So, now that my days are free....anyone wanna hang out?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Final Word
The final word was spoken at my job today, and I am not even sure I know what it was. I know that I am not going back, however. I am now unemployed, and will likely remain so until the "next big thing". I dont really know what that is going to be, but I am just glad to have been put out of my misery of the uncertainty of my job.
Monday, September 21, 2009
In Reflection...
In reflection of Show Them No Mercy, I have thought through a couple of issues. It seems like two discussions predominate how one is to understand the issue of the Canaanite genocide. Like many things, the issue isnt the issue...it is what underlies the issue that needs discussion.
The first thing is Salvation theology, essentially Calvinism v. Arminianism. For those who dont know much about this debate, it has been going through the centuries since the Church was brand new. It is predestination (God picks who is saved) against free will (people choose whether or not they are saved). Those who believe in predestination point to some very explicit and difficult passages that seem to suggest predestination as the mode of salvation. Those who believe in free will point to a great body of more subtle passages that seem to imply free will, and to personal experience. This debate underlies the Canaanite genocide because what one believes about God's role in salvation (e.g. does he do the selection process or just the saving process?) will inform what one believes God might do in the situation of commanding genocide.
The second thing is dispensationalism or some sort of framework of theology. This topic has received far too little expressive debate, at least in my ears. People seem to believe what they believe and not have a lot of helpful discussion on the matter. This theology seems to be a little bit like the theological version of the theory of everything. It has to do with how one view's the difference or similarities between Israel and the Church, and God's relationship with each of them. It has to do with how God relates to people throughout time, and the consistencies and inconsistencies thereof. I dont know enough about all of this to provide an in-depth study, but I know that it has severe implications. If one views God's relationship to mankind basically continuous across the generations, it may suggest one way to interpret the Canaanite genocide, whereas if God's relationship to mankind is highly discontinuous (e.g. very different for the Israelites under different covenants, etc.) then it may suggest (or even allow) different interpretations of the genocide.
Perhaps more thought and consideration is needed on these fronts if we are to get to the bottom of it all. The difficulty in reconciling these big issues of theology is that they grow from every fundamental belief and doctrine in the faith. What one believes about how God saves people is much more than a survey of relevant passages, it is a study of the nature and character of God, the mission of Christ, the role of the church; it either informs or is informed by so many other theologies. So, in understanding some of these issues, it is like building a skyscraper from the ground up, when all people ever seem to talk about is the highest stories of the building.
Anyway...just thought i would mention all that stuff.
Spiritual Continuity
This was the final essay in the book; the last hope in the book for resolution.
The author suggests that the canaanite warfare is the first step in a symbol of God's warfare against sin and evil. That war continues to be waged in the New Testament in a spiritual fashion (e.g. 'our war is not with flesh and blood, but with spiritualities...') and is finalized in the End Times when God once again is a warrior and defeats his enemies once and for all.
That is the short version. The author seems to deal with seeming disparity of "the warrior God of the OT" and the "pacifist God in Jesus" by suggesting that the central theme of scripture is rather God's warrior conquest (he makes Jesus into Warrior Jesus rather than Meek Pacifist Jesus) than Christ's love, acceptance, forgiveness and mercy.
The author does not spend much time addressing the moral or ethical implications of having God condone (even mandate) the slaughter of men, women, and children...except to say that all people are wicked and they deserved it, even the children. He then employs a familiar switcheroo that I am beginning to really dislike. The argument is this: "the question should not be Why did God not save some (i.e. the Canaanites)? because all are wicked and sinful and deserving of death...but rather, the astonishment is that God has chosen to save any (i.e. the Israelites)." Truly we should marvel at God's passion and willingness to pursue salvation, but to reframe the question thus really dodges the issue at heart. My basic concern with this is not only the moral implication of choosing to save one person over another when there is the implicit ability to save both, but also the very stark issue that Jesus himself implies passionate intent and desire to save everyone! If Jesus wants us to love everyone, if he says that he "desires that none should perish", then why oh why would he neglect to save someone who he has the power and intent to save?
To me, it is to abandon the Bible to say either: 1. The OT was wrong when it said that God commanded genocide (as the first author suggests), or 2. The NT was wrong when Jesus said he wanted to save everyone. Is this an impossible contradiction? In the final two pages of this book, a reviewer of this final author stated that in the end it is impossible to know the reasons God does what he does. And to him, that is the best answer that the millenia of the people of God can produce.
The author suggests that the canaanite warfare is the first step in a symbol of God's warfare against sin and evil. That war continues to be waged in the New Testament in a spiritual fashion (e.g. 'our war is not with flesh and blood, but with spiritualities...') and is finalized in the End Times when God once again is a warrior and defeats his enemies once and for all.
That is the short version. The author seems to deal with seeming disparity of "the warrior God of the OT" and the "pacifist God in Jesus" by suggesting that the central theme of scripture is rather God's warrior conquest (he makes Jesus into Warrior Jesus rather than Meek Pacifist Jesus) than Christ's love, acceptance, forgiveness and mercy.
The author does not spend much time addressing the moral or ethical implications of having God condone (even mandate) the slaughter of men, women, and children...except to say that all people are wicked and they deserved it, even the children. He then employs a familiar switcheroo that I am beginning to really dislike. The argument is this: "the question should not be Why did God not save some (i.e. the Canaanites)? because all are wicked and sinful and deserving of death...but rather, the astonishment is that God has chosen to save any (i.e. the Israelites)." Truly we should marvel at God's passion and willingness to pursue salvation, but to reframe the question thus really dodges the issue at heart. My basic concern with this is not only the moral implication of choosing to save one person over another when there is the implicit ability to save both, but also the very stark issue that Jesus himself implies passionate intent and desire to save everyone! If Jesus wants us to love everyone, if he says that he "desires that none should perish", then why oh why would he neglect to save someone who he has the power and intent to save?
To me, it is to abandon the Bible to say either: 1. The OT was wrong when it said that God commanded genocide (as the first author suggests), or 2. The NT was wrong when Jesus said he wanted to save everyone. Is this an impossible contradiction? In the final two pages of this book, a reviewer of this final author stated that in the end it is impossible to know the reasons God does what he does. And to him, that is the best answer that the millenia of the people of God can produce.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Eschatological Continuity
The third chapter in the book Show Them No Mercy presented a viewpoint called eschatological continuity. The 30-second synopsis: The author suggests that the canaanite genocide was the first in an event in a trajectory toward the future final genocide in the end of times. That genocide will be based upon wickedness and evilness and will be carried out entirely by God, whereas the canaanite genocide had more to do with occupation of land, wickedness, and was carried out through a collaboration between Israel and God.
The authors basic assertions were called into question by the responders insofar as they saw evidence to the contrary of supporting a sort of trajectory or development of end-times ideas in the canaanite genocide texts.
This essay didnt go too far to explain the moral or ethical implications inherent in genocide, although he did spend a lot of effort showing how Israel's actions were very similar to surrounding cultures, and that genocide as military conquest seemed similar between Israel and other nations.
I am left with my frustration about trying to weigh the balance between trusting the biblical text on the one hand, and understanding genocide on the other hand. When one attempts to look at the motivation between genocide of one people vs. salvation of another, it seems to devolve into the sort of Calvinistic ambiguity of apparently random choice of some to salvation and others to doom. (I hesitate writing this next sentence...) I dont know if I would want to be a Christian if I had to be a Calvinist...it just doesnt seem Christlike enough.
I do not have much hope for the next essay to clarify my qualms. He says that he has a lot in common with the present author. Everyone seems to be in severe disagreement with the first author, and I am torn because I feel like the first author was the only one to capture the heart of Jesus.
The authors basic assertions were called into question by the responders insofar as they saw evidence to the contrary of supporting a sort of trajectory or development of end-times ideas in the canaanite genocide texts.
This essay didnt go too far to explain the moral or ethical implications inherent in genocide, although he did spend a lot of effort showing how Israel's actions were very similar to surrounding cultures, and that genocide as military conquest seemed similar between Israel and other nations.
I am left with my frustration about trying to weigh the balance between trusting the biblical text on the one hand, and understanding genocide on the other hand. When one attempts to look at the motivation between genocide of one people vs. salvation of another, it seems to devolve into the sort of Calvinistic ambiguity of apparently random choice of some to salvation and others to doom. (I hesitate writing this next sentence...) I dont know if I would want to be a Christian if I had to be a Calvinist...it just doesnt seem Christlike enough.
I do not have much hope for the next essay to clarify my qualms. He says that he has a lot in common with the present author. Everyone seems to be in severe disagreement with the first author, and I am torn because I feel like the first author was the only one to capture the heart of Jesus.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Moderate Discontinuity
If the interpretation in the previous essay was primarily driven by liberal ideals and soft fundamentals, the essay on Moderate Discontinuity was driven by the mode of biblical interpretation called Dispensationalism. In my limited experience, it seems that one's beliefs are more driven by their mode of biblical interpretation than any other thing, yet it seems to remain one of the least understood bits of theology. Dispensationalism expresses the stark differences between God's relationships with different groups of folks at different periods of time. So, what is true at one period of time (say, under the Mosaic law) is no longer true in the time of the church (and vice versa).
That is the discontinuity...each dispensation is discontinuous from the next or the previous. So, the fact that God directs the Israelites under his theocracy to genocide the Caananites is okay, because that holy war was a part of God's relationship to Israel at that time. The author of this essay claims that genocide is neither good or bad, but rather the context in which it exists determines its morality. Since God prescribed it, it must have been good. He gives a few reasons he thought God might have employed genocide, such as to protect the Israelites from idolatry (did it work?) and to show God's justice on evil and grace on the Israelites, almost as a mode of evangelism (is genocide good evangelism?)
One response to the essay, i think sums up generally my feelings: "If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a "good" and "righteous" act, and if the sanctity of human life established in creation, reaffirmed after the flood, reinforced in the seventh commandment, reiterated by all the prophets, and incarnate in Jesus--if this can be set aside by a supposed divine "authorization of genocide"--then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed, all distinctions between good and evil are rendered meaningless, and all claims about God's love and compassion become cruel deceptions."
So, what to make of this. It seem as though, where in the previous essay the author gave up on the bible, this author seems to give up on any cohesive picture of God. "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Love your enemies, genocide is okay when I say so". I find myself asking whether I am so comitted to a belief and a frame of thought that I am willing to justify the slaughter of an entire group of people? I am not sure.
Some of the responses reaffirmed the fact that we all deserve death due to our sinfulness, and that the culture of the canaanites received what they deserved. But, so did the Israelites deserve such a response, and so do we all. So, why destroy one people and honor another? It seems strikingly similar to the sort of moral dishonesty and lack of compassion present in the Calvinist system of thought. Besides, is God's passion not the salvation of all? Was Jesus not preoccupied by humility rather than self-promotion? Wasn't God so passionate about salvation of people that he came to earth to suffer a humiliating death? And if he is all of those things, how is the prescription of genocide of a people reasonably justified? It seems too severe of a contradiction.
As the author of this essay said himself, under this system of thought, "the moral and ethical dilemma of Yahweh war must also remain without satisfying rational explanation."
That is the discontinuity...each dispensation is discontinuous from the next or the previous. So, the fact that God directs the Israelites under his theocracy to genocide the Caananites is okay, because that holy war was a part of God's relationship to Israel at that time. The author of this essay claims that genocide is neither good or bad, but rather the context in which it exists determines its morality. Since God prescribed it, it must have been good. He gives a few reasons he thought God might have employed genocide, such as to protect the Israelites from idolatry (did it work?) and to show God's justice on evil and grace on the Israelites, almost as a mode of evangelism (is genocide good evangelism?)
One response to the essay, i think sums up generally my feelings: "If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a "good" and "righteous" act, and if the sanctity of human life established in creation, reaffirmed after the flood, reinforced in the seventh commandment, reiterated by all the prophets, and incarnate in Jesus--if this can be set aside by a supposed divine "authorization of genocide"--then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed, all distinctions between good and evil are rendered meaningless, and all claims about God's love and compassion become cruel deceptions."
So, what to make of this. It seem as though, where in the previous essay the author gave up on the bible, this author seems to give up on any cohesive picture of God. "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Love your enemies, genocide is okay when I say so". I find myself asking whether I am so comitted to a belief and a frame of thought that I am willing to justify the slaughter of an entire group of people? I am not sure.
Some of the responses reaffirmed the fact that we all deserve death due to our sinfulness, and that the culture of the canaanites received what they deserved. But, so did the Israelites deserve such a response, and so do we all. So, why destroy one people and honor another? It seems strikingly similar to the sort of moral dishonesty and lack of compassion present in the Calvinist system of thought. Besides, is God's passion not the salvation of all? Was Jesus not preoccupied by humility rather than self-promotion? Wasn't God so passionate about salvation of people that he came to earth to suffer a humiliating death? And if he is all of those things, how is the prescription of genocide of a people reasonably justified? It seems too severe of a contradiction.
As the author of this essay said himself, under this system of thought, "the moral and ethical dilemma of Yahweh war must also remain without satisfying rational explanation."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Radical Discontinuity
The first essay in Show Them No Mercy was entitled "Radical Discontinuity", in which the author basically suggested that the loving New Testament Jesus reinterprets the violence of the Old Testament in a way to suggest the the OT authors had an incomplete understanding of the nature of God. Jesus was such a pivotal person, that his presence completely redefines and trumps previous ideas of God, including God as a prescriber of genocide.
As in many theological debates, the question remains of what to do about all the passages that gave us a headache in the first place? The OT often and commonly states that God told the Israelites to kill thus and so city, often including women and children, and even the animals. The author supporting "Radical Discontinuity" between the Old and New Testaments suggests that those biblical passages were written by humans, and that they showed the incompleteness of their view of God.
The problem with that viewpoint is clear. Can we really claim that much of the OT is unbiblical? Can we say that God as he is presented in the OT is not Christlike? I suppose we could, but to do so would essentially be to rid ourselves of any notion of God's inspiration of scripture, or even the trustworthiness of any of scripture (being as Jesus, Paul and others really seem to uphold the OT as valid, God-breathed scripture.)
It is a distressing problem. On the one hand, the loving Jesus is the person at the center of this whole thing and to uphold any divinity of Christ almost seems to juxtapose the loving Christ with the genocidal OT concept of God. On the other hand, that is what the Bible gives us, and if we are going to learn of our concept of Christ from the Bible, then some trust in the Bible is essential.
Some authors who critiqued this essay claim to have better solutions in their essays, so I will see if they offer any hope. This author jettisoned the bible for Jesus. While Jesus is a worthy cause, i dont know whether 86'ing scripture is helpful.
As in many theological debates, the question remains of what to do about all the passages that gave us a headache in the first place? The OT often and commonly states that God told the Israelites to kill thus and so city, often including women and children, and even the animals. The author supporting "Radical Discontinuity" between the Old and New Testaments suggests that those biblical passages were written by humans, and that they showed the incompleteness of their view of God.
The problem with that viewpoint is clear. Can we really claim that much of the OT is unbiblical? Can we say that God as he is presented in the OT is not Christlike? I suppose we could, but to do so would essentially be to rid ourselves of any notion of God's inspiration of scripture, or even the trustworthiness of any of scripture (being as Jesus, Paul and others really seem to uphold the OT as valid, God-breathed scripture.)
It is a distressing problem. On the one hand, the loving Jesus is the person at the center of this whole thing and to uphold any divinity of Christ almost seems to juxtapose the loving Christ with the genocidal OT concept of God. On the other hand, that is what the Bible gives us, and if we are going to learn of our concept of Christ from the Bible, then some trust in the Bible is essential.
Some authors who critiqued this essay claim to have better solutions in their essays, so I will see if they offer any hope. This author jettisoned the bible for Jesus. While Jesus is a worthy cause, i dont know whether 86'ing scripture is helpful.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Show Them No Mercy
As my "Currently Reading" list has dwindled, I have been in search for new books to read. Not that I am in short supply of books to read, but it is a matter of selecting which book from my "to read" pile should be next. And I think I have selected one. It is an academic book that I have had for probably a year, but it adresses a question that goes back in my mind for many years, and in the collective mind of the world for generations.
I believe that I am going to reaed "Show Them No Mercy", edited by Stan Gundry. It is a counterpoint book on the Canaanite Genocide. Four authors share their takes on what was happening theologically when God commanded Joshua et. al. to "destroy [the canaanites] totally...and show them no mercy." I am sure you can see how this is a HUGE issue. Two reasons predominate my concern about this issue: 1. What is the difference between genocide back then and genocide today? (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur, Slobodan Milocivek) and 2. Isnt God the same Jesus who told us to love our enemies, and who displays that quality himself? Whats the difference?
Some might laugh at how anxious I am to read this book. Not at all anxious as in excited, more anxious as in terrified. What am I going to think after reading all of these author's point of views? It is dangerous because it has immense ramifications on how one views the character of God and/or the continuity of scripture. It speaks to issues as huge as the divinity of Christ. It calls into question everything on some level. That can be a pretty scary undertaking. In the introduction, the editor commented that this is often an issue that Christians kindly shove to the recesses of their mind so that they (hopefully) never have to think about it again. It has been that way for me to some extent, but I believe that if something is not allowed to be questioned, it is neither honest or true, and probably isnt worth holding on to.
So I guess, here we go. I hope I gain clarity more than despair in the process!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
