CYOA –Deut 20 – To War or Not to War? That is the Question!

The challenge of Holy War, and war condoned by God, and war initiated by God, is a challenge that always leads to unsatisfactory answers. I think it is something I will wrestle with until the day I die. I spent much of my second year at Bible College debating, considering, and reading about these war passages. What I learned was not so much a stance to hold, but the necessity to consider the situation carefully before making any pronouncements. It was a time of learning how to deconstruct. I, like Yoder (book - What would you do?), believe much of the conversation around Holy War rests on faulty premises. The most basic of these faulty premises is that there are two options, Go to War OR Don’t Go to War. I am convinced that neither of these are the correct choice, as the dichotomy finds its base in the most prevalent heresy of our time, binary thinking. The mode of thought that limits one to two options, it is neither Biblical nor God honouring. It is incredibly non-creative, and does not use critical thought, both of which God created humans to utilize while on earth to adequately image the creator. Therefore, my response to questions about war, since that point, has been the process of deconstruction; through which I believe we can perceive other ways to think about war.

Some of the questions I might pose are: If the narrative of scripture is the coming of Shalom, how then does war fit? Is there a progression within the narrative from war-> less war? Might there be other options? Given that we no longer live under theocracy, how can we legitimately state that our side is God’s side? Rather than destruction through war, are collaborative options available that might better use resources to solve the perceived conflict? Through such thought, I have concluded that both no war and war are minimalist positions, and there are many other positions that are more maximalist (conservatives in theory should be happy here) within the Biblical text and given human potential for us think through and be creative in constructing.

Here is a summary of some potential ideas of how to deal with Holy War: (My Notes from Peace and Justice class- Thank you very much Gareth Brandt)

From Joshua to Jesus (irony Jesus name was Joshua in Hebrew, Joshua was one of the most violent people in the OT)
1) Marcionism- 2nd century Gnostic pacifist- different God in OT and NT
- Problem- separates OT and NT and anti-Semitic
- contribution- honest about the obvious difference
2) Enlightenment- we choose which elements of ancient culture are usable for us
- problem- we become the highest authority
- contribution- acknowledges evolution and progression of thought- which is good
3) Allegorization – look for the deeper spiritual meaning of the violence (Origen -more what God is really like)
- Problem- doesn’t help us deal with the text- spiritual may be true but does not deal with history
- contribution- long history, shows us deeper realities
4) Sovereignty- we don’t question God’s ways “God’s ways are higher than ours”
- problem- pious concern to not taint God, if we can’t say something God did was bad we can’t call anything he did as good either
- contribution- let God be God, we don’t have to explain everything
5) Justice- there were various just causes for violence e.g. rid the nation of evil, punish wrong doing, distinguished good and bad violence, salvific or redemptive violence, just war by Augustine
- problem – doesn’t explain all acts of violence, there are some that do not seem to be redemptive, inconsistent use of scripture- lack of unity in OT and NT- OT as a social ethic and NT as a personal ethic, does not recognise the social political message of Jesus
- Contribution- it helps us understand some wars, and it explains the Christian involvement in war for the past 1500 years
6) Liberation – the uprisings of the oppressed but not the massive armaments of superpowers, primarily looking at the exodus
- problem it only explains some wars, inconsistent with the love ethic of Jesus
- contribution- God is concerned for the oppressed
7) Miracle – Divine intervention was meant to teach people to place their trust in Yahweh and not in their own weapons, wars are fought from a place of weakness, this sees Yahweh as a warrior, sometimes fought against Israel as well as for
- problem- reconciling Yahweh the warrior with Jesus the lover, we are called to be pacifists because God is not, different motivation for pacifism
- Contribution- obey and have faith in God, treats the OT and NT the same that the point is to obey
8) Progression- OT wars are partial, temporary ethic for a particular nation fulfilled by the superior ethic of Christ for all nations in the New Testament. Anabaptist- all war and violence is evil in lens of Jesus, progressive revelation and OT fades in validity for the superior Jesus mandate Hebrews 1:1-2, OT wars would be seen as ritualistic (Renee Gerard- French anthropologist- scape goat theology of Christ and in the OT)
- problem- doesn’t take the OT seriously enough
- contribution- sees Jesus as the complete revelation of God, Christo-centric
9) Projection- Violent commands and portrayals of God are the product of peoples and authors projecting their own violence on God, anthropological basis, interpreting the wars after the fact and interpreting it in relation to the specific culture they were in, it describes rather than prescribes, we should not read our current questions onto their culture and their world view, would tell us that Humans are not as much about God, God works within culture and does not destroy it,
- problem- not a high enough view of inspiration of scripture
- contribution- it shows the complexity of divine human interaction
10) Involvement- A description of how God is involved in all human affairs, even those that seem morally repugnant, he is active in judgement and redemption in violence, with Jesus there is a more complete understanding of God, God has not changed but the human experience of God has changed, Jesus was a major change in this process
- problem- how does a loving and Holy God work through violence and evil
- contribution- shows how God is and incarnate God and involved in humans, he is always with human beings


That ends my little prologue about war in general. There are no answers, only better questions.

Now to Deuteronomy 20 – A what did Silas notice section:

• Chapter 19 ends with the Lex Talionis (Law of the Tooth) – Jesus had something to say about that, maybe his teaching of compassion and being least (Matt 5:38-42) also has relevance to the Holy War section.
• v.3 “Here, O Isreal” – by my count this is the 5th time this little phrase is used in Deuteronomy in full (Deut 4:1, 5:1, 6:4 the most famous “Shema”, 9:1, and partial in 10:12, 27:9). What this shows me is this section is a rally cry for the nation of Israel, evidenced in the shema, as understood as “Listen O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh Alone” defining Yahweh not as philosophical oneness (a poor anachronistic understanding), but as Israel’s God compared to the other gods of the region. Thus, Deut 20 needs to be understood in its context as one God among many doing battle, not the monotheism of Christianity somehow doing battle against non-entities, or worse against people who are “other” than “us”.
• Avoiding going to war is acceptable. v.5-8 gives a number of excuses to avoid being a part of war. (Some may argue these mean this or that, but I see it as meaning war is not the trump card. In a sense, other priorities ought to come before war.)
• Offer peace. If any part of this passage causes me to squirm it is this section v.10-15. As it seems to be a façade of peace, not actual shalom. This same type of peace offered here sounds remarkably similar to the Pax Romana, which Jesus fought ideologically with his entire life. Thus to state that God offers Pax Israela here only to contradict this type of Pax in the Gospels is the point where I see the most dissonance within the Bible.
• God is an environmentalist. I love v.19-20. “Destroy all the people…but there is no need to go overboard, make sure you are careful which trees you cut down when you are building your siege ramps”. I like is because it states that the environment has an intrinsic value, not to be usurped by the fleeting disagreements of humanity.

Redemption of Solomon

Thinking about the blog today…manual labour provides the opportunity to let ones mind wander because it is mindless. However, rather than think about many different things I end up going over one thing many times. I think I am becoming more aware of my obsessive-compulsive side. Today I thought about the blog. I have not been posting much lately; life is busy when over 12 hours of my day are tied to getting to work, working and getting home. So contemplating this dilemma, I have decided to return to some of my previous work and share that with you.

The past two year I was a teaching assistant for a first year New Testament Survey course. For this, I created a series of devotionals to share. Over the next few weeks, I am going to share modified versions of those on this blog. These will be somewhat different from what I normally post, but hopefully they are informative and worthwhile to read. By “reusing” ideas for the next few weeks, I hope to be able to post more often even with my time restrictions. My second reason for sharing these is that they articulate some of my fundamental approaches to reading the text. Third, Duncan and I are working toward a mini series on Empire, a discussion initiated by the comments in the “Extremist Religion” blog. Some of my devotionals begin articulating and imaging empire, so are worth sharing as part of that bigger, ongoing, discussion.

Without further ado: Solomon

Begin by reflecting on the standards we (you and I) fail to live up to. It is probably not hard, your mind has probably jumped to some perceived standard. I don’t think it is a stretch for each of us to think of how we have failed to live up to standard set for us, as well as standards that we set up for ourselves.

We often fail. We know what it is to come up short. The feeling of disappointment, shame, guilt, are well known acquaintances if we are honest. This blog has been an outlet to perceived shortcomings in faith, employment, and social norms. Often I find myself wishing I better met the standards set for me. But this failure is our existence, so why am I bringing this up? Is this another guilt trip? Am I here to make you bring to mind things of the past? Is this a common Christianeese slap on the wrist? Maybe my purpose is to wallow a little while in the things that each of us wishes we would never need to return to or even think about again.

No. This is where we begin. This is a common convergence of our humanity. We begin here, often we return here. Failure to meet the standards is a place of existence. But, it is a place we do not wish to remain. Yet, even though I do not wish to remain with this feeling, I often feel stuck in this place.

Are you with me? Is the realization we do not meet the standards set before us a real experience? Is it true for you? For me it is.

Where does one go from here though? What are we to do with these feelings of failure, shame, guilt, and incompetence?

Solomon is where I find the possibility of solace. Turning to the person of Solomon to ponder together what it means to live after realizing our failure to reach the standards set before us.

The standard set before Solomon is presented in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
The King
14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel. (NIV)

Here we have the standard. The standard set to prevent Empire. But then we read of reality:
• Wives – 1 Kings 11:1-4
1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

• Large amounts of silver and gold – 1 Kings 10:14-17
14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,[e] 15 not including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the territories.
16 King Solomon made two hundred large shields of hammered gold; six hundred shekels of gold went into each shield. 17 He also made three hundred small shields of hammered gold, with three minas of gold in each shield. The king put them in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon.

• Horses – 1 Kings 10:26-29
26 Solomon accumulated chariots and horses; he had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem. 27 The king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees in the foothills. 28 Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue—the royal merchants purchased them from Kue at the current price. 29 They imported a chariot from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty. They also exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and of the Arameans.

• Law – 1 Kings 11:4-6
4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

If anyone did not meet the standards set out, it was Solomon. This is not how the majority of people think of Solomon, but Biblically he is not the role model of good behaviour. So here we are, the OT ends and the character of Solomon gets mixed reviews at best.

This, however, is not the end. The biblical narrative is not over. Jesus changes this, Luke 11:31 “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here.” – Jesus is the one greater than Solomon. Within the creativity of the biblical narrative, Jesus subverts the personhood of Solomon. From beyond time, past to future, future to past, redemption occurs for the character of Solomon. The character of Solomon has not been completed Biblically, he is not done, Solomon re-emerges and is completed in Christ. I love this part of Biblical study, somehow, beyond the life of the individual, literarily and beyond reason Christ alters the standards. From beyond time Christ comes and is sufficient for the standards.

Solomon, again, re-emerges in Acts. The tale is yet to be complete. In Acts the first great miracle is explained at Solomon’s colonnade (Acts 3:6-11). This action occurs at a location marked by the namesake of Israel’s empire. It is as if the kingdom that has arrived through Christ, which is a kingdom of healing, supersedes and replaces the abuse and harm done by Solomon. The Christ, and now Christ’s followers redeem the character of Solomon. The healing, signs, and wonders continue throughout Acts, and the people of the Kingdom continue to meet at Solomon’s colonnade (Acts 5:12).

So back to us. Do we really believe that? Is it a real possibility to live with an openness to being freed from the standards we fail to live up to? Do we truly live as though Christ is the one redeeming us? Do we actually believe that Christ is meeting and even exceeding the standards set before ourselves? Do we live in an openness to be redeemed from beyond time? Could we be redeemed by the actions of others many generations from now, just as the character of Solomon is redeemed by the early church? Because if we do, if we could live like this even a little it would undermine all the negative shame, guilt, and feelings of incompetence we experience when we do not meet standards.

CYOA: Ecclesiastes - Useless Beauty

There's not much to write home about. God hasn't made it easy for us. I've seen it all and it's nothing but smoke—smoke, and spitting into the wind.

15 Life's a corkscrew that can't be straightened,
A minus that won't add up.

17 I hate life. As far as I can see, what happens on earth is a bad business. It's smoke—and spitting into the wind20-23 That's when I called it quits, gave up on anything that could be hoped for on this earth. What's the point of working your fingers to the bone if you hand over what you worked for to someone who never lifted a finger for it? Smoke, that's what it is. A bad business from start to finish. So what do you get from a life of hard labor? Pain and grief from dawn to dusk. Never a decent night's rest. Nothing but smoke.  So I made up my mind that there's nothing better for us men and women than to have a good time in whatever we do—that's our lot. Who knows if there's anything else to life?

9-10 It's better to have a partner than go it alone.
Share the work, share the wealth.
And if one falls down, the other helps,

But if there's no one to help, tough!

11 Two in a bed warm each other.
Alone, you shiver all night.
12 By yourself you're unprotected.
With a friend you can face the worst.
Can you round up a third?
A three-stranded rope isn't easily snapped.

Anything's possible. It's one fate for everybody—righteous and wicked, good people, bad people, the nice and the nasty, worshipers and non-worshipers, committed and uncommitted. I find this outrageous—the worst thing about living on this earth—that everyone's lumped together in one fate. Is it any wonder that so many people are obsessed with evil? Is it any wonder that people go crazy right and left? Life leads to death. That's it

Above are some verses pearl stringed together from Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is my favourite book of the Bible, which should immediately tell you a lot about me. CBC professors were forced to choose between Genesis and Revelation at a school event - they can have them, I want Ecclesiastes. More than any other book in the Bible, when I read Ecclesiastes I clearly see the world I live in. Ecclesiastes is often considered one of the two most dangerous books in the Bible, the other being Song of Songs. Why? Because nothing is more threatening to the status-quo than sex and meaninglessness. As human beings, we are wired for meaning, we crave it, create it, seek it, and in the face of meaninglessness we are apt to lose our minds. What happens when the myths, stories, goals, and values of our society our shown to be dust in the wind? Well we might opt out, or try and change, or some other very unhelpful thing which will disturb society's sense of normalcy. We might: be homeless for a summer, or not get a job, or riot, who knows? The sky is the limit! Only our imagination holds us back.

Eugene Peterson wrote in on of his books that Ecclesiastes is the palate cleansing book that prepares one for the gospel - that we need a really strong drink of reality in order to grasp the beauty and the power of the gospel. Ecclesiastes represents a sort of intellectual anti-wisdom. It presents a stumbling block to anyone who might be tempted to take proverbs or other "promises" too concretely. I read a book this week by Robert K. Johnston on Ecclesiastes that allowed modern cinema to speak into the themes of meaning and having started with the films then brought Ecclesiastes into the conversation. Movies like: American Beauty, Signs, About Schmidt, Run Lola Run, Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Crimes and Misdemeanors... Belief in the value of bringing art and culture into conversation with the Bible and theology in a two way, mutually informing dialogue is rare and precisely why I am going to Regent this fall. Some of you will note the scandal of suggesting that a movie like Boogie Nights could be worth watching "despite" its strong and explicit sexual content. However, this amusingly highlights why Song of songs is the other "most dangerous book." Christians often are very concerned with censoring the content of art, music, movies, culture and even thought. Amusingly the Bible with its, violence, sexuality, genocide, incest etc. probably wouldn't make it past our own review board.

What does Ecclesiastes teach us? Life is chaos! Deal with it! Embrace it! Enjoy it when you can because life is also a gift from God - and as a gift it can only be received rather than taken.

Or to put another way: Life is more like surfing than it is like building a house.

Do you believe that the universe has rules that God has put in place that if you follow you will be able to enjoy life and experience abundance? Do you believe that if you are a good person that things will be good and happy? Do you believe that everything happens for a reason? Do you believe that if you are a Christian that God guarantees you stuff? your life? money? food? Get a reality check, read Ecclesiastes and look around the world.

I think Ecclesiastes is the key to Paul's secret to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:9). Everything is meaningless but life is still a gift.

Be dangerous! Embrace the chaos! Face the void! Find faith! Find Freedom!

CYOA - Ecclesiastes 4:1-3

1 Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:

I saw the tears of the oppressed and they have no comforter; 
power was on the side of their oppressors and they have no comforter. 
2 And I declared that the dead, who had already died, 
are happier than the living, who are still alive. 
3 But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 describes my thoughts about life in Africa exactly. Death is better than life with evil, while the unborn have it best. I have read no verse in the Bible (since my return) that rings truer than this “I saw the tears of the oppressed and they have no comforter; 
power was on the side of their oppressors and they have no comforter.” (emphasis mine) What does this mean? Does it mean that the oppressed did not know God and therefore could not know his comfort? Must you know God to experience his comfort? Does God show his comfort to non-believers? What is God’s comfort? What does it look like? Does it indeed look the comfort a mother shows her child as suggested in Is. 66:13 and Ps. 103:13? Does God dry your tears and bandage your wounds? Does he anticipate your every need and take care of it? If so, I have not experienced it, nor has the author of Ecclesiastes. If God is a comforter but the oppressed do not have him and we do not experience it what good is our belief? Why continue to beg for comfort? How can we continue to hold our hands open to the possibility of comfort when it causes so much disappointment and un-fulfillment?

I feel like a child with gapping wounds on my knees and face after taking a fall while running down a steep paved hill. I want a hug, band aids, and someone to put patches on my pants and to wipe the tears from my eyes. Often when I tell people that I am angry with God because I did not feel his love or comfort in Africa they ask me to clarify my definition of the terms and encourage me to think about God’s definition versus my definition. They ask me about my expectations and timeline; what level of comfort I expected and how quickly I expected to get it. My response is, how long does a child wait for someone to bandage their bloody knees? How long do we wait for God’s comfort? Is God’s comfort part of the already not yet state of the kingdom? When will comfort arrive? If a child is not comforted when they have experienced pain, will they live? Yes, but how will their thinking and beliefs be affected? Will their development be damaged? How long do we wait for God’s comfort? How damaged must we become before he responds? How do we explain the gap between the promises of Is. 66:13; Ps. 103:13 and the reality of Ecc. 4:1?

Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes

So not at all sure what to write about this book. Wednesday has come and I have not got around to writing my CYOA, now crunch time is here. So if you are expecting something profound stop reading now this is going to be a ramble.

When I opened up the book, I saw I had underlined a few sections. This is something I took to doing while reading much of the OT last year during the time I lived in East Africa. So I am going to meander through a few of the the underlined sections.

“There is nothing new under the sun” – There is peace here for me knowing that if the worst comes to it my death will be one of many on the earth today, non-spectacular, ordinary and therefore freeing. So much for the pressures of life they are all small, and in the grand scheme of the cosmos they are quite minute.

“For with much wisdom come much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief” – I think I have experienced this as I have become conscientious of reality in the past years. Never more so than in Africa, realizing and learning about the incredible disparity between where people want to be in their standard of living and their lived reality. This can truly only lead to grief and sorrow for those who truly see. Ignorance is bliss.

“A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment” – This is my reality as I work a job I hate. I commute 3 hours a day, and then work in isolation doing backbreaking labour. Meaningless, meaningless, it pays the bills and if I did not cling to my small hope of doing something more meaningful, in the future, the despair of my current situation would be overwhelming. It has come to a point where each day seems like I spend it counting down till my death (ok that is hyperbole, but when the day is spent counting down minutes to each break and the end of the day it seems like waiting for death to come, because the count down will finally end. Such is life when the first thought when I wake up is looking forward to going to bed at the end of the day).

So that is it. I need to go to bed. Blog out.

A Toast

As a recent college alumnus who has noticed fall approaching I would like to propose a toast to commemorate the passing season,

Here’s to doing unemployment well: to becoming a co-author, local artist and blogger; to an exploration of creation, destruction and creation, through destruction; to empty wombs and saying no to illicit drugs; to trying to live poor responsibly and living poor; to free scones at Starbucks; to public spaces; to recovered stolen vehicles; to making the choice to get out of bed today; to being better than the next guy; and to asking others to move your feet, one in front of the other, when you can not do it yourself.

Cheers

You And I, by Gaga – My reading of this text

Brilliance, as always. Maybe I am not critical enough of Gaga but I am always astounded at her level of insight into life, her creativity, and musical genius. Her latest video “You And I”, released on Tuesday, is no exception.

At a first glance, you might notice…country music? Yup, a brave attempt to cross musical boundaries, I think she accomplishes it successfully. You also might notice that the video is highly sexual, I think there is a Freudian influence in understanding existence through sex, the lack there of sex, and developmental stages of sexual maturity. One will also notice Gaga’s fashion statements. Personally, I like what she has done with the Mugler shoulders, specifically the frilly outfit. But beyond these things I think in this video she is making a more major statement, a statement about relationship.

For those of you who do not follow Gaga religiously there is something you ought to know, as of her latest album, “Born this Way”, she embarked on a narrative of “Pop Culture is our religion”. She tweeted this before the album released and it has been evident in the videos “Born this way” and “Judas”. It is an interesting narrative as this religion has moved from “The fame” (her first album – the creation), to “Fame Monster” (her second album – the deconstruction), and now the recreation in “Born This Way” (her third major album). So whenever she releases a new video I am excited by what she is going to say through it. The video for “You And I” at first confused me as I could not find the tie into the narrative she has been building. Is she taking a break from the discussion of pop culture as our religion? No, I think she has moved on to her Epistles. After watching the video a few more times I think she is moving into virtue as defined relationally and the virtue of relationship, very similar to the movement Paul makes in his Epistles. Thus, I conclude “You And I” is a look into the interpersonal relational aspects of religious existence.

The whole video is quite confusing. Gaga even acknowledges this, "The video is quite complex in the way that the story is told, and it's meant to be slightly linear and slightly twisted and confusing, which is the way that love is." Her Facebook statuses referring to this movie include “Love is a Result. We bare an Unbearable Human Inability: to just be.” and “You must love all + every part of me, as must I, for this complex + incomprehensible force to be true.” Interesting insights into relationship.

Here is my reading of the video. The journey begins with an acknowledgement of the pain and grotesqueness of the journey. Often the “cushy” depiction of Christianity, or any other religion, is misleading. There is pain, angst, emotional bleeding, maybe even physical bleeding, all of which usually find their roots in the others one co-journeys with, because religious experience necessitates relationship with others. This pain is exhibited in abandonment by friends, shortcomings of others, intentional self-serving at the cost of the other, or even cheap answers intended for good that end up being severely painful. Therefore, the opening of Gaga’s video is a blatant acknowledgement of pain caused by being in relationship with others. I find this to be an honest warning about the potential harm one opens himself or herself to when embarking on the journey.

The video also contains an interesting interplay of gender roles (as per normal for Gaga). As she plays both people in the piano scenes, she continues to facilitate a dialogue of sexual identity and journey. This is one of her ongoing conversations within her videos, which all contemporary religions need to discuss in order to be relevant. This is her major discussion in her video “Born this way”, it is because of her willingness to participate in the conversation openly that her religion is growing while timid Christianity continues to wallow in its inability to have the conversation. This journey and conversation is implicitly relational, as we are not defined in isolation but by relationships with others. Religion must be functional, so when Christianity (here I make a big generalization) is too afraid to facilitate the conversation everyone is having the forum is taken elsewhere. These difficult, but necessary, conversations often end up being facilitated by the prophets of the time, who are only later recognized for what they are and the value they have given by facilitating the conversation, in this case, she is a prophetess. A final note on gender and sexuality in this video is the scene where she kisses herself, as it is an interesting statement about self-love, which is central to her religion. This is very similar to Christianity, specifically the statement in the gospels to love others as yourself. Self-love is necessary as it is a precondition to altruism and empathy.

Relationships are inherently full of violence and chaos; this is exhibited in Gaga’s depiction of the love and relationship in this video. The act of binding to another is a destructive event, as it requires some change of self-identity in order to bind to another. Love is also inherently violent and evil (see the Zizek video in Duncan’s “Wandering the Wilderness” post). Gaga captures the violence and destruction inherent in relationships through the violent imagery in this video.

Relationship, however, is worth the violence and chaos. I see this in the video as there is a movement from depictions of being bound to scenes of freedom. These are the Frankenstein scene and the leather-strap dance scene that progress into the mermaid scenes, the arrival of legs, and acceptance of self within relationship; all of which come near the end of the video.

The other aspect of relationships that Gaga tells of is the virtue of flexibility. The video moves from a mechanical nature of relationship (metal prosthetics), which is then contrasted to the mythical nature of relationships (mermaid). I think this shift speaks to the need for structure when entering into relationship but the need for increasing flexibility and creativity to further relationships.

Beyond relationship being explored within the video, this video is a new level of vulnerability for Gaga herself, in her relationship with her little monsters (fans). This occurs as she shows a very “normal” shot of herself at the piano (which is abnormal for Gaga). In doing so, she continues to reinvent and creatively redefine the mother monster relationship building a depth, which is not accomplished by stagnant personas.

The line that probably stands out to a first time watcher is, “There are only three men I will serve my whole life, My Daddy, Nebraska, and Jesus Christ”. This offers a threefold articulation of the relational nature of life. There are family (already existent relationships), friends/coupling/environment – Nebraska (new relationships, discovery – Nebraska most likely is a euphemism for Gaga’s on again, off again relationship with her male partner), and Jesus Christ articulates a spiritual side to relationships that defies objective understanding.

This whole movie then finishes with the final scenes of companionship of two very different individuals. Despite all of the angst, chaos, differences, pain, and struggle, relationship overcomes and there is final companionship that overcomes seemingly insurmountable barriers – mermaid sex.

Wandering in the Wilderness...2

Photographic recreations of famous paintings - more here

If anyone was uncertain what the actual orthodox view on Genesis 1 was here is Orthodox Archbishop of Canada Lazar Puhalo to clear things up (Thanks Dan):

Tim Minchin on Palestine (Thanks Matty):

And on Christmas (but be sure to check out his song "Predjudice" as well):

There is a project to build an ark http://arkencounter.com/ in Kentucky they are trying to raise 24 million. I would be more excited if it was a statement about global warming... (Thanks Nate)

CYOA: Genesis 1 and Pluralism

I cannot read Genesis 1 without thinking about pluralism. In my final semester at college, I took a course called Theological Confessions in which I delivered a presentation titled after a book by Marjorie Suchocki, “A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism.” It was an enlightening experience to argue for pluralism, as the idea is so often deemed heretical in Christian circles and neglected of careful thought. I was inspired by Marjorie Suchocki, a retired theologian of 12 years from Claremont School of Theology in California, who celebrates religious pluralism based on a theology of divinity and diversity that emerges from Genesis 1. This post will summarize her perspective pertaining to this passage.

Suchocki works out of a process-relational theology where relationships are integral to identity and existence and where people exist based on their creative response to physical and psychical relationships. She claims that God also exists in creative response to relationships.

Suchocki makes the case for religious diversity by looking at Genesis 1 through a relational worldview. She develops a “call and response” theology based on creation out of chaos. This “call and response” is exemplified in God’s call “let there be light” where creation is wooed into becoming and creation’s response is that there is light (Suchochi 25). God in turn responds to creation with judgment “the light was good”. This proves that we have a God who actively responds to the world in each moment. Naturally, God’s calls and responses lead to diversity.

Suchocki views religions under this same “call and response” theology. “The call and response theology of creation requires diversity not only in the environmental world, but also, given the increase in freedom and the consequent creation of culture, it requires diversity in the religious world as well. If God is involved in the forms of religion we call Judaism and Christianity, then he is involved in all forms of religion” (Suchoki 34). For example, in the Christian phenomenon God was involved in calling together Jews and Gentiles to a new form of community. Meanwhile he was still involved in the evolution of Judaism. Surely as God was involved in Jewish, Roman and Greek culture so to would he be involved in other cultures (Suchoki 33-34).

Now we ask: is it possible in this world for the varying religions to represent various calls of God to various people in their own contexts? Is the story of Genesis 1 everyone’s story or is it one of many? How do we live as Christians in a pluralistic society?

This is only the beginning of Suchocki’s case for multiple truths and an introduction to her understanding of Christ’s radical presence in all religions.

Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt. Divinity and Diversity: A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism.Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003. 1-125. Print.

CYOA – Genesis 1 – Smorgasbord

I am not sure what to write about Genesis 1. It is not because I have no ideas, but rather there are too many. I am grateful for Duncan’s palace/temple post, which I just read as I was finishing this because it says a lot and I therefore do not need to repeat that excellent reading of this text. Nevertheless, I find my thoughts scattered as this section of scripture forms and shapes much of my theology, but it seems like too big a conversation to fit into a blog. This is the passage I have spent the most time with of all of the Bible. From the realization in grade three, when we were doing the days of creation, that this is an illogical story (how could there be light without the sun!), all the way to my final college class where I learned to read this text in Hebrew, and everywhere in between this story has been pondered. There is too much to say so this will not be a nice blog to read but a smattering of ideas.
• This text is myth (in the good sense) meant to be read as theological story, telling us about God, not as science, something the text was never meant to convey. (there is much ambiguity around whether day means 24 hour day or “a period of time”…both of which miss the point that it is a story about God and what God is creating “palace/temple” not how or when the world was created.
• The story begins with a title, the first verse is most likely a title, so the plot actually begins with chaos
• Most likely compiled and put into its final form during the Babylonian exile, this texts context depicts a God of order in perceived chaos (exile as essential chaos…can’t have redemption and reconciliation without the lack there of, thus defined by what it is not)
• It tells of a God who is not at war to create (contrary to other ancient creation stories), but creates through ordering, (and intentionally with disorder in sequence, e.g. light before sun)
• Forming and Filling – First three days form, second set of three fill
• Contains ancient cosmology of a firmament between two seas, one above and one below. (I am pretty sure no one believes this is the case anymore, so I find it funny when literalist attempt to state this as science, then claiming the flood was the break or something. This argument totally misses the point of the first 11 Chapters of Genesis, which are all mythical truth (There my cards are out, these 11 chapters are story). It is a story of creation, choice, consequence, care, and God’s guidance as we attempt to move forward into recreation, then poor choice again and the cycle continues) – side note: this reminded me of a C.S. Lewis quote, that God is proud of us even in our stumbles. Like a proud parent watching a toddler take a few steps then fall, not angry at the fall, but ready to help the toddler attempt a few steps again.
• Birds are to bird, creepers are to creep, living beings/souls (animals) are supposed to live. Intentional Hebrew word play for communicating “being” of creation, not necessary purpose or productivity
• God does not like Mondays, the second day of the week was not proclaimed good.
• The stars and moon get little attention compared to their importance of the cultures surrounding Israel
• Intention was that the sea and sky were to swarm swarms, so now that we have effectively killed off the swarms of fish we have really messed that up
• Ambiguity of gender, how do you read it…Male and female he created them, or Male AND female he created them. I would go with this gender in the first chapter is non-important. There are both genders but there is no role in this first chapter. One Jewish reading is that people at this point contained both sexes which were later split.
• Rule and subdue – tend and care for, serve and protect, have dominion and dominate, be a servant of… your choice I guess
• Man in our image…to follow up on Duncan’s post…the last thing done in a temple is the placing of an idol, and idol that reflects the God it images. Reflects in more than appearance but function as well. Thus, humans are the idol of God, we are to reflect God on earth. This also explains why idolatry was such a bad sin in the Bible, it does not only undermine God but undermines humanity’s role in the world, we then are abdicating our position. Things go wrong when we relinquish our position of care giver/authority…ex idolatry of the economic system, things get out of control when they are detached for the humans who are in them.
• Chapter 3 - I had to put this in because it is so intriguing…The words for naked and cunning/crafty are incredibly close to the same word in the Hebrew. A trade occurs naked for the serpent’s craftiness. I think it is a word play. Maybe showing of the intention always was for the people to realize that they were naked?

So there you have it a number of my thoughts. Lots of run-on ideas, I hope it made some sense. Maybe there was even a new nugget of information you picked up. I would love it if you (readers) would post which idea was your favourite/new idea or if you have an idea of your own I did not state, post it in the comments section.

CYOA: Genesis 1 - Dupes and Troglodytes

OK, I have held almost every view of Genesis 1 at one point or another. I was for a while during my youth a zealous young earth creationist. I have also been of the "it doesn't matter" perspective. And I currently hold that a literary approach to the Bible, and Genesis one in particular, is the best in determining meaning. One of the problems with Genesis 1 is that the question is rarely Genesis 1 but rather your view of scripture, and culture and science etc. This quote from Rick Watts of Regent College sums it up well:

"how one reads Genesis 1 has in some circles become a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy, whether conservative or liberal. Hold the "wrong" view and one is either a dupe of secular critical theory or a troglodyte literalist" - Rick Watts, Making Sense of Genesis 1

Having not held the literal view for sometime, I am always surprised at how difficult it is for most people to change positions from a literal perspective. In my first semester at CBC in Ken Esau's Old Testament survey a 30 minute lecture on the different Christian perspectives of Genesis 1 easily convinced me that my dogmatic literalism on the topic was foolish. I, for some reason, found it very easy to change positions at that time and in that context. Perhaps in my conversations with people on this topic I have done a bad job of explaining myself or for some other reason it has been the wrong time or context for them. In my Timothy and Titus class I presented dogmatic Genesis 1 literalism as a false teaching which I had been delivered from.

The most interesting suggestion I have heard recently via N.T. Wright, during his talk at Christian Life Assembly -Langley, that an Ancient Near Eastern person hearing Genesis 1 would immediately understand it as the building of a temple. Rick Watts, in his article linked above, also touches on this and much of my post will be a condensed and paraphrased version of his amazing scholarship. Therefore if you just want to skip the middle man you can go directly to "page 42" and read the full article, it's not really that long. Here's another tantalising quote:

the essential first step to knowledge, even and perhaps especially in that highest and holiest of all modern callings, science. All of us, Christians and scientists together, simply have to take a great deal on trust, to assume much, if we are ever to get started on the path to knowing. The saying is sure, without assuming something no one shall know anything. But having said that, it is important regularly to reassess those assumptions in the light of our growing knowledge and in doing so to recognize that truth in this kind of historical and literary endeavour is much more a matter of coherence than of certainty. - Rick Watts

A literary approach demands that we take the text very seriously and on its own terms, therefore the issue of genre becomes the opening question. Three things are significant to note: the large amount of repetition, the structure of forming and filling - following the description of the earth as formless and empty, and finally there is a progression from heaven to earth in the creative acts. So the problem is that within the Bible this particular style is utterly unique. It does not look or read like either Hebrew poetry or standard historical prose. I agree with Watts that the highly structured and stylized form indicates a "poetic character" to the text and we should be alert to the possibility of hyperbole, metaphor, and symbol rather than expecting literal concrete history.

When looking across various ancient cultural origin stories it is easy to realize that they all agree that a God brought order out of chaos what they disagree about is which God. Therefore Genesis 1 cannot and is not trying to answer the question "Is there a God?" (a very modern question) but rather "Which God ordered creation into existence out of chaos?"

Creation is an act of speech, highlighting Elohim's supreme kingly power. However, creation through speech is not unique. The Hopi say that Spider Woman sang the world into existence, Ethiopians believe God created both the world and himself by saying his own name, Australian Aboriginals also have an account of creation being sung into existence (Cameron, 43), and the Egyptian God Atum creates animal life by command (Watts). Watts highlights some of the very interesting similarities and differences between other origin stories and Genesis 1. I think that this is a much more profitable approach to determining the truth intended by the text. Context, Context, Context!

Ok, so why the days if we're not talking about literal days? In the Canaanite story of Baal's destruction of Yam (which may or may not be a creation story) after Baal's victory there is a 7 day building program that results in a house/temple for Baal. Similarly in the Bible Yahweh's temple as built by Solomon is built in 7 years (1 Kings 6:37-38). The Bible is filled with architectural imagery when describing creation (Ps 18:15; 82:5; 102:25; 104:5; Prov 8:29; Isa 51:13,16; 2 Sam 22:8,16; Zech 12:1; cf. 2 Sam 22:8).

"Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool" Isaiah 66:1 i.e. All of creation is God's palace/temple.

Furthermore, on day six when the temple/palace is nearly complete the final creative act is to place God's image (humanity) into the temple.

Finally, I would like to point out that Genesis 1 moves from dark, formless and empty to shalom (peace/rest). This is a salvation story because it promises God's ability to ultimately bring shalom, which becomes the primary plot of the Bible. The story culminates in Revelation with the New Jerusalem, a global temple/city, coming down to earth and the full unification of heaven and earth and Sabbath rest is enjoyed forever.

Genesis 1 does not answer the question "is there a God" or "how did God create" (in the scientific sense), Genesis 1 speaks to "who is God?" "why did God create?" "who are we?" and "why were we created?" These questions are of the utmost importance in defining identity and relationships: to God and creation and each other. The lack of science, or scientific interest in this account makes it's truth claims no less powerful nor does scientific discovery diminish it's importance in value.

To limit our definition of truth to the material and concrete is to diminish existence to such a degree as to make it into something else entirely.

Works Cited: Rick Watts, Making sense of Genesis 1 ; Julia Cameron, The Vein of Gold

Wandering in the wilderness...

As we have wandered the wilderness of the intertubes we have found many awful and wonderful things. Here are some highlights:


Jesus Potter Harry Christ - A new book about the similarities between the Characters but coming to a much different conclusion than we have but the book has a great cover!


Fixing the American Economy - Scott Adams to the rescue with the power of imagination


In case you haven't watch any Zizek yet here is a couple videos:


This one is amazing (1 hr and 30 min)

This one is on ecology (11 minutes)

This one is on love (2 minutes)

HIV cures cancers! - New leukemia treatment exceeds 'wildest expectations' So much for people clinging to plague theory. Brilliant! - Thanks Adam.


Taylor Mali - On teachers vs lawyers...

George Watsky - On starting his own church...

Harry Potter Cartoon - about Harry not doing homework

And one last piece of spoken word as linked in a comment on CYOA - Look to the Snake

Transportation Trouble

Last week my car was stolen. I had left the keys inside and the club on the back seat. I didn’t have theft insurance. I am an idiot.

About a week later, I took my bike to the shop to get a tune-up because the chain had no oil on it, the spiky discs were rusty, and the brake levers were in two different places as a result of my last crash. I ran 9.7km to the bike shop to pick it up days later. The ride back to my place was perfect; the bike was in great condition.
The next day, I got up extra early to go pick blueberries on a farm to earn some money hoping to supplement my life as an author. Apparently you need to bring your own buckets when you pick blueberries, so I strapped a rather large light blue pail to the outside of my red backpack. I mounted my bike at 7:14 and about three minutes into the ride, my chain fell off. I pulled over, threw my bucket bag on the ground and fixed my chain. I wiped the grease that covered my hands on the grass and a tree trunk. In Africa, the people I lived with did not use tissues to blow their noses; they blow snot into their hand and wiped it on a tree. I hopped back on my bike and peddled down the road into farm country and realized that I had selected the most popular trucking road, which also happened to have no shoulder. I was honked at and it was definitely not because I was looking good. As soon as I turned onto a quieter road, I realized that I had a flat tire... 

and no repair kit. It was now 7:45 in the morning, so I decided to keep walking. I passed an old Indo-Canadian couple on their farm and the woman yelled out something that sounded like "painter." Maybe she thought my bucket was for painting? I shook my head, said no and kept walking. Right away the old man said "No air? Puncture?" "Ahh yes puncture." I repeated. He gave me a wave and said, "Very sorry." About half an hour later, I reached the berry farm only to find out that they didn’t need any pickers. So, I crossed the street and walked into the only other field I saw with workers in it. I asked if I could pick for them and all they said was, “No.” At 8:27 I sent a text to my room-mate apologetically asking her to come pick me up. However, I knew she would not be available for another hour or so.

I lay my bike down on the side of the road and lay myself down beside it. Of the hundred cars that passed by, only one stopped to ask if I was injured or needed a ride. My stranger danger instinct kicked in and instead of accepting the ride I politely declined. Denying strangers the opportunity to rape or murder me seemed smart but I was still stranded. This seemed odd to me because I was not paranoid when my car was stolen, but I was paranoid that I was offered help and turned it down. After about 20 minutes had passed I was tired of sitting, so I picked up my bike and walked towards home. It was moments later that my roommate received my message and sent word that she was on her way. As I continued walking, I found a blackberry bush in the ditch. I stopped to pick the few ripe ones. By the time my wonderful roommate showed up I had about 20 berries, which my housemates gratefully enjoyed.

The point of interest here is that when I was an idiot about my car it was stolen, yet when I was diligent with my bike by making sure it was tuned-up things still broke and went wrong. This experience begs the questions: How hard do we push? How hard to we try? How hard do we knock on the door? How many things need to go wrong before we give up and try something else?

CYOA - Look to the Snake

4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”

6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

I was so excited to write on this passage because it is so bizarre! I mean the snakes are obviously no fun but then the bronze snake blows my mind!!!??? I mean why not have Moses' staff turn into a snake again and eat all the other snakes or maybe stick the ten commandments on a pole... or a bronze replica of the ten commandments... or a statue of Moses... But no, a bronze snake. Literally, looking to the snake was to receive God's salvation... Reflect on that statement for a moment. Does it creep anyone else out? That one looked to God by looking at the snake... Ok but maybe it makes sense because they are being attacked by snakes. So by having the symbol of salvation be a snake, no one will get confused and think God is a snake... they will remember Yahweh and the his deliverance from the snakes... Maybe? Nope: by 2 Kings 18:4, Israel is offering incense to the thing.

I did a word search on snake and serpent and it is a surprising common way of talking about something bad, being used mostly in a negative sense. However, the bronze snake is a weird kind of exception/non exception. There is also Gen 49:17 which is a prophecy about Dan in which snake imagery is kind of used as a positive negative and the staff into a snake trick in Exodus. In Matthew 10:16 we have Jesus command to be as shrewd as snakes. And you have Jesus' statement in John 3:14-15 directly referencing Numbers 21:

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

And that is it.

Ok, now I want to give you the part that really freaks me out. Perhaps you have heard of Asclepius. The Greek God of medicine and healing.... Symbolized as a snake entwined on a staff... Still the common symbol for medicine/medical stuff...

So the Israelites are dying from snake bites and they need healing and they look to a bronze snake on a pole, i.e. Asclepius and they are healed. Except that Yahweh instructs this action and timeline-wise the connection must be from Israel to Greece and not the other way around if a real connection exists at all. To push this just a bit further, Asclepius is killed by Zeus for... raising people from the dead!!! Early church father Justin Martyr presented Asclepius as explicitly foreshadowing Jesus' ability to heal for the Greeks and is used as an example to show how Jesus' resurrection and ascension was not in any way unbelievable because this is already what Greeks believed about Asclepius!

OK. So we have the bronze serpent, to Asclepius, to Jesus. Furthermore, there is some scholarship and strong archaeological evidence to suggest that the Bathesda healing (John 5:1-15) was a confrontation with the pagan cult of Asclepius. So the question then... is this all part of God's glorious plan to save people in confusing ways that wind up getting people side tracked but eventually somehow lead to Jesus? Is the story of the snake which gives/offers life but ultimately leads people astray merely an extension of Eden? How do we reconcile the snake as both a symbol of judgement/punishment and salvation? Are we doomed to a story of redemptive violence? Are we supposed to not notice the phallic undertone in the descriptions of snakes and poles being lifted into the air?

CYOA - Choosing our Language

CYOA  Numbers 21:4-6

And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, and there is no water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6 And Jehovah sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. (American Standard Version)

       At first I was not at all sure what to write about when I read this passage. I was not even offended by it. Thinking about my initial reaction I am a put off at how nonchalant I was to the deaths of these people because they were grumbling. I think that reflects more on me and others who read the Bible than on the story. It was as if an inner switch turned on when I went to read the passage, and it went something like this...Well that is terrible, but it is in the Bible, and God can do as God pleases, and God  gives just judgement, so then that is a great story. Realizing this was quite disconcerting, as I realize the extent to which I am still brainwashed by Church culture to not take the Bible seriously enough to read what it actually says.

So here are a few thoughts, after some more reflection. I think Numbers 21:1-3 is also important to read when contemplating 4-6.

1 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. 2 And Israel vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. 3 And Jehovah hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and the name of the place was called Hormah.

       The connection may not be immediately clear. Why would I want to bring in a passage about genocide of one ethic/religious group by another religious/ethnic group. Is it not just Serbia and Kosovo in ancient times? Yes, it is exactly Serbia and Kosovo, and that is the point. In this specific passage the genocide is initiated by the human side of the relationship. The Jews retaliate and destroy the Canaanites, and the Bible records that Yahweh listened and then gave them the Canaanites. I find this incredibly telling. I see God agreeing to communicate with the Israelites in terms they can comprehend, and if those terms are nationhood and genocide, the standard of the time, then God agrees to communicate in these terms even though they are less then the ideal.
       I think this helps me understand God's recoded reaction to their grumbling. The Israelites have communicated that the "language" they understand is that of life and death. In so doing they have stated the terms of communication they expect from God, so the reprimand comes in similar "language".
       I think this "language" changes throughout the narrative of the Bible, as there is a movement away from stories such as this one (although they never completely disappear as there are NT examples). I think biblically one sees this in regard to this specific story by looking to 2 Kings 18:4. Moses makes a bronze snake to remedy the problem of the snakes. This symbol/fetish is a highly "primitive" form of religion. It is thus "out grown" by the progressive revelation of scripture. The fetishism had become fully developed around the bronze snake by the time of Hezekiah came to the throne, it is recorded that he is responsible for its destruction.

4 He removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah: and he brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4 ASV)

I think this reflects back on more than just the bronze snake, I would read this passage to reflect as a condemnation of interacting with God like the the Israelites did in Numbers 21.
       That is my main thought about this passage, it is a mediocre answer as all answers are. I am forced to again contemplate my underlying presupposition about inspiration and understanding of the compilation of scripture. As I read this passage and wrote this blog there was always a nagging in the back of my mind, the idea of scripture being the record of a people grappling with the dissonance between their experiences and a belief in the supernatural. Thus when bad happens, they have done wrong and when they are victorious it must have been because God condoned it. I think with a little bit of this understanding underlying one's reading, progressive revelation becomes even more important to struggle with as our consciences are no longer comfortable with genocide.

P.S. We need some more passages you would like us to write about (they don't all need to be difficult, maybe it is your favourite and you would like to see what we have to say, or a passage you have never heard a sermon on). Post any passages you want us to write on in the comments section below and they will go into the pool of passages we draw from each week.

CYOA - Redemption is Inadequate

4From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." 6 Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." 9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. (ESV)

While reading this passage I noticed a few things worth highlighting. First of all, the question “Why have you brought us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness?” is something I ask God often - specifically in reference to my time serving as a missionary in Africa. Why God, oh why did you take me out of Canada, away from my Egypt, away from my friends and family, away from serving you with passion to experience evil, failure and abandonment in a wilderness. Just as the Israelites, I have grown impatient with God; I am tired of waiting for him when waiting feels like death.

Secondly, I resonate with the Israelites who thought that manna was not enough. One might read this and think how arrogant it is of the Israelites to regard God’s miraculous provision of manna inadequate. Yet I feel this way and act this way often. I have experienced “inadequate” provision of God in the sense that I was not sustained physically, emotionally or spiritually during my time overseas. I admit there were moments of hope but in the big picture those do not even compare to the hard times. Now I am angry and impatient because the little manna he offered only scraped me by and now there is not much left of me.

The third point I found interesting is that God does not remove the serpents even after the people repent and Moses prays. Although he provided a way for the people to survive the bites, he let them continue to be bitten.

I am not sure how to feel about this and I am not sure how to apply it. Even knowing that the snake’s venom would not kill, how many bites could one survive? Wouldn't the pain and the wounds and the trauma of repeated bites become unbearable?

I remember having my mouth washed out with dishwashing liquid after swearing at my mother as a child. The bottle of soap stayed on the bathroom counter for a week afterwards to remind me of what would happen if I did it again. Did I learn not to swear? No, I just swore more often in places where she could not hear me. Did I learn more constructive ways of communicating my feelings with my mother? No, I avoided her all together.

I wish God would remove the serpents. I wish life in repentance did not look like being repeatedly bitten. I wish that there could be something more pleasant on the spectrum between getting bitten and death. Short of never sinning – there does not seem to be another way. So what shall it be, a life of wounds that feel like death or death after one bite? If you see another alternative please leave a comment below to help me to see it too.

God brought me here yet I am no longer who I thought God wanted me to be. How do we make sense of this?

Harry Potter is Jesus - Part 2

OK, the other part of the movie that was amazing to me was Harry's conversation with Dumbledore, while dead or "dead" or whatever. Dumbledore, in an allegorical interpretation of Harry Potter, is clearly God. Brilliantly, Dumbledore also dies a sacrificial death a movie back or so at the hand of the ever enigmatic Judas character of Snape. Snape, who ultimately ends as a sympathetic character, begs us again to ask the age old question of Judas' motives and destiny. When read this way Rowling makes a similar suggestion as weber in the Rock Opera Jesus Christ Superstar, that perhaps if we are going to claim the cross as God's victory that we should consider Judas, who "helped" Jesus get there, as a hero or pawn rather than demonic, traitorous villain. Whether heretical or not, it is not the first time the question has been raised, which means that it has not been satisfactorily answered and should remain on the table. I believe at the root of this question, as with so many others, lies the question of God's sovereignty and human free will and to what degree each extends.


However, I digress, what I want to talk about is the white train station scene in which Dumbledore says:


"Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it."


This is a fascinating quote on a number of levels. First because Harry Potter unlike almost any other fantasy novel, and at the great complaint of my father, depicts magic as the challenge of the correct pronunciation of some rather bad Latin. Now while this is not exclusively true - there is the matter of in-born ability, and apparently the wand lends a hand and at some point, one doesn't necessarily have to use words - however, particularly in the in the beginning of the series there is an emphasis on words. It would seem to me that this final quote then brings to completion a thought that developed early on and is that much better coming from Dumbledore's lips. Words in both the Christian tradition and for better or for worse many others are considered very powerful. In Genesis, God creates the world in a series of magnificent speech acts. Jesus is declared by John's gospel to be the very word of God. The understanding of blessing or cursing occuring in a speech act in either the Old or New Testament world as powerfully affecting reality is lost on us. Nursery rhymes such as "sticks and stone may break my bones but words can never hurt me" have provided an intellectual anaesthetic for our society to the power of words which is only recently wearing off.


Therefore I present that Harry Potter's lesson on the power and significance of words is not only good and of value but reasonably compatible with Christian theology.

Read Harry Potter is Jesus Pt. 1

CYOA - Dt. 7 - Experience and the Attributes Of God

¹ When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— ² and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.^[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. ³ Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, ⁴ for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. ⁵This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles^[b] and burn their idols in the fire. ⁶ For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

⁷ The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. ⁸ But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. ⁹ Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. ¹⁰ But
those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.
¹¹ Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.
¹² If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. ¹³ He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. ¹⁴ You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. ¹⁵ The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. ¹⁶ You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.
¹⁷ You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?” ¹⁸ But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt.¹⁹ You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the LORD your God brought you out. The LORD your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. ²⁰ Moreover, the LORD your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished.²¹ Do not be terrified by them, for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. ²² The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you.²³ But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. ²⁴ He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them. ²⁵The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. ²⁶ Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Regard it as vile and utterly detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.

This passage deals with several themes including imperialism, enemies, inter-marriage, obedience, faithfulness, coveting and so on, but it is also packed with several attributes of God that tell us about his nature - this is what I want to focus on.

I have highlighted four clear attributes that present themselves in this text:

- God is loving. He "set His love on you" (v. 7,8).

- God keeps His promises. He "kept the oath which He swore" (v. 8).

- God is faithful. "He is God, the faithful God" (v. 9).

- God is merciful. He keeps "His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation" (v. 9).

Before my experience in Africa and poignant encounters with Evil, failure, and abandonment I accepted the loving nature of God without question. No matter the gravity of the devastation I saw or felt God was always good and loving. This past year, I have developed a fervid passion for deconstructing the nature of God as well as spent a great deal of time wondering if in fact God is who he says he is. When I was overseas, I experienced a distant God, a God who abandoned his people and a God who refused to comfort and provide in times of deep pain, struggle, conflict and hurt. I have held on to my feelings of suffering in hopes of remembering what I lived so that I can prevent myself from ever having a similar experience. Since my return, I have held my negative experiences as truth. I was abandoned and therefore God became an abandoner. I did not feel or see intimacy, love, justice or provision therefore God cannot possibly posses any of these attributes. I am coming to realize (with the help of wise individuals) that holding my experiences as truth places myself at the centre of the universe, which is rather arrogant. Simply because I did not experience God’s love for a time, see him as faithful or regarded him as a promise-keeper does not mean that those attributes are not a part of his nature. There were several factors that influenced how I felt and experienced God during my overseas term. Some of my experiences were traumatic. The result of this trauma has influenced the way I think about God.

When I read this passage I was immediately angry with God for seeking to destroy the seven other nations. I couldn’t help but wonder where the justice and mercy was in those acts and how those nations were experiencing Yahweh when they were faced with destruction. Surely they were not experiencing his love or mercy. What is the relation between experience and truth? Can experiences both support and undermine truth? How did the Israelites react to God’s instructions for entering the land? What does our experience have to do with our belief and understanding of God? Do we take God at his word, though his actions do not always seem to align? How has your experience of God supported or undermined God’s loving nature as presented in the Bible and how has this affected your faith?