Tag Archives: Bible

Context for Creeds

From Bo Sanders at Homebrewed Christianity on the creeds…

  • They are not timeless and universal expressions. They are very timely and remarkably located.
  • They are not litmus tests for modern orthodoxy. There is no sense in retreating into ecclesiastic silos, playing pre-modern word games, or burying our head in the historical sand. Too much has happened, too much has changed and there is too much on the line.
  • They are not houses to live in. They are lean-tos (temporary shelters) that were erected along the way. We are still to continue our journey and travel on in our day – in the world that is – and not set up camp in the imagined past.

And further reflection on similar issues at The Image of Fish, asking “Why Theology?”:

God is.

End of conversation.

For many folks, those two words are sufficient, and yet, for such a short declarative statement, the sentence “God is.” has quite a bit of baggage packed into it. Whose god? we might ask. The God who allowed the Crusades to happen? The Shoah? Lynchings and slavery? That god? Is that the God that is? And immediately we plunge into other issues.

In light of this, we will be doing a two-part series on “Religious Experience” this week.  Cheers!

Fear the Lord

…that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son’s son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long.
(Deuteronomy 6:2 ESV)

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.   (Ecclesiastes 12:13 ESV)

Some thoughts on the fear of God or the fear of the LORD:

I’ve read the commentaries and the debates.  Sometimes semantics from dictionaries or commentaries just don’t get you far.  In some ways, thinking existentially helps us here.  Most likely and often, the authors of the Bible mimic the power structures they encounter in real life.

The fear of the LORD probably is reflective of Suzerain treaties and relationships.  Relations between the leaders of unequal city-states or tribes.  You owe your allegiance to the suzerain.  Maybe you pay some taxes, maybe you send some men for his army, you get the picture.  And so the language of fearing the LORD ought to be thought as originating from this political relationship.

Again, to make the ontological move to “the LORD is our suzerain,” is not necessary, and should not be the first theological move.  One reason for this is that mimesis can often be a form of political resistance.

Even though a vassal state may show allegiance to the suzerain in political practice, the vassal’s citizens also enact through cultic ritual the “fear of the LORD.”  This is as if to say, “We may pay lip service to a human, but our true allegiance is to YHWH.”  This may seem contradictory and problematic, and it is, but we need not judge the ancients in our analysis, since we are not much better (if at all).

Instead, the practice is simple.  Pay homage to the human suzerain to survive, materially.  But the cultic homage of YHWH, the “fear of the LORD,” is a communal enactment of identity, and act of resistance against perceived unjust powers.

Therefore, we are not necessarily committed to the theological images of God in the Bible that depict God as suzerain or Caesar, but instead, the Bible in using these images suggests that our allegiance and identity ought to be found in God.

A Lectionary Experience: Mark 5:21-43

First, on my old blog, I’ve dealt with this passage before:

The writer of Mark favors what are called sandwich stories, A-B-A’ constructions, where B as the central point in the story, says something crucial about A and A’.  Have a look:

A.  21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him, and he was beside the sea.  22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet  23and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.”  24 And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him.

B. 25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years,  26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.  27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.  28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.  30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?”  31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”  32 And he looked around to see who had done it.  33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth.  34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

A’. 35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?”  36 But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”  37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.  38 They came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and Jesus saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly.  39 And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.”  40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was.  41Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”  42 And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.  43 And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

In the two stories above, an elite (ruler of the synagogue, male, house owner) comes to Jesus asking for him to heal his daughter and save her from imminent death.  But Jesus, on the way to the ruler’s house, pauses for a disenfranchised woman with an impure discharge who has no money.  He pauses, because this woman touched his garment to be made well.  And Jesus calls her, Daughter, not by mistake, but most likely in the presence of Jairus.  This girl too is a daughter.  Then Jesus continues and heals the daughter of Jairus.

In this story, Mark wonderfully juxtaposes the poor and the elite, and shows the priority of the Divine Dominion is for the poor and marginalized first, and then to the elites.  But not only that, but by calling her daughter, Jesus somehow connects the two daughters, perhaps calling Jairus, and other elites, to look upon this woman as a daughter as well.

Existentially, I imagine the experience of the Mark’s readers were concerned for their health and subsistence as this woman was.  Perhaps, the call then, is rather than simply be wrapped up in one’s own existential concerns, we may understand the universality of such concerns, and share the concerns of others, especially with regards to health and subsistence.

Don’t do that.

One of my favorite emergers, Peter Rollins, says we shouldn’t teach Jesus ethics:

The trick is to create an atmosphere of love, grace and acceptance where people are not told what to do. Where people learn that heresy which claims that, while not everything is beneficial, everything is permissible. In other words, while there are destructive things we do, they can be brought to the light without fear of condemnation. In such an environment ethical acts will emanate from the body just as heat emanates from light. One will not have to be taught that they should look after their neighbour as if it were something that we need to be told, they will simply be more inclined to do so.

While that’s a decent method, I don’t think it’s for everyone.  The problem always comes when we try to decide which behavior to prohibit in our communities.  I think though, we can come up with principles, rather than a list of rules that one must follow.  Jesus favored the disenfranchised.  Jesus condemned abuses of power. Etc.  I think coming up with basic principles, ethics if you will, ought to allow us to say “Don’t do that.”  ”Don’t treat the women that way.”  ”Don’t be a bully.”
If we can’t say things like that, then, I fear for the disenfranchised.

Bible as Word of God?

Another great post from Rachel Held Evans today on reading the Bible we have.

Although, one statement had an underlying assumption that I want to clarify:

It is somewhat ironic, it seems to me, that both liberals and conservatives make the same error. They both assume that something worthy of the title word of God would look different from what we actually have.

Not all “liberals” (nor conservatives, dare I say?) consider the Bible as “Word of God.”  My denomination makes it clear (most of the time) that the Word of God is first and foremost, CHRIST.  And if the word of God is infallible and inerrant, it is because the Word of God is Christ.

Again, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the whole Bible is the Word of God.  Why?  The Bible is a collection of independent scrolls which were, for the most part, written without the intention to be “in the Bible.”  The Bible is not aware of itself being the Bible.

Therefore, again, claiming that the Bible is the ‘Word of God’ is a faith-claim external to the text itself.  It is a choice, but one that is not often viewed as a choice.  Conceptions making reality again, and experiences being ignored.  We can do better.

 

On Lording

Over at Storied Theology there’s some nervousness about anti-Roman studies within New Testament.

Did Jesus resist Rome?  Was Jesus anti-Roman?  Would Jesus have taken up arms against Rome if he had the means?

Take this into account:

And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-27 ESV)

In my opinion, Jesus was anti-lordship, anti-domination of others, and in this way, he was anti-Roman.  It’s difficult to say if Jesus would have defended his homeland if he had had the army or weapons.  We’d like to think not.  But one thing is for sure, Jesus wanted to change hearts, and that’s what he did.  Against a Roman way of life.

So, when in Rome, don’t do as the Romans did.

The Lectionary Experience: Mark 3:20-35

And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
(Mark 3:20-35 ESV)

Jesus is essentially saying, “if I am the satan (the adversary) and I am casting out demons, then good news, folks, the satan’s kingdom is gonna fall!!!  But no, really, if you want to destroy the satan’s kingdom, then you first have to bind up the satan, and then destroy his house.”  In other words, Jesus has bound the satan and that’s why he’s cleaning house.

A couple of existential observations.  Notably, in the First Testament, the three times the satan is mentioned he is at least twice a prosecuting attorney for God, most memorably in the prologue to Job.  With this in mind, it is fascinating, to see Jesus claim that the satan is bound, and then proclaim the forgivness of sins (nothing to do with the cross) over the children of man.

Nevertheless, we know that in the period between the Testaments, that the character of the satan grew in stature and power into the figure we encounter in canonical and non-canonical apocalyptic literature.  But here too, the satan is never simply “Satan” as many often imagined, but the satan is connected with the evil political powers of the day (see here for an example).

With the large accusatory Temple scene in Mark 11-12, we know that Jesus is attacking the corrupt powers (especially the scribes, see 12.28-40) of Jerusalem leadership.  With these three points in mind, I submit the following as a clue to the existential concerns of the text.  First, Jesus is calling out the scribes and other Jerusalem leadership for perpetuating evils, oppression, etc.  These evils are built on the premise that they run the system which negotiates sin and retribution between God and the masses.  Jesus, having bound the satan, is cleaning house with the forgiveness of sins, emptying the power of the corrupt leadership.

The existential concern is behind the premise that people need forgiveness of sins in order to be right with God.  With the existential crisis being that the people have no control over their own destiny, the forgiveness of sins meets crisis in several concerns.  First, it is identity with the people of God, a sense of belonging with the other righteous.  Second, the cost for peasants to have to participate in the sacrificial culture is an economic strain.  The forgiveness of sins, reduces this burden.  Finally, corrupt leadership tries to answer the the existential crisis, where they have no control over their own destinies, to try to control the destinies of others.  In some ways, the forgiveness of sin breaks their power to control the destinies of the people.

A good existential reading then will first focus on the identity, the economics, and oppression, before making too much of what “blaspheming the holy spirit” might mean.

Are there existential concerns that I missed?

… it’s what you see.

It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.  - Henry David Thoreau

Yes, but can’t you see what your looking at first?

Indeed, we cannot even begin to consider the world in which we live without the conceptions.  The conceptions, the ontologies, the faith claims, they make our understanding of the world and our communication efficient.  We cannot adequately describe our experience, it’s too vast for words.  But for the sake of everything good and decent, can we at least look at how our experiences become our conceptions.  Let’s look at first, and then “see.”  Because, sometimes, in spite of Thoreau, it is what you look at that is important.

Case in point: 2012 election.  What is important?  Let’s speculate that it’s the on-the-ground experience of millions of Americans.  Therefore, the policies that affect change on the people’s lives are the important politics.  But every day, Obama is a Muslim, Romney is greedy, the Democrats are commies, the Republicans hate poor people.  These are ontological claims, conceptions of our world, that are at best irrelevant.  Distractions from what is important, making us blind to what we look at, and only emphasizing what we see.

The same happens with faith claims about God, even if those faith claims are quoted word-for-word from the Bible.  The words are far from the core, yet they point to the core.  But the core is the experience and context that produced the words.  To fetischize the faith claim before the core, is to “see” what your not looking at.  To read Christ into Isaiah 9.6 (“For to us a child is born…”) before placing it in the context of Northern Kingdom/Assyrian conflict is to quit reading and and to insert one’s own message into the text.  There’s no reason to shut our brains off and quit reading the text in order to defend our deeply held theological notions.  The Bible is a text that behaves like a text, because that’s what texts do.  So look at the text and let’s see what we can make of it?