Luke: A Theological Commentary

Tags

bible, biblical studies, Book Reviews, Justo L. Gonzalez, Luke, theology

Today I review the second in the new Belief series published by Westminster John Knox Press. Luke: (Belief: A Theological Commentary) is written by Justo L. González.

Again, I give my deepest thanks to WJK for giving me the opportunity to participate in reviewing this extraordinary series.

If Plachter’s book on Mark was excellent, this  second offering by González, meets that standard in every way. While Plachter perhaps placed more emphasis on the exegetical-historical aspects of the gospel, González focuses a bit more on the theological implications of Luke to our world today.

In the end, this seemed most right to me. Quoting Gustaf Wingren:

All good interpretation of the Bible is contemporary. If it were not so, it would not be good. . . .The Bible is not on a par with the subsequent interpretation; it is above it, as the text is antecedent to the commentary. And the interpretation is always an interpretation for the time in which it is written or spoken.

There is also a distinctive flavor of liberation theology which permeates the text. This also seems logical to me, since any fair reading of Luke renders the conclusion that Luke portraits a Christ who favored the poor and the marginalized as the true inheritors of the Kingdom of God.

Paramount in González’s theology of Luke is that the evangelist emphasized above all that Jesus’ teaching was one of the “great reversal.” His teachings were indeed revolutionary to his world. His was a world of power held by Rome, of patriarchy, of Temple priests and church hierarchy. His teachings again and again told of the coming Kingdom where none of this would be so.

The poor, the marginalized, the unclean, the unwanted, the unworthy, the sinners, the children, the women–all these would find a new world in God’s Kingdom, one in which those who were served would serve, those first would be last, those most religious and pious would often find themselves judged less than the most simple of the country folk of Galilee, that most marginal of lands.

In fact, Mr. González suggests that if one were to remove all the “reversal” stories from the text, there would be few pages left.

Perhaps the most stunning theological commentary comes with González’s explanation of the Paralytic. He shows how Luke weaves a story of how the teachers and scribes, the Pharisees sat around listening to the teachings of Jesus. The friends of the lame man could not get through the crowd of the listeners to reach the Healer. The end up opening the roof to lower the man to Jesus inside.

González reflects on these “circles” about Christ that we as church construct. We sit as pious listeners before the Word. We block the way for those who come in need of healing and comfort.

“Today, just like then, there are lame people who cannot reach Jesus, because access is blocked by the numerous and tight circles, circles of religious leaders and wise and profound theologians, circles of ecclesiastical, academic, and social structures. . .”

He points out that these people are not necessarily bad, but in their zeal to be at the forefront, they (we) block the way of others. We are cautioned to open the doors to those who are marginalized outside the circle. These are the people Jesus most came to help.

Of special importance to me, are the continued references to Jesus’ table hospitality. Too many of our churches set themselves up as arbiters of who is invited to the table of Christ. Any fair reading of Luke, suggests this is a grave error.

Time and time again, as González points out, Jesus welcomed the sinner to the table, and did not require any repentance as a condition to the invitation. He teaches that we should be inviting those who cannot repay our offer, instead of those who will extend a return invitation to ourselves.

González powerfully reminds us that:

“All too often  Christians have claimed control of the Table as if it were ours, and not his. We decide whose belief is sufficiently orthodox to share Communion with us, who is sufficiently good and pure, who belongs to the right church. . . .Rather than inviting those who seem most unworthy and cannot repay us, we invite the worthy. . .”

There is example after example of gentle, and not so gentle reminders to us as readers, that the Gospel of Luke calls us to a discipleship that is not easy, and not comfortable either. Luke tells of a Jesus who comes not preaching so much an afterlife of bliss but a life offered that is truly life. A full life, filled with the Spirit, faithful to God, bearing the cross of discomfort with the joy of knowing that we are doing God’s will as did He who was his image.

At the end, Mr. González ponders the church of tomorrow. And as we see a decline in the Western Church and a rise in the church of the South, the African, and the East, we see new thinking, new interpretation. We see reflections through the eyes of the poor and the marginalized. He asks:

“. . .could it be that God’s great gift to the worldwide church today is the growing church of the poor, who are teaching us to read the Bible anew? Could it be that God is using the last, the least, the poor, and the excluded to speak once again to the church of the first and the greatest?”

Is this the final reversal? Such questions as these do we ponder as we read this most excellent book. Do buy it. You will not regret the decision.

Oh Martha, I Barely Knew You

Tags

bible, biblical studies, Inspirational, Jesus, Luke, Martha and Mary

I’ve been thinking about Martha and Mary recently. It was the Gospel reading Sunday past, but I’d been thinking before then. The actual story is quite short. Located at Lk 10:38-42, I will quote it in full.

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”

There are many treatments of this periscope, most of them refer to the fact that Martha is concerned about the realities of this life, while Mary recognizes Jesus as the Son of God, and wishes to learn from the Master. Clearly this is the “better part.” God first, dishes second.

But thanks to Mompriest  at Seeking Authentic Voice and Elizabeth Kaeton at Telling Secrets, who both wrote on this story, I’ve learned a much deeper meaning. Even more so, what follows is informed by Ebeling’s, Women’s Lives in Biblical Times, and the rector of Christ Episcopal Church, +Martha. And it is mostly from that perspective that I wish to write today.

Ebeling informs us that women in biblical times were seldom autonomous beings. The system of patrimony dictated that women went to live in the villages and homes of their husbands and were under the authority of the husband and his father or elder brother if alive. Women seldom inherited property–all went to any male progeny.

So at the start we are faced with a strange fact. The house here is defined as Martha’s. Yet, Martha is the sister of Lazarus, and presumably Lazarus is alive. A couple of points. In John’s Gospel, this same Lazarus does die, but is raised some days after his burial.(John 11:41-44)  He is not the same Lazarus who is mentioned in Luke 16:19-31, who had conversation with the rich man in the afterlife, outside hell.

We know from the Lazarus rising story that the siblings lived in Bethany, a village about 1.5 miles from Jerusalem, and indeed the modern day site of  al-Eizariya means Tomb of Lazarus. So it appears that at this visit by Jesus, Lazarus was still living in the home.

This makes it curious that the home is denoted as Martha’s, since clearly, tradition would have made it Lazarus’s. This may have been simply a literary change to fit the point Luke wished to make.

More importantly, the cultural norms would never permit a woman to invite any man to her home period. And it is this which I had never considered before. So indeed it was Martha who was first stepping way out in uncharted territory by being so bold. One can imagine other people of the village witnessing her standing forth at the door and beckoning Jesus into the home. How they must have talked!

Tradition would also dictate that Martha was responsible for the cooking and other home care tasks. While Lazarus might have been the one to offer a pallet for Jesus to sit upon (chairs were not known I don’t believe in small village homes), it would have been the women’s duty to supply water for washing and the food.

Anyone who reads the bible regularly would realize that a major aspect of Jesus’ ministry was his table hospitality, his radical departure from what was considered right and even in a sense legal. One did not dine with the unclean and certainly not with sinners. He pushed the limits of hospitality to include all.

So it is somewhat disconcerting when he downplays Martha’s efforts. After all, she has courageously seen him for who he is, and ignored all propriety in inviting him forth. Yet he gives no recognition to her, nor does he validate her dedication to good hospitality in making her guests comfortable. No doubt Jesus was accompanied by his disciples (more strange men), since “they” is used in the story.

It is clear that Mary too is courageous and not typical of her gender. She boldly sits at the feet of Jesus to listen to his words. I’m not completely clear, but I suspect that women were not allowed to dine in the same room with strangers who were male, but were separated from them. Her actions are indeed bold, and also recognize that this Jesus is not just your average rabbi.

Our priest, Martha, suggested that what Jesus means by his upholding of Mary’s choice is that when we invite Jesus in, we should be prepared to have our lives upset and turned upside down. In order to make this point, poor Martha (from the story) is chastised softly. Hospitality is one thing, and usually most important, but when God’s chosen arrives, all else must stop lest one miss the message being offered.

God disturbs our complacency, much as both Martha and Mary disturbed the social customs of their village and time. Something big is afoot here, they trumpet by their actions. God changes the rules, much as Jesus suggests that Martha and perhaps the men in the room might rethink all this business of who does what, where and when. It’s a new day. The Kingdom has arrived.  And things will never be the same.

Amen.

Women’s Lives in Biblical Times

Tags

archaelogy, bible, biblical studies, Book Reviews, Israel, Jennie R. Eberling, Palestine, patriarchy, Women's history

I seldom, in doing book reviews, venture far from biblical studies or theology. I wouldn’t normally attempt to review a professor of archaeology. But Jennie R. Ebeling, Associate Professor of Archaeology at the University of Evansville, has written a book that beautifully marries the two, and I feel able to assess its worth and impact on the genre at least of biblical studies.

My deepest thanks to Continuum Books, and T & T Clark Publishing for making a copy of her book available to me., Women’s Lives in Biblical Times.

Anyone who has spent any time studying the bible is surely aware that women’s lives are difficult to determine and assess when reference is only given to the bible itself. Let’s face it, the bible was written (so far as we know) by men, about men. Women play at best tangential roles, except in a very few instances. It was a world of patriarchy and thus it is men’s story that is retold.

Professor Ebeling, seeing the usual false portrayal of women in much of fiction dedicated to the time of ancient Palestine, seeks to give us a better picture of women’s lives. In doing so, she has chosen to join a number of disciplines to accomplish her goal. This is no doubt in keeping with much that is going on in science these days. Much is interdisciplinary, giving in the end a fuller and more complete picture of whatever focus is intended.

Her methodology involved the collection of evidence from several sources. First of course, she draws upon the best of biblical scholarship and linguistics to understand as best as can be done today what exactly was being said in regards women. She then adds her own speciality, archaeology to the mix, absorbing the latest conclusions deduced from dig sites throughout the biblical region. She then includes the texts of documents originating from comparative Near Eastern and Egyptian sources, insofar as they treat of women’s lives.

While she determined to speak to the Iron Age I period, (roughly 1200-1000 BCE), she found it useful to include the iconography of Iron Age II (roughly 1000-586) sites in the region. Finally, she added ethnographic studies of  the region dating from the 19th and early 20th century.

Professor Ebeling then merges all this accumulation of facts and evidence and forms charming stories about a mythical woman called Orah, who was born, raised, and died in the highlands of what is now Israel. More specifically, the area is in the vicinity of the ancient holy city of Shiloh, location of the Ark of the Covenant in the times of the Judges, before the Monarchy.

She divides the chapters into the major life events of Orah, and ties them to the seasonal changes in the village. These various harvests and plantings of course were tied to the various ancient festivals.

A warm delightful story is woven from the information now at hand for what life was like in those small villages. Following the “update” on Orah’s life, for instance, as she moves from childhood to womanhood, and then marriage and childbirth, Ebeling adds specific information to substantiate the points of the story.

References to the bible are replete throughout, as are to her other sources. In a word, each “conclusion” about the life of Orah, is well documented with evidence and reasonable inferences thereof.

One comes away with a genuine pride in the value and power of women of that time. Surely they were not accorded much formal power to be sure, but they were essential to the well being of the community and household. Patriarchy ruled, as we said, and when Orah was of marriageable age, she was betrothed and ultimately went to a new village to live in the home of her husband. If her husband’s father was still living, the father was the ultimately authority. Even if her husband’s mother was alive however, authority passed to the son upon the father’s death.

However, within the house, women ran things. They did the balance of the cooking and pottery making and textile manufacture. They cared for the family vegetable plot. They took care of all childbearing duties and probably most funeral arrangements. All this and they still assisted with the plantings and harvestings.

As many already know, Yahweh was the main God to be worshiped, and most women like Orah made pilgrimage to Shiloh at least a couple of times in their short lives. (Few reached beyond 40 years of age.) Still, however, there were many other gods who were worshiped locally and we can be sure that Orah and her family kept a sacred space within the home for fertility god worship.

What I wish to speak principally about here is how valuable Ebeling’s book is the average layperson. While she has no doubt (and it is quite clear to me she has), made a seminal contribution professionally, she offers the layperson valuable information and a “sense” of life in ancient times that proves most valuable to our worship and meditation upon scripture.

I can only relate that this very weekend, listening to the Gospel readings about Jesus and Martha and Mary, the extension of hospitality and the serving of Jesus and his disciples was deeply enriched by what I had learned of what those homes were like and what those “womanly” duties were.

Coupled with a new interpretation offered by our rector as to the story’s meaning, I saw Martha and Mary in new light. Our rector’s interpretation dovetailed simply perfectly into the world that Professor Ebeling created for me of women living in ancient Israel.

I can further sense that I have a new outlook on all that I read whether scriptural or commentary on these times. So clearly do I have this vision of these women, these homes, these relationships, these cares and these seasonal events, that I will never read the bible the same again.

Professor Ebeling is to be commended for her work. While she is modest in her claims, and always indicates when the evidence is thin and she is making extrapolations and from where, one is left with some serious assurance that she has struck near the mark of reality for that time. As she points out, only time and more evidence will clarify and expand our understanding. For now, this is a brilliant step forward.

I recommend you read this if you too desire to understand historical framework of the times in which Jesus walked.

Paul Was Not a Christian!

Tags

bible, biblical studies, Book Reviews, Gentiles, Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul was not as Christian, Pauline theology, religion

I’m deeply indebted to HarperOne, division of Harper Collins for providing this book, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle, by Pamela Eisenbaum,  for review.

Catchy title huh? It surely will cause most Christians to pause and pick it up. And pick it up they should. This is simply a new way (for most laypersons at least) of looking at Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, and commonly thought of as the major force in creating Christianity.

Pamela Eisenbaum, a practicing Jew, has all the credentials in the world, and teaches at a Iliff School of Theology in Denver. She is a biblical scholar with degrees from both Harvard Divinity and Columbia. She claims as mentor the acclaimed biblical expert Krister Stendahl.

Her premise here is a startling one for most Christians: Paul, far from renouncing his Jewish faith and “converting” as we are wont to believe on the road to Damascus, remained throughout his life a staunch Jew, follower of the Law. And, he preached the Lord Jesus Christ as savior. How can this be we ask?

Eisenbaum takes us through a long and detailed and clear explanation. Based on the work of what are known as the “new prospective” scholars and building upon that from the now “radical” new prospective scholars, Dr. Eisenbaum paints a convincing picture of Paul as a man thoroughly embedded in his Jewish heritage, and remaining in it to the end. Much of what has gone wrong in Pauline interpretation comes from reading him through a lens of “conversion,” a conversion Eisenbaum claims never happened.

Most all scholars today would agree that Jesus certainly never set out to create a church. He if anything, wished to reform Judaism. Dr. Eisenbaum argues that essentially Paul did the same, and for somewhat the same reasons.

In making her case, reference is made to the authentic letters of Paul, those seven that all scholars agree were written by Paul–Romans, Corinthians I, II, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. The rest are almost universally or substantially agreed upon as not Pauline in authorship and thus not fruitful for this discussion. This is of course nothing new.

She then traces a history of Second Temple Judaism, the time that Paul was alive, and determines  what assumptions would have been his based upon the current belief structure of Pharisees of his day. Contrary to public opinion, Pharisees were not so much sticklers for adherence to the Law as they interpreted it, but rather they often interpreted it in ways that were novel and supported present day problems. IN other words they were opportunists of a sort.

Eisenbaum indicates that independent records show that Jews of this period did not consider Gentiles “unclean” or people to be separated from. They were more tolerant that we might suppose. They believed that Gentiles could follow Torah and such people were known as proselytes.

Her argument is that Paul, steeped in Pharisaic belief of the apocalyptic end times, came to see in his Damascus experience, evidence that the end times were upon them. He viewed his experience as his call from God to take the message to the Gentiles, that Jesus by his faithfulness, had justified the Gentiles in the same way that Torah justified Jews in righteousness.

In other words, time was of the essence. Jews had imputed righteousness through the grace of God in giving them Torah, which, even if badly followed, gave them the way to atone for sins. The Gentiles, having no such covenant, and being outside the covenant, had no means of atonement for the sins that they had accumulated. Following Torah was not enough.

Jesus, by his faithful obedience to God, won for Gentiles (the nations of the world as it were), that righteousness, that Jews received by virtue of the covenant. This explains why Paul was so adamant that such things as circumcision and dietary laws need not apply to Gentiles.

What is of critical importance, is Eisenbaum’s claim that Augustine, then Luther and so forth misread Paul, thinking he had condemned Torah as the way, and substituted Jesus as the only means of salvation. In this reading, then all Jews must one day convert to Christianity. This of course is the belief of many, (especially conservative) Christians today.

Eisenbaum makes clear that in order to read Paul correctly, one must keep in mind a number of things. First and foremost among them, is that at no time is Paul speaking to Jews. He is speaking only to Gentiles. Secondly Torah is for Jews, but sets a standard for all peoples.

Perhaps what will most alarm Christians is her claim that Paul did not see Jesus as God, but as God’s son, the one sent. Moreover, she would claim that Paul did not call Gentiles to worship Jesus, but rather to have faithfulness as Jesus had faithfulness.

She bases this conclusion on a lengthy explanation of the phrase pistis iesou christou. Because Christians have so thoroughly seen Paul as “converting” they have almost always translated this as “faith in Jesus Christ” rather than what she contends is the accurate translation, “faith of  Jesus Christ.” Her claim is that Jesus expressed a faithfulness to God by his perfect obedience, and that Paul calls Gentiles to be “saved” by also following the lead of Jesus, and trying to imitate Jesus faithfulness.

Dr. Eisenbaum of course admits that even among radical new prospective scholars, there is still much argument. Her opinions and conclusions are not universally accepted. It is a new way of looking at Paul, and given Paul’s general difficulties, there will be years of new exploration ahead.

But indeed, this work is a must reading for anyone who wishes to understand that there is  much yet to do in unpacking Pauline theology. The test will be, does Eisenbaum’s theory explain more satisfactorily than do previous paradigms. There have been, and perhaps always will be passages in Paul that are seemingly contradictory. This is in part the result that he no where sets out to put down his theology in any one place. We have letters, written over a fair stretch of time, often addressed to quite disparate problems. The theory that “solves” the most problems will be the one that finds most favor no doubt.

This is an important book in current biblical studies of Pauline theology. It is one that all, both scholars and laypersons can benefit from.

**As noted, this book was sent to me free of charge for purposes of review. No agreements as to contents of the review were discussed. The opinions here are strictly my own.

The Eternal Questions

Tags

biblical literalism, biblical studies, critical thinking, God, growth, JD Crosson, Living the Questions, Marcus Borg, processing information, religion, theology

Yesterday I mentioned that I had viewed a couple of the episodes from the series Living the Questions.  On part three, two of my favorite biblical specialists gave me some very interesting food for thought.

And, typical of me, I thought.

I decided that the concepts expressed were important and were worth putting forth to you.

Many of you are of course familiar with John Dominic Crossan, highly regarded biblical scholar and sometime collaborator with Marcus Borg. He posited that there are four eternal questions that believers must come to terms with.

1. What is the character of God?
2. What is the content of your faith?
3. What is the function of your church?
4. What is the purpose of your worship?

As is immediately apparent, these questions tend to circle back on one another. Depending on what you answer, you will necessarily have to return to another one. Hopefully, in the end, you can arrive at a series of answers that are logically consistent to the rest.

I realized, I think at least, that my answers are internally consistent. It has taken me a good many years to arrive at them, and I remain ever open to revising and tweaking all of them as new information comes to me for evaluation. That kind of takes me to another speaker of part three, and that was Marcus Borg.

If I am able to do the above, it is mostly because I follow Borg’s analysis of growth in thinking. Not at all limited to faith questions, Borg claims that every person goes through the following process:

1. Pre-critical naivete′–this is defined as the childlike acceptance of everything pretty much we are told. As children, we rely on parents mostly to inform us of the meaning of the world around us. We accept the “fact” of Santa Claus with the same simple acknowledgment as we do that watering a plant helps it grow. We don’t question the answer, though we ask plenty of questions. We have mostly empty space between our ears, not a lot of experiences by which to judge, and are like little sponges.
2. Critical thinking–All of us come to this at some point, though undoubtedly some of us do it better than others. But we all do it. At some point we begin testing what we have been told against the world as we actually perceive it. We determine the real likelihood of the Easter bunny versus the reality of a flat earth. We have tools, gained through experience and education by which we can experiment with claims and we decide what truths we will accept as such. This of course goes on throughout one’s life.
3. Post-critical naivete′–This is not achieved by all. There is no necessary movement from 2 to 3 in other words. Some folks remain lodged in whatever truths they have determined and never budge. This place is one reserved for those who have a certain quest for more I guess. It allows one to return to one again, but in a different way.

Let me explain, if I can.

As to faith, I have determined that there was no actual garden of Eden, and that Genesis does not in fact portray an actual beginning of the earth or the universe. Neither are “factually” accurate. This I have determined through critical thinking. I have read extensively, gone to through fairly extensive education, listened to a lot of experts, and otherwise examined my experiences and senses and find these stories as wholly incompatible with the hard facts that I can touch, examine and test.

Yet, I have moved to three. I believe wholeheartedly in the Genesis story and I believe in the garden of Eden. Not as factual stories of what actually happened, but for the deeper truths that they were actually meant to convey. And I repeat, that is what they were MEANT to convey. So I can believe in the stories. I have returned in a sense to that child-like faith that requires no official documentation to convince. In fact, the stories now have a far greater impact on me than they could ever have had as literal truth.

As literal truth they reflect a God of such lack of grandeur as to be embarrassing. They are full of holes, illogical  connections, and such, as to be against the weight of common sense,  making us, the creation, rather dull and stupid. What does that say about God?

It reminds one of Voltaire’s statement (also from part three):

God created man in his own image, and man returned the compliment.

Anyway, I thought it all most interesting. I guess I felt that I was indeed on the right track in my continuous ponderings. And as usual, I conclude that this is what it means to walk with God. We are but creature, stunningly dumb in comparison to the Creator. Yet, we have been graced with a mind like  God, which enables us to reach out with hand extended and to grasp but faintly truth. This surely was designed by God to work this way–the capacity to seek and find Him. For as we believe, God created, and saw that it was GOOD! We are part of that good and he delights in us as we from time to time stumble and actually “get it.”

Blessings.

The Only Person I Know Who is Sane, is Me

Tags

atheists, biblical studies, civil rights, Congress, Declaration of Independence, democracy, Democrats, enemy combatants, Evan Bayh, fundamentalism, Jefferson, justice, Miranda warnings, terrorism, theology, war on terrorism

I figured you should share in my nightmare too, so the picture at right, having little to do with the commentary which follows, only serves to seer your brain with an image that will haunt your peaceful sleep in ensuing nights.

You see, it’s all too apparent that I don’t belong here. I’m in the wrong century, on the wrong continent, and most likely I belong on Betelgeuse, a red giant star, found in the constellation Orion. Well, not  actually ON Betelgeuse, that would be a short life indeed, but orbiting it at least, on a planet that is SANE.

This one, boringly named “earth” (why earth which is small in comparison to “water” I have no clue), is patently insane, and I have more proof for you today of that fact.

The uproar for weeks about where we can try a criminal, Khalid Sheikh  Mohammed, has been ongoing. Of equal hue and cry is the correctness of interrogating Umar Farouk Abdulmutallub using civil criminal methods versus military methods. At the center of much of this is the god-awful horror of our having “read them their rights.”

Everyone on the far right, and heck, half in the moderate category suggest this is a no brainer. Not a citizen, not entitled to Miranda warnings. I cannot fathom why. Now before you start up all the usual enemy combatants garbage, its a bit more basic that all that.

Once upon a time, far far ago, a country was contemplated, a nation, a place of freedom and liberty for all. In fact, a document to those principles was created by a guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson. You may have heard of him.  One of the things he wrote, and presumably believed, was something about freedom and liberty. He claimed that such rights were the “laws of nature, and of nature’s God.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, what it did not say, is that said rights only accrued to “American” citizens or those who were contemplated anyway. At the end, there are the signatures of a whole bunch of white men, who apparently all agreed to such a claim. We refer to them collectively as our “founding fathers.”

Historically, for several decades now, we have held ourselves out as that beacon of freedom, an example to the rest of the world. We have made awful attempts to export our “freedom” to others. We have encouraged revolutions to overthrow dictatorships and we have instigated wars to do the same.

Yet, we parse hairs here and claim that non-citizens in our custody are NOT to be beneficiaries of such GOD given rights? Explain this please? Oh and just for the record, should anyone ask, there is no such thing logically as a “war against terror.” Terror is a state of mind, and not an enemy. People who hold extreme views that cause them to espouse destruction without reference to the consequences to innocents are proper targets of efforts to put them out of business. Let’s keep things straight.

***

Evan Bayh comes off as Mr. reasonable in his decision to not seek re-election as Senator from Indiana. He seems reasonable. All that touchy feely, “I can’t stand the gridlock,” and “I love Indiana, but I don’t love Congress.”

Yes, but his timing was about as bad as it could be and Democrats are scrambling to even get a Democrat on the ballot now for next November, and Republicans now are starting to realize the impossible–control of Congress after 2010. Lots of time to go, lots can change, but the damage is huge.

And of course Bayh did NOTHING to help the Health care reform bill get through, and has been a whiny crabber about fiscal responsibility when we can’t afford to do anything else but pump the economy full and bring down unemployment rates for the working poor.

One could argue that Bayh was himself one of those obstructionists he condemns so loftily. That being said, I suspect what he has done is not so bad overall.  The electorate, having an attention span that is over faster than the speed of light, is so fickle these days that what chagrins today, will be forgotten tomorrow.

There is something to be said, that democracy is wasted on those who have inherited it. Every where you turn, the far right makes it clear they would remove freedom in the name of freedom. Catchy huh?

***

The most idiotic post I’ve read in a long time can be found here. First I would say, that I don’t for a minute think the author believes what he says, namely that fundamentalists are more coherently theological than are liberal Christians. It’s the old, “I want to attack thoughtful rational Christians and the best way is to suggest that the most incoherent Christians are actually the most rational.” So I see this all as just that, shock value rhetoric designed to stick it to mainstream believers.

To suggest that fundamentalists have a coherent worldview and “live out” their theology accordingly with a faithful though wrong, consistent interpretation of scripture, is to be so utterly devoid of rationality as to be a joke. The writer cannot be serious.

There is zero coherence in fundamentalism, in fact its most noted element is the ability to hold diametrically opposite views at the same time. It’s followers are famous for picking and choosing what bits of scripture they will follow and which not.

Mainstream theology and biblical studies have an unbroken 2,000 year history of development, all placing the bible and its contents in proper prospective, as well as tackling the big issues, always conscience of how they impact on each other in a rational logical fashion. Fundamentalism is stuck in mud, having made no progress ever, since by definition it is dramatically cut and dried, once and for all, take it or leave it, archaic and primitive in its outlook.

But then, perhaps it was all done tongue in cheek and I missed somewhere the punch line.

No matter, I hear the moons over Sirius are particularly nice this time of “year” and I’m heading there in my ship now. Come along if you’d like.  Make it so.

Remembering

Tags

bible, biblical studies, exegesis, feminist criticism, Genesis, God, Lot's Wife, pillar of salt, women's studies

I’ve never understood what Lot’s wife did that was so bad that she deserved death and the ignominy of being turned into a pillar of salt.

It goes hat in hand with any number of anomalies in various biblical stories that I cannot make sense of. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why Cain’s offering to God did not find favor, and indeed, I am warned that it is unprofitable to look for one.

The same can be said of why Mary’s question of “how can this be?’ was answered while Zechariah’s similar question was deserving of muteness. Ditto what Moses did that was unfaithful and caused his death before entering the promised land.

So in some sense, these questions are inappropriate perhaps. God is entitled to be arbitrary and certainly He is not required to give his explanations to me. However, we don’t like the idea of our God being arbitrary, and moreover, as evolved humans, we have discovered that the books of the bible are stories collected, edited, and arranged with commentary, to meet the needs of their time and place. Therefore, we need not shrug and conclude that our God is either arbitrary in his choices, or that in any case he deems it unnecessary to explain to us his reasoning.

Still, we have to wonder at the logic here. I would argue that humans, perhaps in our “image of God” motif, are “looking back people.” When we look at civilization today, we realize, that we are the product of all those centuries of curiosity, experimentation, and thinking that has gone before us. We don’t constantly have to re-invent the wheel. We build on looking back at past accomplishments and failures and near misses in an effort to glean from the past what will enable us to make positive choices in the future.

We have discovered that the reason so many of us, (most of us actually) have difficulty in life is because we are unable to remain “in the moment.” Our minds are a never stopping machine that is largely focused on the past and the future. Perhaps, this is why in the end we are successful in growing technologically. It has not have much effect for good it seems in personal relationships. We still war, knowing as we do, that no war has yet ended war, it just sets up a list of new antagonists for the next battle.

So Lot’s wife and her action of looking back at the destruction of Sodom was not unusual. She was looking back to set the picture in her mind, as we all might do, so that we could tell this valuable tale to others. We could categorically say that we “saw” the destruction.

Moreover, the Hebrew Scriptures are replete with instances of when God “remembered.” In fact, at the end of most every episode, when things are looking bleak for humans, especially the Israelites, God remembers “Abraham, or Joseph, or Jacob.” It is the writer’s way of announcing that the covenant first instituted between God and Abraham, had not been forgotten. God “remembers” always. We trust that remembering to this day.

Fully, if anyone should have been punished, it should have been Lot himself. For he is the one who offered his daughters are mere chattel to the townspeople who were intent on violence and rape. He is the one who argued so limply that his family members didn’t believe his call to flee the town. He is the one who whined to the angels that he didn’t want to flee to the hills but preferred a town setting. Yet the penalty falls to Lot’s wife who, heretofore, we have not heard a thing about.

I have a note next to the text in my NRSV bible. It says: “metaphor for when we dwell on the past, our spiritual growth is impeded.” I’m not sure what I meant when I wrote that. I’m not sure if I agree with the sentiment. It doesn’t seem something I dreamed up, but rather read in some book or other. I guess it is true that when we remain mired in the past, we cannot move forward, whether in our relationships, our professions, or much of anything else. This might include our spiritual life. But it seems to me that a serious,  thoughtful, and honest appraisal of one’s past is the only way to meaningfully ground a productive journey.

I think this story points up an important issue however, one we won’t address today, but will. That is, the difference between reading the bible as pastorally “given” stories, and destructuring them by way of various exegetical methodologies. Truly, I have found nothing valuable in terms of Lot’s wife (pity the poor woman was given no name!) in doing an exegetical reflection. We can dissect it no doubt in terms of the influences of J, P and E (Yahwist, Priestly, or Elohist) tradition, but frankly I saw nothing fruitful in that. 

Generally speaking the story is considered to be etiological–meaning it was created to explain the appearance of a salt pillar  that appeared in some sense to be a woman, around the Dead Sea area. The actual destruction of Sodom may reflect a story around a volcanic eruption in the area. See generally Gen. 19:1-26.

In any event, I grieve for poor Lot’s wife. She surely got the short end of the stick it would appear. I suspect a lurking patriarchal motif is at work here. What think you?