Refusing to Feed Others

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I'm reading a book Discovering North Carolina which has dozens of stories, newspaper articles, and accounts about the state in which I've lived most of my life.  I found it at the twenty-five cent sale at Fifth Street Books in September, and started reading it in mid-October.  

It's divided into four sections: Environment (which includes things like how NC got its name, sailors' impressions, a visit by President Monroe, the Civil War on the Home Front, and so forth), People (an explorer-historian's description of "a well-shaped, clean-made people" i.e., the "Indians in colonial North Carolina"; Daniel Boone "who lived in North Carolina longer than he lived anywhere else"; several governors, Andy Griffith, Buck Duke, etc.), Events (the hanging of Tom Dula, visits from George Washington and Robert E. Lee, Walter Hines' attack on the "mummies" in the NC legislature, "The Camels Are Coming," and so forth), and Social Fabric ("Quarrels among the Baptists," life in the cotton mills, descriptions of a country church service, etc.)

Yesterday I was reading the latter part of the Events section about Greensboro, NC, where "The Sit-Ins Begin."  I grew up and still live about 30 minutes from Greensboro. I was there just last week when I took Zach to the Science Center where he likes seeing the aquarium, and we were able to see the tiger before his afternoon snooze.  We travel through Greensboro nearly every time we go to the North Carolina mountains, and our "local" news stations are from out that way.

I read this line in this Events story: "Still others pointed to a December 1959 episode when McNeil returned from a trip to New York and was refused food service at the Greensboro Trailways Bus Terminal." (pg. 275)

That made me so sad!  I want to think if I were a white Southerner back in those days (pre-Civil War, during the Civil War, and in 1959!) that I would treat people with respect and kindness despite the fact that they were black.  I don't see how people justified this racism. How some perhaps had the audacity to use the Bible to justify this.  Yes, quote me those verses about servants and masters. Whatever. But refusing to feed a paying customer? Making black people use separate water fountains?  Sit at the back of buses and theaters and churches?  Why?  Do you think they will give you cooties? 

Why do people who often say they love "the good Lord," go to church, think they are going to heaven because they are basically good or said a prayer, do these things? Do you just ignore all those teachings about loving others as you love yourself?  In honor preferring one another? washing others' feet as Jesus showed us? even loving your enemies (if you consider them such..guess what? you gotta love them if you follow Christ.)

I don't get it.

I had a very small taste of this when I went to Syria in early 2009.  We'd had a wonderful visit there, and were treated exceptionally well.  But one person - one friend who had joined us several days to walk us through Damascus neighborhoods - said something that hurt me. Even his Syrian friends looked at him like he said the wrong thing and somewhat scolded him.  I really don't think he meant to hurt us.

We'd met with several Syrians that week.  A couple had had us over to their houses or taken us out to eat. This particular guy had joined us many times, but unlike a couple of others, he'd not had us meet anyone in his family.  Apparently his parents were super-pious and American Christians would have contaminated them because one day towards the end of our visit B commented, "My parents would have liked to meet you...if you were only Muslim." 



On the other hand, I remember one specific instance where I know I hurt someone because he was different than I so I know I've hurt others, too.  Probably many more than I want to admit - or even realize.

Have you ever been shunned or hurt because you weren't the right gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or _______?  Even though you tell yourself so and so might not have meant it quite the way it came out, it still hurts a little (or a lot.) 

Anyway, this was just something I'd been thinking about.  I know we are in an election time when people are dividing and sometimes telling how stupid the other side is, but let's remember to be known for loving and serving others, fellow Christians, even if they differ from us.   Yes, even if they vote for that candidate you really, really don't like! 

"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.

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.

Original Glory

I "liked" some Facebook page awhile back, and I read this on my news feed today.

What do you think?




"To teach a child from their earliest years that they are inherently bad and capable of all sorts of evil is to mock the divine image in which we were created, and not only provides a license for sin, but subconsciously programs people to live debased and immoral lives. Teach your children that they are the offspring of divine perfection, and that the Father, Son and Spirit smile upon them and all that they are.
Original glory trumps original sin. Original sin is Adamic mythology, but original glory is truth redeemed and revealed through Christ."

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?

Changing the Culture

I was reading a book the other day about women in Afghanistan.  So much of what happened, many Muslims would argue is not true Islam. Among other things, these women were denied inheritance, made to marry men they didn't meet until their wedding ceremonies, traded for gambling debts or because their fathers wanted second wives, beaten and so forth.  Often I read blogs about things happening in Saudi Arabia with the disclaimer that those are tribal practices, not Islam.  Female circumcision, again, cultural. Even Christians do such things, I've heard.

I understand in pre-Islamic Arabia that little girls were often killed, and Islam put a stop to that.  Additionally men and women were able to practice polygamy, and Islam did away with women marrying multiple men while limiting Muslim men (except Muhammad) to only four at a time.  So some good stuff, some bad (if you were a woman wanting more than one husband anyway.)

I was wondering how good is it for religion to influence and change native cultures.  Where is the balance? Do we seek to bring "correct" scriptural teachings to these people so their cultures will value girls, honor women and just be nicer? Or do we live and let live, and allow people to do what is traditionally best for them and stop caring what they do to each other as long as it doesn't hurt us?

Thoughts?

On the sin of eloping and guessing on a multiple-choice exam

HAPPY NEW YEAR!


Two stories from the current book I'm reading, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien. 


One of the authors talks about a conversation he had with some elders in a village on an island near Borneo. They'd asked his opinion about "a thorny church issue."  A young couple had lived among them for several years after leaving their home village after committing a "grievous sin."  The couple had attended their church for a decade and lived godly lives.  Now they wanted to join the church.

"Should we let them?" asked the obviously troubled elders.

Attempting to avoid the question, I replied, "Well, what grievous sin did they commit?"

The elders were reluctant to air the village's dirty laundry before a guest, but finally one of them replied, "They married on the run."

In America, we call that eloping. 

"That's it?" I blurted out. "What was the sin?"

Quite shocked, they stared at this young (and foolish) missionary and asked, "Have you never read Paul?"

I certainly thought I had. My Ph.D. was in Paul.

They reminded me that Paul told believers to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1). They were willing to admit that everyone makes mistakes. We don't always obey. But surely one should obey in what is likely the most important decision of his or her life: choosing a spouse.

I suddenly found myself wondering if I had, in fact, ever really read Paul. My "American Paul" clearly did not expect his command to include adult children deciding whom to marry. Moreover, it was clear that my reading (or misreading?) had implications for how I counseled church leaders committed to faithful and obedient discipleship."  (pg. 18)

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

Here's another cultural thing I found amusing


Randy was grading a multiple-choice exam in Indonesia. He couldn't believe some people left answers blank.

"Why didn't you select an answer on question number three?"

The student looked up and said, "I didn't know the answer."

"You should have at least guessed," I replied.

He looked at me, appalled.  "What if I accidentally guessed the correct answer? I would be implying that I knew the answer when I didn't. That would be lying!"

I opened my mouth to respond, but then realized I was about to argue him to a lower standard!  I shut my mouth.  My American pragmatism had been winning out over my Christian standard of honesty. What was worse was that I hadn't even noticed until a non-Western person pointed it out. What I have found equally interesting is that my Christian students in the United States don't enjoy this story - because they still want to guess answers.  Nonetheless, the challenges of reading with others' eyes should not deter us. We can learn so much from each other."  (pg. 20)

Do you have any similar stories to share about cultural misunderstandings or differences in understanding Scripture (or anything really)? By the way, I absolutely love this book so far!

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)

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?

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.

Jesus is the answer

This was just something I read in a magazine a few days ago that I liked as it was a timely reminder for me as I've struggled with my thinking on the human condition and the brokenness of life and such things.


"Dramatic testimony or not, Christian home or 'rough background,' life is broken for everyone. But Jesus saves. Regardless of the circumstances, the backgrounds, the histories, the bad deeds and even the good ones, the Gospel is the answer."

I remember "gospel" being defined as "good news."  And a friend telling us the good new is Jesus.  Not religion. Not Christianity.  Not all the stuff people tell you that you have to do to please God and make it to heaven.

It's just Jesus.

Jesus is the answer.  He offers good news for my broken life.



Source: "From Death to Life: Redeemed by the Gospel" pg. 17

Paul's misogyny, libertarianism and the Book of Romans

A few last notes from Paul: The Mind of the Apostle by A.N. Wilson

Keep in mind the author believes some of the books attributed to Paul are actually products of a later era when "the Church" with its bishops and other offices was becoming a more organized entity.


PAUL'S MISOGYNY

"The misogyny of the Christian tradition could claim its origins in the writings of the New Testament. ... [insert woman-hating quotes by Tertullian].  But is any of the blame for this to be laid at the feet of Paul?  True, in his letters Paul introduces the idea ... of the Fall of Man; 'as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.' The conclusion drawn by the later fathers of the church is that the blame for Adam's death must be attributed to Eve, but this is not something which Paul ever seems to have thought for himself.

[Having read all the Pauline letters many times, I tend to agree.  I've often noticed how Paul uses Adam, Adam, Adam and maybe once or twice mentions Eve (or woman) so I've never felt my gender is particularly blamed from just reading Paul. If anything humankind as a whole is blamed and I'm OK with that having realized quite a while ago that I'm a sinner and so is most of the rest of the world!]

His writings do not suggest misogyny. True, he thought that the woman is the glory (doxa) of the man. But it is hard to know what that means. He believed in the Jewish myth that women were created from Adam's spare rib and that women were created for the sake of men. This is not what most people think in the late twentieth century, but it does not mean you were misogynistic if you thought it during the reign of Claudius or Nero.  In those days you would have been hard put to find anyone who believed in 'sexual equality' in the modern sense, and the person who comes the closest to it is, strangely enough, Paul."

(pg.140)




LIBERTARIAN PAUL

"Many modern people, even Christians, regard Paul as a restrictive or puritanical presence in the Christian tradition. They blame him for taking what they suppose to have been the simple religion of Jesus and institutionalising it, or theologising it, or somehow making it more 'restrictive.' A reading of the few surviving authentic writings of Paul - Romans, Galatians, the two Corinthian letters, Philippians - absolutely contradicts such a view.  Paul is the great libertarian of religious history. Though a Jew of Jews - by his own account - he had the most cavalier view even of the written word of God. ... Paul believed that human beings were the temples of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit flows through us, and Christ lives in us.  In order to find out the mind of Christ you need to look in your own heart."   (pg. 172)

He gives this passage as example: 

¹ Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? ² You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. ³ You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.  (2 Cor. 3:1-3)

I also think of Romans 14 one of my personal favorite passages when dealing with 'gray areas.' You think it's wrong to eat pork, then don't do it! But don't dare judge another person whom God has accepted.  It's not your call to say their eating pork is right or wrong. You think it's wrong to celebrate Christmas or Independence Day because they aren't mentioned in the Bible, then don't. But don't look down on the ones who choose to celebrate those days.  Seriously, check out Romans 14 and feel scolded for judging others while at the same time feel encouraged to do all things in love...even forbidding yourself a ham sandwich if eating it makes a weaker brother or sister stumble.



THE BOOK OF ROMANS


"For it is the most interesting, as well as the most impenetrably difficult, book about 'religion' ever written.  In fact, of course, it is not about 'religion' at all, if by 'religion' we mean Judaism or Islam or Taoism or Seventh Day Adventism or Roman Catholicism.  Romans is one of the most devastating pamphlet attacks on 'religion' ever penned. No one who read it and absorbed its profound messages could feel happy with membership of a 'religion' ever again. Jesus might or might not have gone into the temple in Jerusalem and said that he would pull it down and build it up again in three days. The letter to the Romans pulls down the temple at Jerusalem and the temple at Ephesus and the temple at Piraeus and the altars of Athens and every other altar and temple ever build by human hand. 'St Paul understood what most Christians never realise, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is not a religion, but religion itself, in its most universal and deepest significance.'"   (pg. 195)


That last bit the author quoted is from "W.R. Inge, Outspoken Essays, p. 229" according to the footnote.

I've never thought of Romans like this before, but now I'm going to have to read it with this thought in mind to see if I agree!



Your thoughts on any of this?

What was it about Jesus?

[W]e are compelled to wonder and awe at the fact that out of  this strict and monotheistic religion, there was born such an all-but-idolotrous worship of a prophet. The scholars can speculate about the origins of theological ideas, imagining, for example, where this or that 'christology' first evolved. Simple common sense, and decent reverence in the presence of such faith, is bound to ask, 'What can it have been about this man that inspired such thoughts? ... What was it about Jesus at the time of his earthly life which so impressed his followers that they could group together in his name and be convinced that even after his death he was the focus of Israel's hopes? ...

Any Jews, however poor and humble...could in the teaching of Jesus embody in their own person the divine nature of pity and purity and love.  When the Judgment comes, Jesus taught that we shall not be asked to rail at God for having created a world in which there are hungry, poor, unhappy people. He, by contrast, will have expected us to have incarnated his virtues; he will expect us to have been 'God' towards our unfortunate neighbours; for he will have been hidden within them.

'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’  (Matthew 25:35-36)


There is something immediate and accessible about this, the 'religion of Jesus,' and which formed the basis of the enormous authority of Jesus as a moral teacher. Combined with his gifts as a healer, we must believe that he was one of those rare and charismatic 'saints', rather like Francis of Assisi in the Middle Ages or Mother Teresa in our own day, who captured people's imaginations, filled them with the love of God.  The historian comes to this conclusion not for reasons of sentimentality but because it is inconceivable that a movement could have grown up in Jesus's name had Jesus himself not been a person of remarkable virtue, eloquence and personal magnetism.


excerpts quoted from pages 114-116 of Paul: The Mind of the Apostle by A.N. Wilson

Jesus, Judaism/Baseball v. Christianity/Football, Changing Interpretations

The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine


Here are my last notes from this book. See this post for more of my thoughts.



First what the author said about herself in the introduction. I especially liked the last sentence.

"I find that the more I study Jesus, Mary Magdalene, James, Peter, and Paul in their own historical contexts, the more I come to appreciate my own Judaism: the diversity of its teachings, the richness of its encounter with the divine, the struggles it faced in accommodating to the Roman world. I appreciate, even find inspirational, the message of the kingdom of heaven, a message that spoke of the time when all debts are forgiven and when those who have willingly give, without thought of reciprocity, to those who need; a time when we no longer ask, 'Who is my neighbor?' but 'Who acts as neighbor?'; a time when we prioritize serving rather than being served. ... But as much as I admire much of the message, I do not worship the messenger. Instead, I find Jesus reflects back to me my own tradition, but in a new key.  I also have to admit a bit of pride in thinking about him -- he's one of ours." (pg. 8)

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


In discussing the "distinct canons" of both Christians and Jews, the author notes that even what ends each canon is significant.  For Christian's, the Old Testament ends with Malachi.




¹ “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. ² But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. ³ Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty.

 ⁴ “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

 ⁵ “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. ⁶ He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”



For Jews, the Tanakh usually ends with II Chronicles 36 and the edict from Cyrus:

²² In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:

 ²³ “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

   “‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the LORD their God be with them.’”

"The Tanakh thus ends not with a promise to be fulfilled by something new but with an injunction to return to one's home, to one's roots."


Ms. Levine uses a sports metaphor saying Christianity is more like football.  "There is a linear sense to the Christian canon; one moves from the promise of the line of scrimmage to the goal of the (eschatological) end zone.  Judaism, at least as understood by the canonical order, is baseball. The concern is to return to Zion, to go home." (pg. 199)


I guess this helps explain why Jews have often longed to return to Jerusalem.

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


She discussed that Judaism had a more communal approach whereas Christianity in a general sense was more individualistic.  Jews were more likely to argue with the texts and with other Jews and realize "in some cases multiple meanings are possible.  Jews are more inclined to say, 'I'm right, and you may be right too.'"  (pg. 205)


Perhaps related to this - at least in my mind - this midrash which the author gives as an example of "a number of midrashim [that] go out of their way to prevent the view that Moses is divine."  She writes,



"Moses receives God's permission to see the great teacher Rabbi Akiva. Seated in the last row of Akiva's school, Moses is so distressed by his inability to follow the discussion that he grows faint.  Yet when Akiva's students inquire, 'Master, where did you learn this?' Akiva responds, 'It is a Law given to Moses at Sinai.'  In other words, Moses could not understand the interpretation of the Torah that he himself received. The story not only highlights Moses's limited knowledge but simultaneously praises those who continue to interpret the text and celebrates the text's own ability to speak to each generation." (pg. 202)


I believe she's saying the text is not set in stone, but the interpretation should be changeable as people change.  Also there is the fact that not even the prophets who gave us the texts can say for certain what they mean especially for all people of all times. 





Your thoughts?