davebarnhart.net

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Social Justice FAQ

I was really ready to focus on something other than social justice for a while, but last week I received a call from a woman from another church who had read that I was developing a curriculum on social justice for the North Alabama Conference.

After asking me to define social justice, she asked, “but doesn’t that mean getting involved in politics?”
Yes, I replied.
“But won’t that jeopardize the church’s tax-exempt status?”
Well, I said, my first answer is no, because precedent indicates that churches can be politically active as long as they don’t endorse candidates. My second answer is, so what? Even if we lose our tax-exempt status we still have an obligation to preach the gospel.
“Well, I have a copy of the IRS tax code right here,” she said.

Ding.

In other words, she called in order to have an argument. So, I obliged. For the next hour and a half.

“...and it says that a church can be classified as a 501(c)(3) organization as long as ‘no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’”
First of all, I replied, there’s a lot of leeway in that statement. “Substantial part” would be what - 5%? And do you honestly think any judge in America is going to tell an African-American church that they can’t preach about civil rights, or affirmative action, or the historical importance of having a black president? Is any judge in America going to tell a conservative church they can’t campaign against abortion?

But I’m grateful to her, because I guess if she hadn’t called, I wouldn’t be sitting here on a Saturday working on a curriculum to educate Alabamians about social justice. A large number of United Methodists get more of their political theology from Glenn Beck and Mark Tooley than they do from John Wesley. So here is a draft of the Social Justice FAQ (which will go at the end of the document).

These questions are abstracted from that conversation. I’ll post a rhetorical analysis of the questions themselves at the end of this document.

I appreciate any feedback that helps me refine the document:

——————————————

Social Justice FAQ:
Doesn’t social justice mean getting involved in politics? What about the separation of church and state?

Women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, the abolition of slavery, and child labor laws were all the result of churches “getting involved” in politics. It is hard to imagine how many of these movements would have ever grown without the involvement of religious leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., Sojourner Truth, William Wilberforce, and John Wesley. The first Methodist social creed was written in 1908 as a direct response to the crisis of child labor in the United States. Churches have always been involved in politics, because preaching the gospel inevitably means creating political conflict. When Paul visited Ephesus (Acts 19:20-41) and preached against idolatry, the city’s idol-makers tried to stir up the city against him for economic reasons.

Many churches, especially mainline Protestant churches, try to be “neutral” on political issues for fear of alienating some members or creating conflict. Even during these historical crises and shifts in culture, some Christians insisted that churches should, “stay out” of the Civil Rights movement, or of child labor legislation. What would have happened if they had?

The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics. Separation of church and state avoids excessive government entanglement in religion, and allows religious groups to operate freely without persecution. The separation of church and state has allowed religion to thrive in the United States (while state-sponsored churches have declined in Europe), and has allowed a rich tradition of churches who promote civic engagement among their members.

Because we live in a [representative democracy], churches not only can but should be involved in politics. Since we the people make the decisions, we the people are accountable to God for how our cities, states, and nation run.

Won’t being involved in politics jeopardize churches’ tax-exempt status?

As a 501c(3) organization, a church can weigh in on matters of social policy and particular political issues, but it cannot campaign for or against any candidates themselves (Rossoti v. Branch Ministries, D.D.C. 1999). A list of the kinds of activities a church can engage in is available from the IRS at http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=170946,00.html.

The IRS even allows the publication of “voter guides,” which often include lists of issues and a summary of a candidates’ position on those issues. The IRS code states that “...certain “voter education” activities, including preparation and distribution of certain voter guides, conducted in a non-partisan manner may not constitute prohibited political activities under section 501(c)(3) of the Code.” (page 2, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf).

The same rule even says that candidates may participate in a public forum or debate as part of a voter education event. Churches may allow candidates to speak at their functions and may participate in voter registration drives. Focus on the Family has provided a summary of church political activities permitted under the 501(c)(3) rules here: http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/PastorsGuidelines_summary.pdf. Obviously, the same rules apply to churches of any political persuasion.

Won’t being involved in political activity cause divisions in the church?

Maybe.

In 1844, disputes over slavery led to a schism in the Methodist church. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, split into their own denomination. They removed from their General Rules the rule against owning slaves. So there are certainly precedents for denominations and even individual churches splitting over contentious issues.

But there are also churches and denominational bodies who are more united in how they engage the larger world. Conservative churches who protest abortion clinics and African-American churches who demonstrate against racism do not seem to worry about whether their activities divide the church.

Being politically neutral has not helped mainline Protestant churches grow in the last few decades. It has not helped them attract young people to church or lead people to Christ. Although we in the U.S. often describe ourselves in terms of “liberal” or “conservative,” there are often social justice issues that cross political boundaries. The environmentalism and creation care movement has seen churches across the political spectrum unite on important environmental issues.

Both “liberal” and “conservative” United Methodist churches have been struggling with declining membership in the last few decades. Ignoring social justice will not reverse that trend, and instead will simply make the church more irrelevant to a new generation.

Shouldn’t we just preach Christ, and Christ alone?  Isn’t the real message of Christianity about saving souls?

Jesus kicked off his ministry with a political statement: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ You can read the whole story in Luke 4:16-30.

The “year of the Lord’s favor” is a reference to the Jubilee year, when all debts were canceled and all slaves were freed (Leviticus 25:8-13). This commandment was supposed to be carried out every 50 years, but had long been neglected. Jesus was saying that his ministry was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah, that God would reset the clock and bring justice to the world. (Some people say that Jesus never preached against slavery, but I believe his first sermon made explicit where he stood on the subject.)

Even before Jesus was born, people knew the messiah would bring social justice. Listen to his mother, Mary’s song from Luke 1:52-53: “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”

Jesus talked more about the “Kingdom of God” than anything else. The Kingdom was not just a place we go when we die - it was the reign of God on earth. The language he uses is firmly in line with all the language of the prophets. When Jesus preaches his famous prophecy about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, he describes very clearly the kind of behavior he expects from his followers.

The people who heard his message would have known, when he talked about judging sheep and goats, that he was also referring to Ezekiel 34:17-19. This is one of the clearest examples in the Bible about God’s interest in environmental justice: “When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?” So when Jesus talked about feeding the hungry, he wasn’t just telling his audience to be charitable; by using the language of Ezekiel he was also reminding them that they should be stewards of the earth.

So, preaching Christ means preaching social justice. There is no way to split one from the other. Evangelism, missions of mercy, and social justice go hand-in-hand

I understand that Jesus says we should individually help the poor, but he doesn’t say anywhere the government should. Isn’t it enough for Christians to help the poor individually?

Jesus also never said that there should be a separation of church and state, or that democracies are better than dictatorships. Making this kind of distinction between individuals and government puts modern ideas and words back into Jesus’ mouth. Roman Emperors and Judean Kings had no concept of things like “democracy” or “the consent of the governed.”

Amos told the nation of Israel that they were experts at acting individually religious, but that all their worship was worthless as long as they continued to oppress the poor. He called on the nation to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (5:24). Is this a command directed at individuals? At governments? At whole societies?

God repeatedly holds entire cities and nations accountable for their treatment of the poor. Ezekiel 16:49 says “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” God punishes the firstborn of every family in Egypt for Pharoah’s reluctance to let the Hebrews free from slavery. The prophets accuse whole societies of idolatry and injustice to the poor. If God holds nations accountable for the actions of their rulers or even of a majority, would God not hold every [voting member of a republic] accountable for their nation’s actions?

In addition, as shown above in his reference to the sheep and goats, Jesus frequently cites the prophets in addressing how whole communities should behave. He assumed that his listeners would be Biblically literate enough to make the connection between the prophets’ words and his own. Jesus did not just come to save souls - he came to save the world.

Historical examples show us that it is impossible to address some injustices as individuals. As a slave owner in the 1800’s, you might be kind to your slaves and still believe you were doing what the gospel required of you. But even a slave owner who freed their slaves could not end slavery without government action. As a factory-owner in the 1900’s, you might refuse to hire children. But you could not end child labor through your hiring practices.

Some obstacles that keep people poor - lack of health care, poor education, bad neighborhoods, lack of access to healthy food, human traficking - can only be overcome by community or government action. Of course, others can only be overcome by individual action. The answer is for the church not to put all its emphasis either on individual or collective action.

I understand social justice for life and death issues like slavery and child labor, but what about others? How do you decide which issues are important?

One incredulous woman told me that she understood that slavery, women’s suffrage, and child labor were important. These historical issues were “life and death” issues. But she did not consider Alabama Constitutional reform, grocery taxes, and other such issues “life and death,” and thought the church should stay out of them.

For privileged and comfortable people, slavery, child labor, Civil Rights, and women’s suffrage were not “life and death” issues, either. Slave owners had a vested interest in saying that the church should stay out of politics. After all, they would argue, they treated their slaves well. 100 years later, white opponents of civil rights could claim - rightly - that white churches would drive some members away if they preached against segregation. Here in Birmingham, some of those churches never recovered from their principled stand. Earlier in this century, wealthy factory owners actually claimed that keeping children out of the workplace would deprive poor families of important income and drive up the cost of labor. All of these examples point to the fact that everywhere that churches preach social justice, they will encounter resistance from people who want to keep things as they are. People who benefit from injustice have all they need - money, political power, health care, a supply of cheap labor - and they don’t want the power of the gospel disrupting their lives.

For those who live in privilege, grocery tax legislation, Alabama Constitutional reform, public transportation, gambling, environmental justice, health care reform, and American foreign policy are not “life and death” issues. But for those who are struggling in poverty, those whose lives are affected by climate change or industrial pollution, those who do not have access to health care, these are “life and death” issues. Oppressed people long to hear the words of Jesus, that today is the day they will be set free.

Every injustice that keeps people poor, or voiceless, or that treats people as something less than human beings created in the image of God is an issue worth addressing in church. God is still at work in our world, freeing prisoners, giving people second chances, and transforming lives. God will continue to work, with or without your church. The question for your church is simply, “Will you get on board with what God is doing in the world?”

——————————————-

I think it’s worth pointing out that each of these questions is really intended to undercut the idea of preaching social justice. Let’s unmask the rhetoric operating in each question:
a) there is no need for it because the issues are not important enough (to me),
b) there is no Biblical mandate for using government or collective action to address justice; individuals should handle it on their own,
c) the issues may be important but avoiding conflict and retaining members is more important,
d) preaching social justice will divert attention from the more important task of saving souls,
e) preaching social justice is somehow against the law or will result in negative legal consequences

Folks, that’s really all they got. Learn to recognize when someone deploys these rhetorical strategies. They are pretty easy to refute if you know your Bible.

Saturday, April 03, 2010

Good News to the Poor (and Everyone Else!)

The bill to end the state sales tax on groceries is moving forward.

But there’s this amazing quote from Rep. Gipson: “The whole bill is a redistribution of wealth. Washington is doing such a good job of that I don’t know that we need to get involved with that.”

He’s already been taken to task in this editorial, but I thought this is an excellent example of the concept of privilege: the failure to recognize your own power, status, and position in society.

See, we already redistribute wealth with taxes. We just take it from the poor and give it to the rich. Alabama has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation, a fact that directly benefits those who own the most land. We make up for the lack of state revenue with sales taxes. The poor pay a greater percentage of their income in sales taxes than the rich. They are actually subsidizing farms, timber industries, and wealthy landowners every time they put food in their mouths.

Here’s another way to look at it: two to three weeks of groceries. Out of a year’s groceries, the government takes two weeks of food away from the poor and turns it into swimming pools and big lawns with automatic sprinklers for the rich. And board feet. And soybeans.

The fact that Gipson uses the kind of rhetoric worthy of FOX news to claim that this is unfair to rich people illustrates the concept of privilege: rich people are entitled to the money they earn. Poor people are not.

Last weekend I overheard a table full of elderly medicare recipients at church bewailing our country’s new “socialized medicine.” I heard from a friend that one senior citizen, after talking about her multiple extensive surgeries (all paid for with Medicare) said, “if those people can see my doctors, who knows how long I’ll have to wait?” The attitude of people in privilege is “I’ve got mine!”

Folks, if good news for the poor sounds like bad news to you, then you live in privilege. It may be the privilege of race, or class, or age, or some other system of power. But my faith says that good news to the poor is good news to everyone. The prophets proclaim a time when everyone who works for it will sit under the shade of their own fig tree (Micah 4:4), and live in houses that they built with their own hands. The idea is that in a just world, people get to enjoy the life they build for themselves and nobody will steal it from them and send them into exile, or turn them into debt slaves. City streets are safe, and there are plenty of public spaces for kids to play around retirees (Zech 8:4-5). These are not visions of streets paved with gold and towers of rubies. These visions are fairly tame: a just world where people live with some measure of security, and are able to enjoy the simple things of life. They plant their own gardens, build their own homes, and hang out with friends.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Cartoon of NT Origins

Here is a cartoon I made for my Bible Stuff class on NT origins. There was a lecture that went along with it, but I think it pretty well speaks for itself. Click the thumbnail for the full size version.

Monday, February 08, 2010

Dawkins, Literalists, and the 10 Scientific Commandments

Here is an excerpt of Salon’s interview with Richard Dawkins back in the fall:

You say in the beginning of the book that you would like to convince people that creationism is not a feasible or a viable belief system, but you also make it clear that you’re not a big fan of creationists.

That’s putting it mildly, yes.

Doesn’t that make it difficult for a creationist to read this book without feeling insulted? Won’t that hurt your goal?

No, I’m not really aiming it at creationists. I don’t think they read books anyway, except for one book. It’s aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution and who vaguely knows that there are creationists and maybe even vaguely thinks that he’s a creationist himself, but who is curious and wants to know the evidence.

The part that rankled was “except for one book.” What Dawkins doesn’t understand is that most creationists don’t read the Bible. In fact, I’ve found that literalists of any stripe do not read the Bible much because they believe they already know what it says. What they tend to do is read the same collection of inspirational memory verses over and over again.

It used to bother me that so many people show such a stunning lack of curiosity about the Bible. But then I realized that curiosity takes work, and requires a scientific openness to seek answers. If either Biblical literalists or Dawkins took the time to actually read the creation accounts in Genesis:
1. They would notice that the creation orders are different.
2. Their curiosity might lead them to look for other differences (language, style, etc.)
3. They would seek out sources that might be able to explain the differences (pastors, commentaries, scholars)
4. They would look for dissenting opinions
5. They would formulate their own reason for the differences in light of the available evidence (e.g., these stories were written by two different authors for two different audiences).

As I said, curiosity takes work. Literalists dismiss their curiosity by simply saying, “it’s the Word of God, sometimes it’s hard to understand, but I’ll just accept it on faith.” They just don’t think about it.

Dawkins doesn’t have such an excuse. He is supposed to be a scientist, for crying out loud, but he just accepts the literalists’ interpretation of the Bible. He even thinks they read it! If there is anything like a list of scientific sins, I think one of them would be lack of curiosity.

1. Thou shalt not be incurious
2. Thou shalt make thy methods discernible to all
3. Thou shalt not falsify evidence or results
etc.

 

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Playing Whack-a-Mole

I realized some time ago that if I spent my energy smacking down every instance of bad theology I encountered, I’d be playing Whack-a-Mole the rest of my life. The assertions are too frequent, too outrageous to deal with them seriously on a regular basis. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that Fred Phelps is pretty wrong about who God is. His church’s music video “God Hates the World” is a flat contradiction of one of the most basic tenets of Christian faith, found in John 3:16.

I feel a little awkward even linking to the above video - as though by the very act of posting it I’m raising it in the global consciousness, when that’s actually the last thing I want to do.

It’s much the same with Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s comments. Should I even acknowledge that they exist? Or, like the braying and barking of barnyard animals, should I just consider their words background noise? Their breath vibrates vocal tissue, and the fleshy movements of their tongues give shape to their exhalations. Commenting on the supposed meaning of those noises, I feel a bit like I’ve called attention to the fact that someone farted.

The difference, of course, is that flatulence cannot always be helped.

Still, giving them attention almost lends them credibility in the eyes of their followers. I would prefer to let them talk themselves into irrelevance if it were not for the fact that in recent years they seem to have gained an even larger audience.

The Bible acknowledges this dilemma. The book of Proverbs is ostensibly written to teach “wisdom.” The idea is that by examining its aphorisms, readers can come to a greater sense of who God is and what God’s wisdom looks like. But some of those aphorisms are contradictory because wisdom involves the recognition of paradox. Here is the relevant passage:

Do not answer fools according to their folly,
  or you will be a fool yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly,
  or they will be wise in their own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5

So what’s the answer? Do you answer a fool according to their folly? Or do you let them blather on? Do you descend to the level of folly? Or do you upbraid the fool in the hopes that he or his hearers will see wisdom? Does Socrates spend time arguing with idiots? Or does he seek out conversation with peers? The wisdom here may be that dealing with fools is a no-win situation. If you answer them, you become a fool. If you don’t answer them, they think they are wise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s just damned foolishness.

There are a couple of other aphorisms that follow these that may be appropriate:

The legs of a disabled person hang limp;
  so does a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 7)

Like a thornbush brandished by the hand of a drunkard
  is a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 9)

In other words, even these proverbs, aphorisms of the wise, can be misapplied by fools. It is not the sayings themselves that indicate wisdom, but the context in which they are applied.

It is like binding a stone in a sling
  to give honour [or a television or radio program?] to a fool. (v. 8)

My addition may sound cheeky, but the fact is that giving honor to someone in the ancient world often meant giving them time and space for a speech. To give a fool honor, or money, or a forum to spew their vomit, creates a situation in which someone is going to get hurt.

Like a dog that returns to its vomit
  is a fool who reverts to his folly. (v. 11)

Just in case you thought my use of the word “vomit” or “fart” was harsh or un-Biblical.

Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
  There is more hope for fools than for them. (v. 12)

And that’s really the problem, isn’t it? Because I can recognize fools, does that make me wise? Or does it take one to know one? I also have a forum in which to use my words. I have a pulpit and an audience. I pray that God will help me to use it wisely, that I will not be like a drunkard with a thornbush, or a fool shooting his sling into a crowd, or a dog that returns to its vomit. The desert fathers and mothers used to pray, “Oh Lord, him today, me tomorrow.” I hope that when (not if) I mishandle my words, I only look like an idiot, and that it won’t cause others to get hurt.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Bible Timeline

This is a timeline I made for my Wednesday night Bible study class.

click for full-size version

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Curmudgeonly Lectionary Reflections - Feeding the 5000

Speaking as a fairly mainstream liberal white Protestant, I am so sick of this story and its typical liberal white Protestant allegorical interpretation. In the usual reading, we (the church) are the disciples, and Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, and we think we can’t, so Jesus says try anyway, so we try and lo and behold, a miracle! Blah, blah, blah. Because, you know, it’s all about us. 

Another problem I have with the usual reading is that we have to pretend to be surprised, and it becomes a story about how much we believe. Really, you know about Jesus, don’t you? He heals people, walks on water, and raises the dead. Are we supposed to be wowed that he can produce pita bread out of thin air?

So I want to put on my curmudgeonly preacher persona and wave my cane and yell at the kids singing Kum-Ba-Yah to get off my lawn. I really like Mark’s version more than John’s so I’ll start there.

1. In Mark’s version, Jesus invites the disciples to come away to a deserted place all by themselves. Mark says this twice, in 6:31 and in 6:32. Mark has a fairly conservative economy of words, so when he says something twice, he means it. Dripping with sarcasm, his disciples say, “hey, teacher. Since we’re here at this deserted place of yours, how about sending them away to get something to eat?” Nice relaxing spot you picked, Jesus! I love that Mark lets us see the disciples get sarcastic with Jesus.

2. Now, most preachers will say that this crowd is made up of the poor and downtrodden, and they don’t have any money, and the miracle is about feeding the hungry. Hogwash! These people have money. The disciples say plainly, “send them away so that they can buy themselves something to eat.” The text does not tell us they were poor, sad, chronically hungry, or anything of the sort. It says they were like sheep without a shepherd. I suppose because we think of sheep as fleecy white innocent creatures, we automatically go into churchy mode and think that the sheep need someone to take care of them and feed them.

But the “sheep without a shepherd” comment is a reference to 1 Kings 22:17, in which Israel’s army without its king is compared to “sheep without a shepherd.” This crowd is not a bunch of hungry people looking for food. This is the army of Israel looking for a king! They want leadership, not bread. Also, the feeding of the masses recalls Elisha’s feeding of his own disciples in 2 Kings 4:42. These aren’t a bunch of poor downtrodden people. They are a prophetic army.

3. I’m glad I wasn’t there. Had I been there, I would not be thinking charitable thoughts. Here come all these people, interrupting my intimate spiritual time with Jesus. I mean, they just ran around a lake in order to go hear this guy talk. Is there not a sensible person among these 5000 who thought, “hey, maybe I should pack a lunch?” This is Galilee, circa 30 AD. There are no drive-thru windows, people! Plan ahead! It’s part of being a grown-up!

4. In John’s version (6:5-7), the disciples’ testy exchange with Jesus’ is replaced with this laid-back Socratic dialogue. “Where are we going to buy bread for all these people?” Because in John, the disciples aren’t idiots and jerks (which is why I could never have cut it with John’s crew).

5. John gives us a little kid who has 5 barley loaves and 2 fish. In pulpits all over the country on Sunday, this little boy will be the hero of the story. I’m sorry, but does nobody else think that 5 barley loaves and 2 fish is a LOT of food for a kid to eat? Maybe if the kid is 6’2” and weighs 240 pounds, this would be a reasonable dinner. Right, right, someone is going to pull out some obscure historical reference that they were small loaves. Whatever. Just consider this: what if it isn’t his food? Is he the only one out of 5000 adults who packed a lunch? Or is he supposed to be delivering this food to someone else? I like to imagine that there’s one guy in the crowd saying, “hey! that’s the kid who I hired to go get my takeout!” Or maybe the kid drives up in a beat-up Honda hatchback. He gets out and approaches the crowd of 5000. He looks at the order slip in his hand and asks, “hey… somebody order a pizza?”

6. Preachers are going to be falling all over themselves to allegorize this story and explain what the miracle means and will miss possibly the most obvious part of the story: Jesus eats with 5000 people. He shares food with an army. Eating together is a sign of friendship, and sharing the same piece of food is way of declaring eternal loyalty, as when Judas dips his bread into Jesus’ dish in John 13:26. If you break your Twinkie in half and give me part of it, you have just declared that you and I are like family, and we have a bond that cannot be broken. The one who eats with hookers and seditionists and thugs just made himself friends with 5000 people at once, because they all shared the same food.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this is THE point of the story. I don’t think there is only one right reading, and I don’t think it is simply a eucharistic allegory. But the militaristic language is there, the reference to Elisha’s disciples is there, and John ends the story with the people saying, “this is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.” The very next line is, “When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” The prophet shows up, recruits an army, and leaves.

Edit: Ooh! Ooh! I’ve got another one. In Mark they sit on the grass in groups of fifties and hundreds. Go ahead, look up “fifties and hundreds” in your concordance. You’ll find it’s a reference to leadership and military organization in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Kings.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Sexist Praise Songs

There’s a song titled “More Precious Than Silver,” which goes:

Lord you are more precious than silver
Lord you are more costly than gold
Lord you are more beautiful than diamonds
And nothing I desire compares with you.

Which is all fine and good, and it certainly has a pretty tune. But it struck me today as I was reading Proverbs that it’s an appropriated metaphor. The original text is a praise of Lady Wisdom:

Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding
for her income is better than silver, and her revenue better than gold
She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. (Proverbs 3:13-15)

Most congregations, of course, are far more comfortable addressing our hymns and love songs to THE LORD, who we will refer to in the masculine gender. I wonder, how many congregations would be comfortable singing a love song to Lady Wisdom? Look, it’s more Biblical, and it even fits the meter just fine. So why do the lyrics substitute THE LORD for Lady Wisdom?

Wisdom is more precious than silver
Knowledge is more costly than gold
Wisdom is more beautiful than diamonds,
And nothing I desire compares with her.

Egad!

Monday, July 13, 2009

Monday Morning Bible Haiku: Genesis 20

Look, we’ve been through this.
Sarah is not your sister.
What’s your problem, man?

Monday, July 06, 2009

Monday Morning Bible Haiku: Genesis 19

hideous sculptures:
stones, bones, smoldering bodies
silver in moonlight

Friday, June 26, 2009

Blowin’ in the Wind

At one point Jesus turns to the crowds and asks them why they went to see John the Baptist. “What did you go to see?” he asks. “A reed shaken by the wind?”

I’d never paid much attention to this phrase until I ran across a similar metaphor in 1 Kings 14:15, where it describes God’s judgment against Israel for the sins of King Jeroboam: “The Lord will strike Israel. As a reed is shaken in the water, he will root up Israel out of this good land and scatter them beyond the Euphrates.” (I think the sentence makes more sense punctuated this way, though I’m no Hebrew scholar). Another place a shaking reed shows up is in 3 Maccabees, when God punishes Ptolemy for daring to enter the Temple by smiting him with seizures: “He shook him on this side and that, as a reed is shaken by the wind.”

So when Jesus asks if they went out to see a “reed shaking in the wind,” perhaps he’s not merely asking the rhetorical question “did you go out to see something ordinary?” A reed shaking in the wind may imply either convulsing with seizures or preaching hellfire and brimstone; in other words, someone is pitching a fit. Maybe he’s insinuating that they may have been rubberneckers, going out to hear or see the wrath of God fall upon Israel or upon this madman in the wilderness. Maybe one way to phrase the question would be: “why did you go out to see John? To watch someone convulse with seizures? To see a celebrity? No, you went out to see a real, honest-to-God prophet.”

Jesus’ words allude to the credibility problem that preachers have always had. Preachers often become fit-throwers or fancy dressers. A credible prophet is something quite different.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Iron Smelter

One commonplace expression in the Bible is the description of the Hebrews being taken out of Egypt and “out of the iron-smelter.” At first I thought that this was a simple anachronism. The Hebrews were a bronze-age culture (which is one reason why the Philistines, who were an iron-age culture, gave them such trouble). There were no iron smelters in Egypt when Moses allegedly led them out. But after seeing it repeated in 1 Kings and Jeremiah I have a different notion: Egypt is the iron smelter. The metaphor suggests that the Hebrews who emerged from it were like iron.

The phrase is still an anachronism if you believe that Moses is the one who wrote Deuteronomy. Again, we’re talking about a bronze-age culture. It would be like Abe Lincoln referring to freeing American slaves from their automobile factories.

Still, it’s a powerful metaphor for an oppressive regime, generating slag and carbon monoxide. Where do we see iron-smelters today?

Friday, June 19, 2009

More “Aha!” Moments With the Bible

When I was in grad school at Vanderbilt, my homiletics professor, Susan Bond, taught me a way to read a text that I’ve used ever since. It has become such a habit, in fact, that I have a hard time reading the Bible any other way. You read the text four times.

1. The Naive Reading -You pretend that you are looking at the text for the first time. You underline or highlight anything that jumps out at you. Place names, characters, things you find odd or important. Jot down any questions you might have. Pay special attention to roadblocks or things that seem to derail the text.

2. The Poetic Reading - You look closely at the language. Pay special attention to repetition, metaphor, and places the text seems to break into sections.

3. The Rhetorical Reading - You look at the argument of the text. What is the author’s point? What is at stake for the writer? How does the author deploy certain kinds of rhetoric to affect the reader?

4. Reading with Commentaries - You turn to the scholarship on the text.

Even if I don’t do four separate readings, I incorporate these lenses into my usual Bible reading. Then several years ago I started using colored gel pens to highlight when I read the Bible. I use red primarily for roadblocks or things I find surprising, disturbing, or contradictory (which I use mostly on my naive reading). I use green for things I like or for things that seem important thematically. I use purple for language and structural points. I recently started using blue for social justice issues.

As I’ve continued with the Bible in 90 Days Challenge, I’ve hit upon some more things that deserve comment.

1. Joab is a total badass. Thoroughly gangsta.

2. The Kings of Israel have a penchant for getting their kit off during religious ecstasy. Not just David, but also Saul. There are several other passages which suggest that these were priest-kings. The religio-political status of the ruler of Israel was much more fuzzy than it became later. The priesthood threw its political weight behind David (especially after Saul massacred them for their perceived betrayal). 

3. It was advantageous for the priesthood to monopolize religious power at the Temple in Jerusalem, but before worship became centralized, people were putting up altars and sacrificing to YHWH all over the place. YHWH and Baal (pictured left) were not necessarily distinct entities (which is why Saul named his son “Meribaal”) until the priestly monopoly declared it so. I think there are two movements going on here. One is syncretism, in which one religion gradually adopts aspects of another. But the other movement is differentiation, in which nuances are hashed out. Israel’s God is defined as “not-Baal.” This also raised the question of “purity” of religion, since all religions borrow, to some extent, from others. The only way to maintain that one’s religion is “pure” is if it is handed down by God. While the Bible does depict YHWH-worship as originating with YHWH, and identifies Israel as YHWH’s people, it also takes plenty of opportunities to show that God is also Lord of other nations, other peoples, and reveals God’s self to people like Baalam, and chooses the kings of other nations. Regardless, the priests who were in favor of differentiation were in Jerusalem. The priests in favor of syncretism were outside Jerusalem.

3.5 Although David seems to have respected that the ark was God’s throne and refrained from making idols himself, he wasn’t above stealing them from the Philistines. This apparently bothered the author of Chronicles so much that he changed the story and had David burn them. Now, you could argue that 2 Samuel passage doesn’t say David didn’t burn them, but then I’m just going to look at you funny and tsk. Capturing idols was standard practice, just the way the Philistines captured the ark.

4. As I noted last time, human sacrifice was not uncommon. Late in his career, David impales the sons of Saul “before the Lord.” This is not only politically expedient, but it apparently appeases God who ends the famine in the land.

5. And poor Rizpah! She must be one of the most put-upon women ever. David was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of nearly every man in her family.

6. I’ve sung the praise song “I Will Call Upon the Lord” before, but it’s happy clapping tune doesn’t reflect at all David’s song that inspired it. “I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised/ and I am saved from my enemies.” Calling upon YHWH had a very specific context: the use of silver trumpets (in Numbers 10:2), which you use when the adversary oppresses you, “so that you may be remembered before the Lord your God and be saved from your enemies.” Calling upon the Lord evokes the fanfare that calls YHWH himself to battle, who comes riding on a cherub, shooting arrows of lightning at the enemy... just like Baal. This is not a song to be sung in a major key in a happy tune. This is more like something written by Coheed and Cambria.

7. The story of Saul consulting the Medium at Endor? Creepy. The Urim and Thummim were what Saul and David consulted when they “inquired of the Lord.” You ask a yes or no question, the priest pulls out one of these rocks, and that’s your answer. It’s a bit like a Magic 8 Ball, or maybe more like flipping a quarter. If I were going to make a movie of this scene, I’d have Saul ask a question, the priest flips a quarter… and it lands on its edge. Saul asks again, the priest flips the quarter… and it lands on edge again. I mean, the text says God won’t answer him. If you are using some kind of divination then the tea leaves, the Magic 8-Ball, the flipped quarter, have to tell you something, even if by chance. This would be like you shaking the Magic 8-Ball and it comes up not “Reply Hazy, Ask Again” but instead “Go $#%@ Yourself.” That alone would be terrifying. God has specifically chosen not to tell you a blessed thing. Where do you turn?

Thursday, June 11, 2009

“Aha” Moments with the Bible

I’m trying to read the Bible cover-to-cover in 90 days. I have generally dismissed such feats as spiritual or academic bravado, but the discipline of daily reading big chunks of scripture has forced me to confront and rethink some of the themes of the Bible.

1. The biggest theme is just the absolute theological poverty of the Deuteronomistic history. This is the view that God punishes Israel for their idolatry, and rewards them for following God’s commands. It makes sense only as a coping strategy for dealing with national tragedy. People saw their sanctuary burned, their best and brightest led away in exile, and they had to struggle with the question, “If we are God’s chosen people, why has God abandoned us to this terrible fate?” Answer: “We were unfaithful.” So they recast history to explain their guilt. This is the same approach televangelists use to explain hurricane Katrina or 9-11.

2. Problem is, this theology makes God look like a jerk. Even if you buy into the Deuteronomistic view of history, you have to face the fact that God is someone who goes back on a promise. Listen to this one: “YHWH will bring you back in ships to Egypt by a route that I promised you would never see again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer” (Deut 28:68). It’s a sort of reverse Exodus, and a powerful image. But it makes God out to be duplicitous. So God is a God who goes back on promises. Oh, and there’s this: “He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins” (Josh 24:19). Together with the terrible consequences outlined in Deuteronomy 28 (which include starving people eating their own babies, and mothers eating their own afterbirth), and the language about Israel itself becoming “utterly destroyed” just as they supposedly destroyed their enemies, it’s pretty clear that what we’ve got are multiple authors with different views of God. This view, by the way, is firmly repudiated by Jesus in Luke 13.

2.5 The penalty for serving other gods is… serving other gods (Deut 25-28).

3. At the same time, there are some amazingly progressive passages about fairness and social justice. Aliens receive the same law as Israelites (Deut 27:19), and God is especially concerned with the poor, widows and orphans. Micah 6:8 is anticipated by Deuteronomy 10:12-22.

4. God eats blood. No, seriously. The life of a creature is in its blood, and blood is always to be returned to God. If innocent blood is spilled, it contaminates the land. Blood has to be spilled according to certain rules to avoid contamination and remove contamination. This affects everything from menstruation and birth to murder to the worship of pagan gods with blood offerings.

5. Though God does not ask for or condone human sacrifice, human beings are sacrificed: in enemy towns dedicated to destruction as an offering to God, in the killing of the priests who offer incense in improper ways. The priests who die from God’s fire make their utensils holy (Num 16:36-38). The firstborn of Egypt are killed by God and through their deaths the firstborn of Israel are made holy (Num 3:13).

6. When Rahab hangs the crimson thread in her window, the language is almost parallel to the Passover (Josh 2:17-19). Stay in your house, and this marker will spare you from death. With the crossing of the Jordan that follows, it’s almost a chiastic structure.

7. When the High Priest dies, those who have shed innocent blood accidentally can leave the cities of refuge and return home. Presumably this is because the death of the High Priest resets the sin meter, and the land is pure again. In this way, the High Priest himself becomes a sort of atoning sacrifice (Num 35:28). I had never connected this idea with the imagery of Jesus as High Priest in Hebrews 5. The author doesn’t make this connection, but I think it’s pretty powerful: the death of the High Priest means the murderers can go home. The death of Jesus means we murderers are set free from the avenger of blood.

8. I stumbled across another Vulgar Bible item: Joshua 15:13-19 details the story of Othniel’s daughter. The story seemed odd, so I checked the New Interpreter’s Commentary. Apparently, it may be a story about diarrhea.

9. Yet another historical and theological contradiction: Joshua 21:43-45 is a comment about how God was completely faithful in giving all the land promised to Israel. Except—and this is an important observation which has a direct impact on the current Israeli / Palestinian conflict—it did NOT extend from the Red Sea to the Euphrates, as mentioned in Josh 1:4. Since there are currently right-wing paramilitary Israelis who identify themselves with the Israelites in Joshua who claim that God has given them all the territory from the Red Sea to the Euphrates, I think it’s pretty significant that this passage says the job was done when it was half-done. To me, this reaffirms that there is no justification - political or religious - for continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank. You cannot use the Deuteronomistic history as a charter for contemporary politics.

10. The Jerusalem priesthood was very careful to maintain a monopoly on religious life. Any sacrificial center outside Jerusalem, even if it was ostensibly dedicated to YHWH, was a potential threat (Joshua 22). Exodus 31 even reflects the concern by giving the artisans who work on the tabernacle a hierarchy: first Bezalel of Judah, and then Oholiab of Dan—because the sacrificial center in Dan in Israel competed with the Temple in Jerusalem in Judah.

11. Reading the way the Exodus history was constructed makes me more aware of how our own history is constructed. The mythological aspects of the Founding Fathers, and stories of How the West Was Won, and the tragic and religious language used to describe the Civil War, all spring from the same impulse. We make our history into religious history in part to justify our place in it. It doesn’t mean the ideas and events are not true. Just that the stories always have an agenda. For example, textbooks describe the genocide of Native Americans as the tragic but inevitable price of progress.

To me, this makes the Hebrew Bible more compelling and authoritative. What I find astonishing is how multiple views of history and perspectives of God manage to find their way into the text, and how the whole document manages to become holy not in spite of those contradictions, but because of them. Passages like Joshua 23:7 and Deuteronomy 23:3, which forbid marrying foreign women, stand side-by-side with the book of Ruth. As I’ve said before, if you want a Holy Scripture that’s completely consistent, unambiguous, dictated by a divine being to a single author, the Koran or the Book of Mormon may be a better option for you. If you choose the Bible, you’re in for a mess.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Monday Morning Hermeneutics Haiku

interpretation
is a kind of poetry
if you’ve ears to hear

(Thanks to Susan for these links).