So. I finally got to reading the new Rob Bell book. I was super-excited when I first picked it up, because it seemed like something I'd really be interested in. The back of the book puts it like this: "There's a church in our area that recently added an addition to their building which cost more than $20 million dollars. Our local newspaper ran a front-page story not too long ago revealing that one in five people in our city lives in poverty. This is a book about those two numbers."
Very appealing summary! This issue that he brings up is a very real issue, one that most people are blind to (whether they choose to be or are simply uneducated). What really sucks is that the first half of the book doesn't even touch on this subject. I picked it up with high hopes and was swiftly let down by the boredom I received in the first half. I kept having to tell myself, "Just read the next chapter, it'll pick up" which I hate doing in a book. But don't get me wrong, he made a couple of good points throughout that portion, I just wasn't all that interested.
The first half was a narrative about the Bible. From the story of creation to John's final revelation, Bell goes through and adds his own opinions on what was happening and includes several little background facts about what was going on at the time. Some noteworthy ideas were things like how God's real goal when rescuing and dealing with the Israelite people was that he was looking for a 'body'. God was "inviting these people to be priests, to show the world what this God is like through their lives." This idea of a God who demonstrates his image instead of something visual extends from the times of the exodus, all the way to the time of... well, now.
He also gets into the idea of exile when we finally get to Solomon and after. Exile is state of being that many groups of people fall into - and he takes no issue with being specific. "Exile is when you forget your story. Exile isn't just about location; exile is about the state of your soul (and I think he's talking about more than just distance from God, but hell also). Exile is when you fail to convert your blessings into blessings for others (an idea from Claiborne's book, if I'm not mistaken). Exile is when you find yourself a stranger to the purposes of God." He applies this idea of exile by segueing into the idea of oppression in an empire and Amos' writings.
Bell argues that with Solomon as king, the nation of Israel became an empire (because of various reasons I won't get into). We see how oppression takes its hold and what the prophet Amos says God thinks about it. "When God is on a mission, what is God to do with a religion that legitimizes indifference and worship that inspires indulgence? What is God to do when the time, money and energy of his people are spent on ceremonies and institutions that neglect the needy? God calls their church services 'evil assemblies'; God hates their religious gatherings"
Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. but let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!... You who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land... buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals.
-Amos
The result? His people go into exile. Again. The solution? God's plan? Jesus, of course, but not in the way we expect.
___
"If evil always takes some form of violence, then more violence isn't going to solve anything. On the night Jesus was betrayed, a group of soldiers come with swords and clubs to arrest him, which is, of course, absurd. but this is how it is with those addicted to the myth of redemptive violence. They come with swords and clubs because it's the only language they know how to speak. Jesus' disciples are outraged, and one of them takes out his sword and starts swinging. Jesus tells him to put away his sword, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.' - Of course, we're seend enough of that in human history.
"Jesus then reminds his disciple that he could call on his Father, who would give him whatever military assistance he needs, 'but how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?' It's as if Jesus says, 'If I do it like everybody has done it since the beginning of time, how would that change anything?' He understands how easily it can go the wrong way, and then we're back in the same old rut, clinging to the notion that violence can bring peace."
----
After trudging through the book of Acts, we finally get to what's interesting. Bell makes the blatent equality that America is and empire in the same way that Solomon's nation was. Empires naturally deal arms, build 'terraces', and stockpile 'gold'. But then he unleashes a page and a half of statistics that not only solidify his point, but would absolutely shut up anyone about to disagree with him. I'm going to literally type all these out (for my own sake, I'm not really expecting any one to read my posts).
"-America controls nearly 20% of the world's wealth, and consists of 5% of its population.
-One billion people in the world do not have access to clean water, while the average American uses four hundred to six hundred liters of water a day.
-Every seven seconds, somewhere in the world a child under age five dies of hunger, while Americans throw away 14% of the food we purchase.
-Nearly one billion people in the world live on less than one American dollar a day.
-Another 2.5 billion people in the world live on less than two American dollars a day.
-More than half of the world lives on less than two dollars a day, while the average American teenager spends nearly $150 a week.
-Forty percent of people in the world lack basic sanitation, while 49 million diapers are used and thrown away in America every day.
-1.6 billion people in the world have no electricity.
-Nearly one billion people in the world cannot read or sign their name.
-Nearly one hundred million children are denied basic education.
-By far, most of the people in the world do not own a car.
-1/3 of American families own three cars.
-One in seven children worldwide (158 million) has to go to work every day just to survive.
-Four out of five American adults are high school graduates.
-Americans spend more annually on trash bags than nearly half of the world does on all goods.
-The top three oil consumers - China consumes 5.6 million barrels of oil a day, Japan consumer 5.5, and the US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day.
-The number of Americans taking antidepressants has tripled in the past decade. If all of this was supposed to make us happy, why are so many of us so sad?
Human history has never witnessed the abundance that we consider normal. America is the wealthiest nation in the history of humanity. We have more resources than any group of people anywhere at any time has ever had. Ever.
God bless America? God has. And we should be very, very grateful."
Goodness. These figures scare me, because you know what? The implications of these statistics are very very bad. The people of Israel were cast into exile because they became indifferent to the needy and poor people of their land. They became proud, felt entitlement, and forgot the LORD their God. When you forget God, you forget what God cares about - the refugee, the widow, the orphan, and those in need (which he speaks about continually). We become indifferent to them. "In an empire of indifference, as it becomes harder and harder to understand the perspective of others, it becomes easier and easier to confuse blessing with entitlement. Entitlement leads to immunity to the suffering of others, because 'I got what I deserve', and so, apparently, did they.
I'll skip the part where Bell bashes "Left Behind" Christians, because I already talked about it a little and move right into his conclusion. Jesus' Gospel is a new way of humanity. He compares this new humanity to what the Catholics overemphasized in the literal - the Eucharist. He runs with this Eucharist idea and presents several excellent points about the church today. Like how the church today is in an exile of irrelevance, where the only way to return from exile is to once again concern ourselves with the needy and unspokens. Take on issues that matter. This, in my mind, is an excellent conclusion to a book that devotes half its chapters to talking about Israel in exile.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
1st century ponderings
I don't think I know anyone personally who's one-a them 'left behind' Christians. You know the ones I mean. The people who brag to you about how they don't really need to do any work to bring heaven to earth because Jesus is coming back soon, how they don't need to win an argument with you because the rapture is going to happen, how one day (very soon, of course) the anti-Christ will show up and take over the world and bring the world to its knees - everybody except Kirk Cameron and co.
I bring this up, because even though I work at an evil Christian book store, most people who believe these things don't actually brag about it. Its prevalance is far more insidious. To the uneducated and ignorant, I've learned, this is the standard. That if you don't believe Jesus is going to come back in the inexplicably exact opposite way he came the first time, that his goal is to end everything that is wrong with the world by implementing some very similiar shit (like blowing people up with his 'holy' words - according to LaHaye), and that John was writing a letter to us and not to a 1st century community of believers then something is very wrong with you. Where have you been the past 50 years? Obviously the rapture will end all of our problems, you just have to suck it up, bury all those bad feelings with canned joy, and wait it out. Hopefully, your life will end soon enough - but don't trigger the end of your life, by God, just wait until death, because clearly life isn't worth living unless we're going to heaven when we die. That's what Jesus came for, right?
Wrong, idiots. Do you honestly think that "the people in John's church reading his letter for the first time, with Roman soldiers right outside their door, were thinking, 'this is going to be really helpful for people two thousand years from now who don't want to get left behind'," [from Jesus Wants to Save Christians, emphasis added] or were they thinking something a little more relevant to their time? It wasn't more than mere coincidence that the Caesar of the time actually had a mark that all citizens had to put on their hand to be able to buy and sell.
But I suppose this ideology, obsessing over eschatalogical theologies and hoping for death so we can go to heaven, has something to do with how not revolutionary our faith has become. A Messiah comes and says "I have been anointed to preach good news to the poor", and we teach that to the 5% of the world that owns 1/5 of the entire worlds wealth. We live comfortably, with the A/C on at every Starbucks around the corner, with obesity plaguing the McDonalds on the other corner, and consumer materialism effectively blinding all who enter every single Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or department store in the nation.
I know my vocabulary could be considered a little over-dramatic, but seriously consider the message of Jesus. Maybe that's why we can't get people to really engage. Lack of commitment. Who would seriously want to follow all of what Jesus taught; that requires sacrifice. Material sacrifice, time sacrifice, image sacrifice, we would have to give a lot.
But that's the point, isn't it? Less is more? Downward movement? A legitimate sharing possessions? Forsaking the American dream? Can we start being a little more communal with those we don't live with? Strangers? Or will we be stuck learning about these things, intellectually, and then drive our cars to our homes and watch some television after attending our compartmentalized Sunday morning/night faith meeting.
What we've become is not equal to what we need to be.
Psh. Revolutionary my ass.
I bring this up, because even though I work at an evil Christian book store, most people who believe these things don't actually brag about it. Its prevalance is far more insidious. To the uneducated and ignorant, I've learned, this is the standard. That if you don't believe Jesus is going to come back in the inexplicably exact opposite way he came the first time, that his goal is to end everything that is wrong with the world by implementing some very similiar shit (like blowing people up with his 'holy' words - according to LaHaye), and that John was writing a letter to us and not to a 1st century community of believers then something is very wrong with you. Where have you been the past 50 years? Obviously the rapture will end all of our problems, you just have to suck it up, bury all those bad feelings with canned joy, and wait it out. Hopefully, your life will end soon enough - but don't trigger the end of your life, by God, just wait until death, because clearly life isn't worth living unless we're going to heaven when we die. That's what Jesus came for, right?
Wrong, idiots. Do you honestly think that "the people in John's church reading his letter for the first time, with Roman soldiers right outside their door, were thinking, 'this is going to be really helpful for people two thousand years from now who don't want to get left behind'," [from Jesus Wants to Save Christians, emphasis added] or were they thinking something a little more relevant to their time? It wasn't more than mere coincidence that the Caesar of the time actually had a mark that all citizens had to put on their hand to be able to buy and sell.
But I suppose this ideology, obsessing over eschatalogical theologies and hoping for death so we can go to heaven, has something to do with how not revolutionary our faith has become. A Messiah comes and says "I have been anointed to preach good news to the poor", and we teach that to the 5% of the world that owns 1/5 of the entire worlds wealth. We live comfortably, with the A/C on at every Starbucks around the corner, with obesity plaguing the McDonalds on the other corner, and consumer materialism effectively blinding all who enter every single Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or department store in the nation.
I know my vocabulary could be considered a little over-dramatic, but seriously consider the message of Jesus. Maybe that's why we can't get people to really engage. Lack of commitment. Who would seriously want to follow all of what Jesus taught; that requires sacrifice. Material sacrifice, time sacrifice, image sacrifice, we would have to give a lot.
But that's the point, isn't it? Less is more? Downward movement? A legitimate sharing possessions? Forsaking the American dream? Can we start being a little more communal with those we don't live with? Strangers? Or will we be stuck learning about these things, intellectually, and then drive our cars to our homes and watch some television after attending our compartmentalized Sunday morning/night faith meeting.
What we've become is not equal to what we need to be.
Psh. Revolutionary my ass.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Relent / Respond has been a GREAT series, as we all know. Something to unite the church in what really matters - living the life Jesus intended for us.
Most recently, we've gone through the "gifts and talents" portion of holistic formation. Honestly, this is probably the most relevant to what I've been going through recently. On the search for a career, I've grown up with this misguided idea of what I should be doing with myself and my time. Ever since I watched the movie Good Will Hunting when I was a young lad, its premise has been sitting at the back of my mind for ages. If you're intelligent, and you're not super-successful, then you're wasting your intelligence.
Just like Matt Damon wasted his intelligence by being a construction worker instead of being an awesome math guy, I've always felt like no matter what I chose to do with my life, it wouldn't be enough. I've always felt in the back of my mind that there is this mythical and elusive perfect job, that if only I would apply myself properly, I'd be able to... what, win at life? For that reason, I don't think I've honestly ever considered what I should do rather than what I could do.
I have a certain combination of abilities and talents that no other person has. I now am able to act out of these things as a result of outlining these. It seems so base and obvious, but I've honestly never got past the "mythical and elusive perfect job" mindset. I've outlined myself to be a musical and story based creator, a predisposition towards wisdom through detaching and analyzing, and certain leadership qualities (like direct speech, working better under pressure, etc). All these things come with a passion for leading younger children or teens, helping the less fortunate in my community, and creating things. Teacher, counselor, mentor... all these things would be SUCH a big help to those around me.
But where does God Himself fit into all of this? I feel like living out the teachings of Jesus by pursuing a career that fits these passions and talents and being overall less lazy honors God directly, but where is his person in all this? Unfortunately, one of my weakness is an insensitivity towards the Holy Spirit, so I guess I might need to do a little more praying.
Most recently, we've gone through the "gifts and talents" portion of holistic formation. Honestly, this is probably the most relevant to what I've been going through recently. On the search for a career, I've grown up with this misguided idea of what I should be doing with myself and my time. Ever since I watched the movie Good Will Hunting when I was a young lad, its premise has been sitting at the back of my mind for ages. If you're intelligent, and you're not super-successful, then you're wasting your intelligence.
Just like Matt Damon wasted his intelligence by being a construction worker instead of being an awesome math guy, I've always felt like no matter what I chose to do with my life, it wouldn't be enough. I've always felt in the back of my mind that there is this mythical and elusive perfect job, that if only I would apply myself properly, I'd be able to... what, win at life? For that reason, I don't think I've honestly ever considered what I should do rather than what I could do.
I have a certain combination of abilities and talents that no other person has. I now am able to act out of these things as a result of outlining these. It seems so base and obvious, but I've honestly never got past the "mythical and elusive perfect job" mindset. I've outlined myself to be a musical and story based creator, a predisposition towards wisdom through detaching and analyzing, and certain leadership qualities (like direct speech, working better under pressure, etc). All these things come with a passion for leading younger children or teens, helping the less fortunate in my community, and creating things. Teacher, counselor, mentor... all these things would be SUCH a big help to those around me.
But where does God Himself fit into all of this? I feel like living out the teachings of Jesus by pursuing a career that fits these passions and talents and being overall less lazy honors God directly, but where is his person in all this? Unfortunately, one of my weakness is an insensitivity towards the Holy Spirit, so I guess I might need to do a little more praying.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Blue Parakeet
As a measure of closure, I've decided to start reviewing books once I've finished with them.
My most recent read was titled The Blue Parakeet. It was an interesting read to say the least, about parakeets, hyenas, and the Bible. A co-worker of mine saw me reading it recently and asked me what it was about, after thinking for a moment, I responded with, "it's really just about the Bible". To which she responded, "Wow, a Christian book about the Bible. Don't see many of those." Funny, but I didn't appreciate the tone, so I went with, "He's actually one of the first authors I've read who acknowledges that the Bible makes no mention about the morality or immorality of the act of premarital sex. What do you think about that?" And she backed off.
But really, the author, Scott McKnight, makes a very convincing analogy about a Blue Parakeet. Apparently in his back yard, this blue parakeet flew in one day, out of the blue (forgive the pun), and totally freaked out his regular birds that he feeds. Every day the thing would fly in, all the sparrows and parrots would scatter and let it take whatever it wanted. Because it was so unfamiliar, the other birds didn't know how to fit it in with their day-to-day activities. The Blue Parakeet is an analogy for passages in the Bible that regular people of today scatter when we make the mention of. Things like (and he lists several), how the Gentiles can be exempt from things like divorce or circumcision in certain situations but not other laws, what the role of women is in the church, surrendering all our possessions to the poor, the death penalty - supported in the old testament and Romans 13, but not what Jesus taught, tongues, tithing, becoming "all things to all things" - I Corinthians 9:19-23, and even why the Bible seems to support an earth-centered universe.
However, Scott clearly says dozens of times that the purpose of his book is not to confront these issues head on. What he wants to do is offer a suggestion on how we are reading this book we call the Bible. The first part of his book is devoted to all the wrong ways of reading the Bible. He lists them:
1) Morsels of Law - this consists of reading the Bible to exclusively gain more knowledge and facts about morality. He quotes a friend when discussing this names F. F. Bruce, "I think that Paul would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that his words were being turned into Torah." He believes that those with this style of reading like to create a list of what not to do, and simply leave it at that.
"[In this,] God becomes the Law God, usually a little ticked off and impatient. Our relationship to God becomes conditioned by whether we are good citizens. The ugly element to the mistake of making the Bible a law book is when we consider what it does to us."
2) Morsels of Blessings and Promises - In the same way, when we divide the Bible up into little morsels of good and bad things, it becomes easier to pick and choose what we want. He quotes a friend, Edith Humphrey, when considering quotes like "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" from David and Jesus, "It is unfortunately the case that some contemporary expressions of Christianity have forgotten, or are embarrassed by, this moment of dark reflection, and instead espouse an unrealistic and warped view of spiritual victory. Relentlessly upbeat moods lead to false security and canned joy."
"It is important to know the blessings and to rely on God's promises. Please don't misunderstand, the blessings and promises of God in the Bible emerge from a real life's story that also knows that we live in a broken world and some days are legitimately tough."
3) Mirrors and Inkblots - this constitutes instead of "being swept into the Bible's story, these thinkers sweep the Bible up into their own story".
4) Puzzling together the pieces to map God's mind - We can figure God out with the Bible. Probably the one the resonated the most with me. When we turn the Bible into a map by using a man-made system, we often ignore pieces that don't fit, or find altogether that it is impossible. We try and take the writings of dozens of authors and pull them together to understand God like we would pull together dozens of 19th century authors to try to understand Charles Dickens' thinking and social ideas.
"The most frequent way we have of getting rid of the puzzling or unpleasant difficulties in the Bible is to systematize it, organizing it according to some scheme or other that summarizes 'what the Bible teaches.' If we know what the Bible teaches, we don't have to read it anymore, don't have to enter the story and immerse ourselves in the odd and unflattering and uncongenial way in which this story develops, including so many people and circumstances that have nothing to do, we think, with us."
-Eugene Peterson
5) Maestros - Maestro is defined by Scott as the master of something, or a Rabbi. He sees people looking to the Bible as a collection of Maestros under the bigger Maestro, Jesus. This is best supported by the over-popular question, "What would Jesus do?" More often than not, however, Maestro Jesus is either ignored or overwhelmed by Maestro Paul.
"Even when we dipped into the Gospels, especially at Christmas and Easter, we used maestro Paul to inform us about what Jesus was really doing and saying."
The second part of Scott's book moves into what I can only describe as his best suggestion for how we can and should read the Bible. Story. "God chose to communicate in language, since language is always shaped by context, and since God chose to speak to us over time through many writers, God also chose to speak to us in a variety of ways and expressions. Furthermore, I believe that because the gospel story is so deep and wide, God needed a variety of expressions to give us a fuller picture of the Story.
He uses a coined term called "Wiki-Storied". Basically, all the stories of the Bible, from all the different authors, are miniature versions of "The Story", which is what God wants to convey to us. Since we in the Western world are so obsessed with our individual salvation and relationship with God, we like to read the Bible as morsels or blessings and promises instead of becoming aware of our "oneness with others". This is what Scott portrays as "The Story": this "oneness with others" and "oneness with God". And it's here where he gets to be very philosophical. His writings become very deep and, honestly, pretty confusing to anyone not already engaged in dialogue with his train of thought already. He gets into this 'oneness', some 'otherness', and really gets into the idea of Eikons (which is humanity ...I think).
Thirdly, and lastly, Scott backs up his contention of The Story with some thoughts and then an examply. He's a professor by trade, and so when he brings up all sort o difficulties with the Bible to his students, the most common response he gets is "That was then, but this is now". Unfortunately for me, that doesn't begin to answer a lot of the things mentioned, but Scott seems relatively content with leaving it at that.
Mostly, he know gets into our relationship with the Bible.
He hates the authority approach to the Bible, "to make sure the Bible's authors got things right, God's spirit was at work inspiring what they wrote. Because God, who is always true, produced the Bible, it is inerrant. As God's true Word, therefore, it is our final authority, and our response to the Bible must be one of submission." He quotes the Psalmist several times to show us how we need to delight in God's commandments by praying, "I delight in your derees; I will not neglect your word (119:16)" instead of praying, "Your words are authoritative, and I am called to submit to them." I found this quite humorous.
He speaks of separating the person from the paper by using an examply of his teaching career where many professors were engaged in teaching a subject instead of teaching students. Loving the words of our spouse (for instance) instead of loving our spouse would be ridiculous, we need to begin loving God by means of his communications instead of loving his communications. I absolutely loved this idea when I read it, because for years I've used this line with a very many people "God is bigger than the Bible", and most of the people who heard it were not really able to understand it.
"If I do what God says, doesn't that show that my view of the Bible is the right one?"
"We have too many that say, 'now that you've got the right view of the Bible, you're on the right side of the angels'."
Matthew 21:28-32
"Our relationship to the God of the Bible is to listen to God so we can love him more deeply and love others more completely."
"Listening... is an act of love."
So then we come to discernment. This is where he feels it necessary to bring up several controversial topics from the Bible that are popular (and also unpopular) Blue Parakeets.
He ranges from how Jesus teaches us to be 'perfect' (Matthew 5:48), how Jesus' commandment on lust could really only apply to married people, how anger is murderous, how in most translations Jesus teaches us to recite the Lord's prayer whenever we pray (Luke 11:1-4), how gays and lesbians should participate in the church, how Gentiles are exempt from some Jewish laws like circumcision and divorce in some cases (so does that make them exempt from all but Jesus' commandments?), the death penalty, the earth-centered universe (Job 9:6, Proverbs 8:27, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:4-7, etc), the death penalty (supported in Exodus 22:18, 22:20, Leviticus 24:13, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 22:22, Numbers 15:32-36; and where it's not used, Genesis 4, Exodus 21:12-14, Numbers 35:6-34, Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Numbers 35:25), Charismatic Gifts, and the potentially devastating controversiality of I Corinthians 9:19-23 where Paul advocates becoming all things to save all peoples.
Like I said, he does not confront these issues head on, but suggests reading the Bible as a story with tradition instead of through tradition. After this, he does go into one specific (for about 4 chapters) of the role of women in the church. I'm negatively interested in this topic, so I basically skimmed it. His conclusion is the same - don't take the Bible too literally, it's a story bound by the limit of peoples' knowledge and their cultures. Always take these into account.
Very interesting read, but became kind of redundant. I recommend it!
My most recent read was titled The Blue Parakeet. It was an interesting read to say the least, about parakeets, hyenas, and the Bible. A co-worker of mine saw me reading it recently and asked me what it was about, after thinking for a moment, I responded with, "it's really just about the Bible". To which she responded, "Wow, a Christian book about the Bible. Don't see many of those." Funny, but I didn't appreciate the tone, so I went with, "He's actually one of the first authors I've read who acknowledges that the Bible makes no mention about the morality or immorality of the act of premarital sex. What do you think about that?" And she backed off.
But really, the author, Scott McKnight, makes a very convincing analogy about a Blue Parakeet. Apparently in his back yard, this blue parakeet flew in one day, out of the blue (forgive the pun), and totally freaked out his regular birds that he feeds. Every day the thing would fly in, all the sparrows and parrots would scatter and let it take whatever it wanted. Because it was so unfamiliar, the other birds didn't know how to fit it in with their day-to-day activities. The Blue Parakeet is an analogy for passages in the Bible that regular people of today scatter when we make the mention of. Things like (and he lists several), how the Gentiles can be exempt from things like divorce or circumcision in certain situations but not other laws, what the role of women is in the church, surrendering all our possessions to the poor, the death penalty - supported in the old testament and Romans 13, but not what Jesus taught, tongues, tithing, becoming "all things to all things" - I Corinthians 9:19-23, and even why the Bible seems to support an earth-centered universe.
However, Scott clearly says dozens of times that the purpose of his book is not to confront these issues head on. What he wants to do is offer a suggestion on how we are reading this book we call the Bible. The first part of his book is devoted to all the wrong ways of reading the Bible. He lists them:
1) Morsels of Law - this consists of reading the Bible to exclusively gain more knowledge and facts about morality. He quotes a friend when discussing this names F. F. Bruce, "I think that Paul would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that his words were being turned into Torah." He believes that those with this style of reading like to create a list of what not to do, and simply leave it at that.
"[In this,] God becomes the Law God, usually a little ticked off and impatient. Our relationship to God becomes conditioned by whether we are good citizens. The ugly element to the mistake of making the Bible a law book is when we consider what it does to us."
2) Morsels of Blessings and Promises - In the same way, when we divide the Bible up into little morsels of good and bad things, it becomes easier to pick and choose what we want. He quotes a friend, Edith Humphrey, when considering quotes like "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" from David and Jesus, "It is unfortunately the case that some contemporary expressions of Christianity have forgotten, or are embarrassed by, this moment of dark reflection, and instead espouse an unrealistic and warped view of spiritual victory. Relentlessly upbeat moods lead to false security and canned joy."
"It is important to know the blessings and to rely on God's promises. Please don't misunderstand, the blessings and promises of God in the Bible emerge from a real life's story that also knows that we live in a broken world and some days are legitimately tough."
3) Mirrors and Inkblots - this constitutes instead of "being swept into the Bible's story, these thinkers sweep the Bible up into their own story".
4) Puzzling together the pieces to map God's mind - We can figure God out with the Bible. Probably the one the resonated the most with me. When we turn the Bible into a map by using a man-made system, we often ignore pieces that don't fit, or find altogether that it is impossible. We try and take the writings of dozens of authors and pull them together to understand God like we would pull together dozens of 19th century authors to try to understand Charles Dickens' thinking and social ideas.
"The most frequent way we have of getting rid of the puzzling or unpleasant difficulties in the Bible is to systematize it, organizing it according to some scheme or other that summarizes 'what the Bible teaches.' If we know what the Bible teaches, we don't have to read it anymore, don't have to enter the story and immerse ourselves in the odd and unflattering and uncongenial way in which this story develops, including so many people and circumstances that have nothing to do, we think, with us."
-Eugene Peterson
5) Maestros - Maestro is defined by Scott as the master of something, or a Rabbi. He sees people looking to the Bible as a collection of Maestros under the bigger Maestro, Jesus. This is best supported by the over-popular question, "What would Jesus do?" More often than not, however, Maestro Jesus is either ignored or overwhelmed by Maestro Paul.
"Even when we dipped into the Gospels, especially at Christmas and Easter, we used maestro Paul to inform us about what Jesus was really doing and saying."
The second part of Scott's book moves into what I can only describe as his best suggestion for how we can and should read the Bible. Story. "God chose to communicate in language, since language is always shaped by context, and since God chose to speak to us over time through many writers, God also chose to speak to us in a variety of ways and expressions. Furthermore, I believe that because the gospel story is so deep and wide, God needed a variety of expressions to give us a fuller picture of the Story.
He uses a coined term called "Wiki-Storied". Basically, all the stories of the Bible, from all the different authors, are miniature versions of "The Story", which is what God wants to convey to us. Since we in the Western world are so obsessed with our individual salvation and relationship with God, we like to read the Bible as morsels or blessings and promises instead of becoming aware of our "oneness with others". This is what Scott portrays as "The Story": this "oneness with others" and "oneness with God". And it's here where he gets to be very philosophical. His writings become very deep and, honestly, pretty confusing to anyone not already engaged in dialogue with his train of thought already. He gets into this 'oneness', some 'otherness', and really gets into the idea of Eikons (which is humanity ...I think).
Thirdly, and lastly, Scott backs up his contention of The Story with some thoughts and then an examply. He's a professor by trade, and so when he brings up all sort o difficulties with the Bible to his students, the most common response he gets is "That was then, but this is now". Unfortunately for me, that doesn't begin to answer a lot of the things mentioned, but Scott seems relatively content with leaving it at that.
Mostly, he know gets into our relationship with the Bible.
He hates the authority approach to the Bible, "to make sure the Bible's authors got things right, God's spirit was at work inspiring what they wrote. Because God, who is always true, produced the Bible, it is inerrant. As God's true Word, therefore, it is our final authority, and our response to the Bible must be one of submission." He quotes the Psalmist several times to show us how we need to delight in God's commandments by praying, "I delight in your derees; I will not neglect your word (119:16)" instead of praying, "Your words are authoritative, and I am called to submit to them." I found this quite humorous.
He speaks of separating the person from the paper by using an examply of his teaching career where many professors were engaged in teaching a subject instead of teaching students. Loving the words of our spouse (for instance) instead of loving our spouse would be ridiculous, we need to begin loving God by means of his communications instead of loving his communications. I absolutely loved this idea when I read it, because for years I've used this line with a very many people "God is bigger than the Bible", and most of the people who heard it were not really able to understand it.
"If I do what God says, doesn't that show that my view of the Bible is the right one?"
"We have too many that say, 'now that you've got the right view of the Bible, you're on the right side of the angels'."
Matthew 21:28-32
"Our relationship to the God of the Bible is to listen to God so we can love him more deeply and love others more completely."
"Listening... is an act of love."
So then we come to discernment. This is where he feels it necessary to bring up several controversial topics from the Bible that are popular (and also unpopular) Blue Parakeets.
He ranges from how Jesus teaches us to be 'perfect' (Matthew 5:48), how Jesus' commandment on lust could really only apply to married people, how anger is murderous, how in most translations Jesus teaches us to recite the Lord's prayer whenever we pray (Luke 11:1-4), how gays and lesbians should participate in the church, how Gentiles are exempt from some Jewish laws like circumcision and divorce in some cases (so does that make them exempt from all but Jesus' commandments?), the death penalty, the earth-centered universe (Job 9:6, Proverbs 8:27, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:4-7, etc), the death penalty (supported in Exodus 22:18, 22:20, Leviticus 24:13, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 22:22, Numbers 15:32-36; and where it's not used, Genesis 4, Exodus 21:12-14, Numbers 35:6-34, Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Numbers 35:25), Charismatic Gifts, and the potentially devastating controversiality of I Corinthians 9:19-23 where Paul advocates becoming all things to save all peoples.
Like I said, he does not confront these issues head on, but suggests reading the Bible as a story with tradition instead of through tradition. After this, he does go into one specific (for about 4 chapters) of the role of women in the church. I'm negatively interested in this topic, so I basically skimmed it. His conclusion is the same - don't take the Bible too literally, it's a story bound by the limit of peoples' knowledge and their cultures. Always take these into account.
Very interesting read, but became kind of redundant. I recommend it!
I waste... SO much time.
Why is it that, when there is plenty to be doing, I decide to do none of it? I'm positive I'm not the only one in this boat, but what can really be done about it? Self-discipline seems to be failing at every turn, and I'm beginning to think it's because my body itself isn't active enough.
Why do we, instead of actually confronting important issues with each other, grab a beer and watch a screen? Or drink a glass of wine and see what's new on the internet? Down a shot and shoot the breeze with our group? Why are we as humans (or is it as Americans), so set on NOT being productive with each other. Why do we feel entitled to relaxation? As we put our time in at an organization that we may or may not support to get paid for, but then think that we should just shut down our mind. Then after a couple hours of shutting down our mind, we actually sleep, and shut down our bodies.
There is SO much work to be done. With each others' lives, with the lives of strangers, with living conditions of those around us, with conditions of the heart of those even closer... I can't even imagine what most of it is, but it still needs to be done. So why do we feel so content with sitting down and conversing/playing/drinking/watching/sitting?
I do believe that part of our laziness comes with shutting out the outside world. Maybe we have this idea, that if we turn a blind eye to it then it disappears. Like some kind of matured form of object permanence plaguing our minds. Maybe the only way we can do this is by exposing ourselves to a select amount of the world that we prefer to hear about. We can watch something about Africa in the news or on a documentary, but since it's so far away, it only requires very few mental resources from our daily lives. We can watch the national news, and think (accurately) that we're up on our current events, but what the hell good is that? What about local events? Events next door? In our own homes? We can involve ourselves with select lives of select members of our community of choice, but how often do we force ourselves to seriously involve ourselves with people we don't know that well or even members of a different community? *gasp*
We're not entitled to mental shut-downs, as necessary as they might be every now-and-then.
We're not exempt from involving ourselves in other peoples' lives because we do it with a few.
We're not entering into a part of our lives where we're able to just "do our part" and then quit.
Let's get back some responsibility. Let's start being productive again. Let's open our doors.
*Sigh* These words are pretty, but do I see myself doing them sooner rather than later? Not likely. But I guess if we aim at the ideal standard then things can only improve. I expect anyone reading this to hold me just as accountable as I'll probably start holding you.
Why is it that, when there is plenty to be doing, I decide to do none of it? I'm positive I'm not the only one in this boat, but what can really be done about it? Self-discipline seems to be failing at every turn, and I'm beginning to think it's because my body itself isn't active enough.
Why do we, instead of actually confronting important issues with each other, grab a beer and watch a screen? Or drink a glass of wine and see what's new on the internet? Down a shot and shoot the breeze with our group? Why are we as humans (or is it as Americans), so set on NOT being productive with each other. Why do we feel entitled to relaxation? As we put our time in at an organization that we may or may not support to get paid for, but then think that we should just shut down our mind. Then after a couple hours of shutting down our mind, we actually sleep, and shut down our bodies.
There is SO much work to be done. With each others' lives, with the lives of strangers, with living conditions of those around us, with conditions of the heart of those even closer... I can't even imagine what most of it is, but it still needs to be done. So why do we feel so content with sitting down and conversing/playing/drinking/watching/sitting?
I do believe that part of our laziness comes with shutting out the outside world. Maybe we have this idea, that if we turn a blind eye to it then it disappears. Like some kind of matured form of object permanence plaguing our minds. Maybe the only way we can do this is by exposing ourselves to a select amount of the world that we prefer to hear about. We can watch something about Africa in the news or on a documentary, but since it's so far away, it only requires very few mental resources from our daily lives. We can watch the national news, and think (accurately) that we're up on our current events, but what the hell good is that? What about local events? Events next door? In our own homes? We can involve ourselves with select lives of select members of our community of choice, but how often do we force ourselves to seriously involve ourselves with people we don't know that well or even members of a different community? *gasp*
We're not entitled to mental shut-downs, as necessary as they might be every now-and-then.
We're not exempt from involving ourselves in other peoples' lives because we do it with a few.
We're not entering into a part of our lives where we're able to just "do our part" and then quit.
Let's get back some responsibility. Let's start being productive again. Let's open our doors.
*Sigh* These words are pretty, but do I see myself doing them sooner rather than later? Not likely. But I guess if we aim at the ideal standard then things can only improve. I expect anyone reading this to hold me just as accountable as I'll probably start holding you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
