Public Service Announcement

For whom it may concern we have, with a twinkle in our eye, placed the boxes "Brilliant" "Interesting" and "Heretical" below each post as a quick way of giving us feed back regarding your reaction to what we write.

It may seem given their order that they effectively mean: "Agree" "Neutral" and "Disagree". This however is not the case.

It is perfectly conceivable to acknowledge something as "brilliant" even while "disagreeing... it is perfectly conceivable that you find something that you agree, disagree or aren't sure about "interesting"... In fact I often find the stuff I disagree with far more interesting than stuff I agree with... "Interesting" in particular suggests appreciation regarding presentation and topic...

"Heretical" or as I like to call it the: "I'm an asshole box."  There are two possibilities I consider when we receive a check in the heretical box 1) that you have great sense of humour and feel positively about our post but are affirming that there are assholes that would call us heretics and clicking the box because its hilarious or 2) you are an asshole.

The word "Heretic" is a loaded term that gets thrown around way to much in current theological discussion, particularly at the average level, where study is shallow, nuance is minimal, emotions are excited and actual relationships are at stake.

Because of the baggage of, most notably, the Inquisition the charge of heresy is significantly greater than mere disagreement which is potentially amicable enough. No the charge of heresy has the distinct connotation that a position and therefore a person has stepped so far outside what another person considers acceptable that they are minutes away from tweeting "good bye" to their ex-friend/colleague and newly pronounced heretic. The terms excommunication and damnation are certainly the implied potential or imminent consequences for heretics, who enjoy the sixth circle of hell in Dante's inferno.

Unless you are Catholic or Orthodox you have no way determining orthodoxy with any communal authority so declaring us heretical is either hilarious or mean or both... If you are Catholic or Orthodox then we were officially heretical according to your community before whatever it is we posted that you didn't like so now you are just being mean and superfluous.

Heresy, Heretic and Heretical are conversation and relationship ending words that should either be used either with hilarity in safe relationship (with other safety words like "button") or used very very sparsely, with humility and the utter seriousness. We don't know who you are when you click "Heretical" but be aware it brings an equal amount of judgement on you as you have brought on us. If you click it, we know we are doing our jobs well. Because if we are not deemed heretical every so often clearly we have become irrelevent toaters of the status quo, and our Jesus really messed that up so we are following the greats in rattling the pot and encouraging thought and interaction with ideas. We want people to feel free to click that box, if they would deem something heretical. Of course, we expect you to also comment if you are laying such a charge... this way, together, we can redeem its current tendency to end conversations.

Now as you look at the boxes below remember this is not a simple agree or disagree system. If you want to agree or disagree make a comment... These boxes are more like a "high five" "a thoughtful nod" and "kick to the nuts/punch in the boob/crucification" and we will interpret it as such and pray for your redemption. "Funny" is of course self explanatory and is the appropriate box to tick for this post. 

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

I Deny the Resurrection

John 20:1-10

¹ Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. ² So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

³ So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. ⁴ Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. ⁵ He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. ⁶ Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, ⁷ as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. ⁸ Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. ⁹ (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) ¹⁰ Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

Let us cut to the chase. This Choose Your Own Adventure is a check on our orthodoxy. The resurrection passages in the past fifteen years have been the standard to draw the line between the liberal and the “orthodox”, the difference between the Marcus Borg’s vs. the NT Wright’s. So I picked up my Borg book just to stir the pot a little bit. I am not going to tell you Jesus’ body was eaten by rabid dogs (although some believe this). I am not even going to say that I am fully in the “liberal” camp on this one. But before I begin I want to say some things I really like about this passage John 20:1-10.

1) I like that a woman is the first witness, it makes the egalitarian in me grin uncontrollably. 1.1) I like that it is Mary Magdalene, she is a great character and I always enjoy the events that occur when she is around. 2) I like to think John is writing himself into the story without his name, just like earlier where he lays his head on Jesus’ bosom, during the final meal. 3) I like that Peter has a moment of doubt and hesitancy at the entrance, probably because I would have too. 4) I like the self-justification “we really didn’t know…” I think it adds a lot of humanity to the text.

But the question I assume people want answered is: Did it happen historically? I’ll throw my hat in with Wright and say it did, because I think it shows a continued investment on God’s part into the tangible physical world. But I’ll also throw my hat in with Borg that there are many ways to understand this text. One of which is reading it as a truthful parable; and a really good understanding of this a parable, as he may argue, would bring about the same conclusions about God as a historical, God acting in time, reading and interpretation of this text. (I know I may get flack for saying that but I think our conceptions of truth are often too small). However one perceives this text, specifically the mystery surrounding death and resurrection, possibly the only certainty is that of uncertainty. Therefore, I agree with Borg when he states that epistemological humility and ontological humility are called for.

History or Parable? It is an age old question…well at least I think so. I think back to the time of allegory (which served the church quite well and ought not to be made light of too quickly), therefore parable may be the next in a long line of ever-wrong interpretive methods. As wrong as it might be, there are benefits to parable as it reveals dimensions of a text not comprehended previously, this works for the book of Jonah, the creation accounts, and even the exodus. Thus, if I read all of those as parable/story/truthful myth then an examination of the resurrection as such may be a beneficial perspective I have yet to examine.

So as much as I believe Jesus as a human individual in time and space did rise from the dead, I do not believe this because of a literal reading of the text. I am not a Biblical literalist by any means, I think reading the Bible literally is flat, uninspired and creates mindless “yes men” Christians, something I think God would despair over, having chosen from the beginning to give us free choice and intellect to think through choices. So I am not going to say that you must read a passage, such as this one, as literal history in order to be a Christian. I refuse to be pinned down in literalism because it is in that strain of literalism that one runs into CS Lewis thinking of “EITHER Jesus was who he said he was OR he was a lunatic”. I think once you are here you are stuck, you have laid all your cards on the table, not resting on what the bible says, in full commitment to ones cognitive constructed framework. One is then stuck in a thought framework because “The persuasiveness of this statement depends upon a literal-factual reading of the gospels. Its logic works only within this framework” (Borg’s book “Jesus” p 19). Thus you rest your entire belief on your individual cognitive makeup, which is almost certainly wrong (see “I am wrong” blog). Thus having stated my refusal to be pinned down into a specific mode of thought and regarding literalism as uninspired and highly unimaginative, I refuse to set up camp as a literalist. So where does that then land me if I am not picking either camp to sit in permanently?

I think it lands me in the best possible spot. I end up asking what is the entire point of landing in either camp? To put oneself against another who is in the opposing camp? Hopefully not! It is at this point that part of the pragmatic in me screams that I have reached a point where it is all conjecture (I don’t really believe it is all speculation I think the dialogue over biblical interpretation in valid, but there are other/better questions to be asked). I think one of these better questions is: What does it mean to believe the resurrection? As it relates to “do you truly believe the resurrection”.

For my answer to this question I am going to defer to someone who I think has said it well. Peter Rollins, who may say “I deny the resurrection all the time”.

Belief truly needs to be more than mental assent (to parable or literal interpretations) and I think he captures it. So my final reflection on John 20:1-10 is that recently I find myself denying the resurrection quite often, but I hardly think I am alone in doing so (my own little justification just like verse 9) .