right (Deut. 22:28-29).

pg. 437


It's kind of disturbing that patriarchy is so AWFUL that marrying your rapist is a right for women.  (So she says from her 21st century perspective...I know, I know.)

Or that women are considered so invaluable that having been violated meant she had to remain single the rest of her life.



The book I was reading was talking about the mid-seventies. As in not even forty years ago..so yeah 1976 to be exact. 

And this is in China so not exactly Jewish Law here either. 



Well, the story is that this woman was sent into the countryside for reeducation and when she refused to marry a "brutish" and "coarse" party official, he took his revenge by raping her.

Then he did "the most humiliating thing you could do to a woman" which was "forcing her to appear before a self-criticism session with a pair of shoes around her neck" signaling she was "damaged goods" in a sexual sense.

The young lady demanded justice, but due to this man's power, no one dared oppose him. So he "became even more arrogant and abusive: ... stripping and raping her in front of a group of intimidated peasants."

All sorts of injustices happened after that, but this is what reminded me of the Old Testament passages.

When the woman's family found out, they tried to get some justice for her, but the judge said there was no way of finding out if it were rape or consensual sex.

"Feeling completely desperate, my uncle realized his daughter's life was ruined since no young man would want to marry her; the only solution was to marry her to the man who had defiled her.  Lien-hua had reluctantly agreed to this. It was the only way for her to have a home and to expiate her shame, save face and, consequently, lead a normal life. The entire family was on its knees - begging this creature, promising anything that he demanded.  My uncle offered to give him his savings, so that they could buy furniture and whatever else was needed to set up a household, but the rapist continued to balk."  (pg. 165)

Oh my word. Can you imagine your parents and cousins begging a brutal rapist to marry your precious relative in order to save face and live a normal life? 

I declare, people, we are so so so so blessed to not be born in some cultures.  These books about Chinese women are eye-opening.


I suppose if this were the status of women of the world thousands of years ago, making rapists obligated to care for their victims was a step up. It seems bad for me looking backward, but if your sole purpose in life was to have a husband and children and having been defiled meant no one would marry you ...

*whew*  I wonder if much has changed in China regarding women's rights in these last 40 years.

I hope so.

What's land got to do with it?

The importance of land is a recurring theme in God Is Red by Vine Deloria, Jr.  You would have thought the name of the book would have given me a clue and it did in a way, but I thought more in broader terms like Mother Earth rather than specific parcels of land. Yet, what is Mother Earth made of than pieces of land and lots of water? 

I recall times when I've been irritated how people have fought for land.  Palestinians and Israelis.  That conflict readily comes to mind as both sides seek to keep what they say is theirs. The Israelis wanting their old homeland despite the fact they'd been driven from it centuries ago. And Palestinians who had been living there until Zionists drove them out.

Frustrated at the conflict, I remember "why are people fighting over dirt?!" coming out of my mouth.

Yes, really.

I've honestly been conflicted, too, because it seems in the history of the world "to the victor goes the spoils" is how it works. So if you fight and win it, you keep it.  I wasn't sure if Zionists fighting for Israel and their ability thus far to keep it, meant it "should" be theirs. Just as Mecca now belongs to Muslims and the United States belongs to former Europeans for the most part***.

But after reading this book, I think I understand better.  Vine Deloria speaks of lands having sacredness and certain properties so that even our lack of religious unity can be blamed on the land in which we reside!

With the movement of Christianity to the North American continent, and the subsequent freedom to develop religious expressions offered by the land, the possibility of constituting a Christian culture or unity vanished. Christianity shattered on the shores of this continent, producing hundreds of sects in the same manner that the tribes continually subdivided in an effort to relate to the rhythms of the land.  It is probably in the nature of this continent that divisiveness is one of its greatest characteristics, a virtually uncontrollable freedom of the spirit. (pg. 143)

See? We cannot help ourselves from splitting!  I wonder if this helps explain our political divisiveness as well ...

Tribal religions place more importance on land and sacred mountains or rivers.  Judaism is a tribal religion and you read often in the Bible about setting up stones to remember places.  Also the importance of land is a strong theme throughout the Tanakh.  So I understand why Jews desire their land (or what they consider their God-given land.) It also better explains why Muslims want Mecca and Medina only for themselves. It's not for those outside the "tribe" (i.e., faith).   Deloria explained that there were Native religious ceremonies done privately and not open to outsiders. This may explain why certain mosques do not welcome nonMuslims as well as why certain Mormon religious experiences are not open for nonMormons. 

Membership has its privileges.

What are your thoughts on land and sacred spaces? Do you think certain lands have certain properties that transfer to the quality of life? Do we have freedoms in the United States because the land oozes freedom?


*** This book shows how Natives view the land that we Europeans took. I now wonder how the Canaanites felt about the land before the children of Israel came through. And how the pre-Islamic Arabs thought of Mecca and other parts of Arabia. Are lands made for all or for whoever can keep them?  Are lands something to be possessed and, er, hoarded?

Tribal Religions v. Christianity on Views of Death

"If the Christian religion is a victory over death, why do Western peoples who have had the benefits of the Christian religion for two thousand years fear death?"

I'm currently reading God Is Red by Vine Deloria, Jr.  You might recall I read another of his books last year so I put this one on my Amazon Wishlist and received it for Christmas.  This "Native View of Religion" presents quite a few challenges for me especially since the author contrasts tribal religions mostly with Christianity, the predominant religion of the white man in the Americas.  On many issues he makes great points. I've read some of them to Andrew and we've agreed how sadly truthful those things are.

Yet I was reading this chapter on death and wanted to discuss a few things because I wasn't sure I agreed with his conclusions about Christian and/or Western beliefs on death. 


Deloria cites the work of Oscar Cullman who came to the conclusion that "death, in the Christian context, was a feared foe. ... an event to be avoided at all costs, because it meant the cessation of identity."

Cullman's book deals with the Greek and Christian ideas of immortality of the soul (Greek) and resurrection of the dead (Christian).  This he says explains why

"death was a welcome visitor for Socrates but a dreaded and tormenting experience for Jesus." Socrates was glad to be free from his body in which the Greeks  thought their souls were trapped.  So death was like getting out of prison apparently.  Yet for the Christian, death meant the body was no more. Thus death is much more traumatic, right? 


Deloria claims "a majority of tribal religions simply assume some form of personal survival beyond the grave. As Chief Seattle remarked, death is merely a changing of worlds."

"For the tribal people, death in a sense fulfills their destiny, for as their bodies become dust once again they contribute to the ongoing life cycle of creation.  For Christians, the estrangement from nature, their religion's central theme, makes this most natural of conclusions fraught with danger. Believing that they are saved and interpreting this salvation as accumulating material possessions, Western people cannot accept death except as a form of punishment by God. ... Death is feared and rarely understood. People somehow want to see the death of their loved one as part of God's plan (i.e., God needed Elvis to sing in heaven)."

Several things about this:

1. I believe similarly to Chief Seattle. How often have I heard "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" - a quote from Paul's letter to the Corinthians?  This is what I believe! This is what is quoted at Christian funerals all the time in order to give comfort to the families who are missing their loved ones' presence here. Yet thinking of them with the Lord is comforting. Or it is for me anyway.

2.  He mentions this "estrangement from nature" that we have several times in his book. I'm guessing he thinks we hate nature because we have chosen to cut down trees for houses and clear lands for shopping malls and dig and drill under the earth for oil and coal and natural gas. I suppose "progress" is actually a subjective term and for many living life simply - off the land - as our ancestors did is the better option.  Or maybe he has seen the truly bad things: the pollution from dumping chemicals in water sources, the depleted uranium from bombs contaminating soil, the slaughter of animals on the Plains.  Regardless, I don't know that this is Christianity's central theme!  What do you think?

3.  I've never been taught or felt salvation interpreted means that I'm supposed to accumulate possessions although I can see why Deloria observing us with all our stuff might feel this is true!  By contrast Jesus teaches us to give to the poor and often speaks of getting rid of things.  (Yes, I realize there is a disconnect between what Jesus taught and what Christians actually decide to do.)

4. I do tend to view the death of someone as part of God's plan although the Elvis example is taking it a bit too far. OK, I may have joked that way before, but .. maybe Deloria is too??  I don't believe God takes people to heaven because He needs a good laugh or great entertainment.

I could go on and say more, but I'm more curious what your thoughts are on this topic. Do you fear death? If so, why? If not, WHY?  Do you think Deloria has correctly assessed Christianity and/or the Western view of death?  We speak of someone "passing" rather than "dying" for instance.

By the way, why do you think death was a "tormenting experience" for Jesus (if you believe this)?

What does your religion or belief system teach about death?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of it.

Remembering Syria & January Books

It's the last few hours of January and I just now finished the final pages of a pretty big book. Yay, I am glad I finished it in time to add to this list.  Here's what I read this month. Not as much as some months, but I started off slowly and just have been busy doing other things.  Three years ago right now I was in Syria. I decided to remember my days there by posting a few pictures on Facebook. I'm trying to post ones that I didn't post on Facebook when we got home. And I'm trying to share a few tidbits about the places we visited or people we met or things we did.  Also I'm trying to add just a few pictures each day and trying to correlate them to the actual date three years ago. For instance today we would have visited the Umayyad mosque and a really fancy Shiite mosque. You can check out the album at this public link - Remembering Syria.  Syria is in a mess these days.  Some of my friends from our visit are out of there now, but many remain.  My thoughts are often with them. 


Captured by Grace by David Jeremiah -- although this was not on my wishlist, my brother gave me this for Christmas. What a challenging, good read for me!  A great way to start of the new year.  I made note of many things that spoke to me that I wanted to review later.  These are just a few things some of which I posted as Facebook status updates. 

‎"Mercy is God withholding the punishment we rightfully deserve. Grace is God not only withholding that punishment but offering the most precious gifts instead.

Mercy runs to forgive the Prodigal Son.
Grace throws a party with every extravagance.

Mercy bandages the wounds of the man beaten by the robbers.
Grace covers the cost of his full recovery.

Mercy hears the cry of the thief on the cross.
Grace promises paradise that very day. ..."  (pg. 22)

"Imagine discovering that the God you worship is Someone else entirely, Someone who bears radical differences to your most precious assumptions about Him. You would ask the very question Paul now asks: 'And he said, "Who are You, Lord?"'"  (pg. 112)


"...the essence of grace is surprise. There is nothing shocking about giving people exactly what they deserve. Grace subverts the rules and gives people what they don't deserve. It is motivated by the warmth of love rather than by cold calculation." (pg. 171)



Whose Bible Is It? by Jaroslav Pelikan - this was the first of my dozen Christmas books that I received and I got it from my Lil' Sis a couple weeks before Christmas day.  I cannot remember why I had it on my Amazon Wishlist, but enjoyed it nevertheless. The author started off talking about oral tradition in cultures and that lead to the writing down of the Bible over the centuries. His chapter on the Septuagint was interesting as was the Bible in various cultures. The binding of Isaac example was especially good.  He discussed peoples of the book and translating the Scriptures, the Bible according to Jews, Protestants, Catholics and so forth.  I should have been good and taken notes on these chapters. Alas, I did not.  He does conclude that the Bible is God's and "therefore really doesn't belong to any of us." 




The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible 1611-2011 by Melvyn Bragg.  This was one of those I found on the new books shelves at the library.  I enjoyed how the author showed how the KJB had influenced English speaking societies. I especially enjoyed his treatment of slaves and how the KJB spoke liberation to them and how they worked for their freedom. He made them seem very powerful.; see previous post for most information on this book





Jesus Before Christianity by Albert Nolan  -- one of those books I got from my Wishlist although I cannot recall why it was on there.  The author had some interesting ideas about things, however, so I'm glad I read it.  See previous posts for more details on this book




Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother by Xinran  -- this book was so sad, but good!  I am glad I read it as I know couples who have adopted children from China.  It's sad to read how valueless daughters are in China that they are often killed at birth. Yet mothers are mothers and many of them do have great pain following through with tradition's evil dictates.  This book shares cultural aspects of China and includes stories of women who have given up children for adoption. A very moving read. I was in tears several times.





Below Stairs by Margaret Powell -- Although this book was copyrighted in 1968 it was on the New Books shelf at my library.  It is "The Classic Kitchen Maid's Memoir That Inspired  Upstairs, Downstairs and Downton Abbey" according to the jacket cover. It was an easy read and pretty entertaining. If you want to know what life was like for one kitchen maid turned cook in England, this book might be for you.  A lesson I took from it is to respect all people and just because someone is a servant it doesn't mean she wants practical gifts and boring color schemes.



The Triumph of Christianity by Rodney Stark -- Last year I read a short book he wrote about the rise of Christianity and this book incorporates some of that information as well as quite a bit more. Prepare to have your thoughts on the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Dark Ages and the following periods challenged.  (Or maybe you'll simply scoff at how he makes a mockery of history.)  I actually enjoyed his point of view although I was left wondering if it were all true or a different sort of history revision.

Rethinking Hagar, Fearless Jesus, Chinese Women

Here are blurbs from books I've been reading in January.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of them.


In his book The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible 1611-2011  author Melvyn Bragg notes how different groups had read the biblical stories differently.  For instance Hagar was often seen much differently than this:


"In America, several black feminist historians have seen Hagar as someone with whom it is easy and important for former slaves to identify. She is seen as a slave forced into a pregnancy for the convenience of Abraham and the determination of Sarah that he should fulfil his dynastic destiny.  Then she is expelled for no fault of her own, out of jealousy and the possessiveness of the non-slave wife when she has no need for her. She is, like the African-American slaves, a thing, an object, to be used at will and rejected when the use is over and thrown out without a thought for her future life or that of her child.

'... Hagar, like many black women, goes into the wide world to make a living for herself and her child with only God by her side.'" (pg. 291)




In Jesus Before Christianity, Albert Nolan writes:

There are no traces of fear in Jesus.  He was not afraid of creating a scandal or losing his reputation or even losing his life. All the men of religion...were scandalized by the way he mixed socially with sinners, by the way he seemed to enjoy their company, by his permissiveness with regard to the laws, by his apparent disregard for the seriousness of sin and by what we would call a bad reputation: 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard.' ...In terms of group solidarity his friendship with sinners would classify him as a sinner....In an age when friendliness toward any woman outside of one's family could mean only one thing, his friendship with women and especially with prostitutes would have ruined whatever reputation he still had...Jesus did nothing and compromised on nothing for the sake of even a modicum of prestige in the eyes of others. He did not seek anyone's approval....His family thought he was out of his mind...; the Pharisees thought he was possessed by the devil...; he was accused on being a drunkard, a glutton, a sinner and a blasphemer but nobody could ever accuse him of being insincere and hypocritical nor of being afraid of what people might say about him nor of what people might do to him.

Jesus' courage, fearlessness and independence made people of that age ask again and again, 'Who is this man?'

(pg. 144)




And finally from the book I'm currently reading: Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother by Xinran

"Chinese women down the ages have never had the right to tell their own stories. They lived on the bottom rung of society, unquestioning obedience was expected of them, and they had no means of building lives of their own. So 'natural' had this become that most women wished for only two things - not to give birth to daughters in this life, and not to be reborn as a woman in the next."  (pg. 35)


This book is incredibly interesting though very sad and infuriating at times.  Can you believe a two thousand year old law which gives boys land and girls nothing has contributed to so many infant girls being "done"?  This is the country euphemism for smothering or strangling or dropping your newborn into the slop bucket so it would drown. 

How can people be so evil?!



Your thoughts?