CYOA: Psalm 139 - Making Babies like Sweaters

This is the first Friday I have been able to actually sit down and type this on a computer rather than using my phone or putting it off. Since Psalms are poetry my first question as I read this is what reaction does it evoke in me? How do I feel about it? and then the task to ask why...

I think that I feel deeply both comfort and fear in response to the Psalm - which I would suggest is probably the intent. The dominant them of theme of the Psalm is the inescapable reality of Yahweh, who knows and sees all. The comfort is that God is always close. The anxiety is that God is always close. God's presence is a comfort in times of distress and uncomfortable in our failures and darkness.

This psalm is often used to argue that Bible is ridiculous with its imagery of God knitting babies in wombs. I find it hard to believe that the author is seriously trying to communicate that God sits' in womb's with knitting needles making babies like sweaters. This seems beyond unreasonable. However, it would suggest that God has ongoing creative work in the world. That Yahweh is intimately involved in sustaining and creating existence continually, in contrast to the Deist image of the watchmaker. God works through the natural processes of cell division, evolution, etc. to create and sustain the cosmos. This is not nonsensical because existence is entirely arbitrary and unnecessary and therefore God's sustaining creative work is a reasonable idea. However, we do wind up with some difficulties as well. If we want to place God intimately into the natural processes of the world, how do we deal with it when those process don't work so well: birth defects, etc. Did God get distracted and miss a stitch? Clearly, this is unworkable.  The standard answer is that this is somehow because of sin. I say 'somehow' because I don't think it is possible to draw any clear cause and effect relationships. This of course is deeply dissatisfying. Why does this amorphous theological concept of sin effect the creation of some babies and not others? It could be argued that it effects all babies but not in all the same ways... but this seems little comfort and again so ambiguous as to be meaningless. It could be argued that in God's sovereignty he either allowed or deliberately made a person's 'defects'. This seems like a defence of God, which is silly, and it of course creates more problems than it solves. Even with the long term good in view, both of all individuals, the community and creation in mind it still seems morally untenable to suggest that missing limbs, mental illness, death etc. are sourced in God's benevolent love and that the ends validly justify the means. Although certainly, some people believe this and many people will testify to how personal challenges of various natures helped them grow to greater maturity and deeper faith.

If we come back to the idea of God sustaining and beholding the universe this allows us to understand God's involvement in and knowledge of the cosmos: from wombs to stars. It also allows us to say God is involved in a good way, without eliminating freedom within the cosmos by demanding God's universal intervention in all things at all times. This is as close as I can get to an understanding I can live with. The Biblical story is filled with the particular, which is uncomfortable for western people who crave impersonal absolutes a la Plato. However, I think that it is only in particulars that relationships are possible and so I suggest that it is somehow in the particulars and the mess that relationship becomes real and does move us and all of the cosmos toward goodness. Does necessary messiness occur with the existence of a personal God?

Thanks to Robert Farrar Capon, author of The Third Peacock, who wrestles so inspiringly with the problem of God and evil in the Judeao Christian tradition.

CYOA: Psalm 139 - Presence in the Womb

I was holding a newborn baby in my arms as I read this psalm today and I could not help but focus on the mother’s womb imagery used to exemplify God’s omniscience and omnipresence.

13For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
15My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Before the baby was born, many dinner conversations in our house revolved around baby development talk and the progression of growth stages the little one was experiencing. The parents agreed that he would have big feet and no bum in reflection of their own body types. The rest of us all placed bets on the date the baby might arrive and guessed his weight. Yet God saw him before we were able to meet him. While we prepared for his arrival and talked to his mother’s stomach, God knew him.

The presence of God is something I find particularly challenging to understand, study and talk about. If I read this passage at any other time I likely would have scoffed and put the Bible away. For some reason while I was holding that magical baby, having watched his mother’s stomach expand to accommodate the creation happening inside her and knowing of his traumatic birth my mind was open to thinking about God’s involvement and presence in this life.

CYOA: Psalm 139 – Not my bag

This week’s CYOA is Psalm 139. I am tired. Today I taught “Empire: A Hermeneutic” for second year students. I worked six and a half hours at my job moving couches and dressers. I cooked dinner for my roommates. I watched an episode of Game of Thrones, by HBO, with my roommate. Game of Thrones is a totally awesome show. I also watched the new episode of Criminal Minds. Those are the facts. That was my day.

I then sat down to write a short blog post. I read the passage. My reflections were…not much. I think Psalm 139 is a nice, generally uplifting psalm. The last time I read or reflected on this psalm was when one of my best friends had a serious work accident and we prayed this psalm a lot. He has recovered well and so my emotional attachment to this psalm is a positive one.

Personally, Psalms is not my favourite section of the Bible. I am quite content not reading them. Maybe it is because I am not overly emotional; I like a story more than a poem. Whatever the case, I have very few thoughts on this Psalm. Like any other psalm, I would not derive any piece of theology solely from this psalm, given the emotionally driven nature with which it was written, as well as the emotional nature of the one reading it. The most intriguing part was the section about hating those who God hates. I, however, would not get all bent out of shape about it because it is a psalm and curses are often a part of this literary format. Sorry if you read this expecting something worth reading. Today’s reading was not my bag.

Baby… Baby… Baby… Oh!

What is it about babies? Whenever I have a baby in my arms my heart melts and I am softened. They always turn my frown upside down because every move and every sound they make is worthy of awe.

This week, a couple in our community house brought their newborn baby home from the hospital. I have fawned over him since the moment he arrived.

When I was three, my father left because he did not want to take care of my sister and I. I have always convinced myself that this had no effect on my development because I never knew any different.

As I reflect on my upbringing, I think my father’s move played a significant role in nourishing my desire to care for children. I love to hold babies and give them everything that they need. I love to play with them and make them smile. I love to praise them when they learn knew things and encourage them to do more. Caring for infants who cannot care for themselves brings me insurmountable joy and satisfaction. I have a deep-rooted desire to care for infants and toddlers in the ways I was not cared for.

I have experienced abandon several times over in my life, by family, significant others, mentors, and God. My heart has become calloused and my attitude bitter towards those who are able to abandon. But for babies and the vulnerable my capacity to love only expands.

Where do we come from?

I had to write a life story last night for a class at Regent in order to introduce myself. It was required to be quite short, a mere 1000 words, but also was supposed to be filled with particularity which communicated a life rather than merely information. For better or for worse the first half of my paper was far more detailed and particular, covering my life from age five to seven. During this time three people in my life died, a friend in my kindergarten class and both my mum's parents. For some reason, last night this made sense in a way that I have not entirely connected with before. I often say, I am white middle class male who has had every advantage and no "real" pain or suffering in my life. This is usually my own disqualification for the deep sense of pessimism, obsession with suffering and generally negative view of life and the world. However, last night I realized that I have spent my life in the valley of the shadow of death. That my life was baptised in death deeply and dramatically at a young age. Is it any wonder that I am not filled with the optimism of other who did not experience loss like this, particularly at a young age? However, this revelation of self also begs the question: has this experience defined me or have I allowed it to? Why does it define me? We know come to evaluation... Do I need to rework my story? Do I need new definition?

It was in the midst of death that I found hope in Jesus, the one who has defeated death. I was anaesthetized with hope and became numb to death and yet I have carried that darkness with me. It has only been in the past few years that my emotions have thawed and I have felt ever more deeply the loss in my life that is unable to filled or healed. And yet as I learn to live in the shadow of death cast over my life, as I embrace the tension between life and death, somehow there is more freedom and life is sweeter. Last night as I reflected on where I come from, I realized the source and authenticity of my melancholy and in an odd way felt vindicated. It seems right to me to not yearn for escape or numb myself out and rather wrestle deep and enter into the pain, suffering, doubt, despair, depression and death of the world both intellectually and in reality.

Appropriate to laugh? and The Topic of Appropriateness

Today on Facebook my older brother posted a picture, one I had seen before, but one that is worth looking at again. I believe the sign was made for the occasion of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s rally in Washington: “The Rally To Restore Sanity” and “The March To Keep Fear Alive”. The question my brother wanted me to blog about was “whether it or not it’s appropriate to think that this is hilarious”.

My simple answer is yes. I think it is a great spot of wit. First off, because it makes fun of Republicans, which is just as funny as making fun of any other group one can make vast generalizations about. Second, because free healthcare is awesome. Third, it calls out the underlying racism driving much of the Obama-hate. (This is not to say that I am for Obama and Democrats. To be honest, I think there is little difference between the parties; either option is too limited). From a Biblical perspective, this sign finds its correspondence in making fun of Pharisees, who were disturbed by Jesus shaking up the social order, or any other proponent of the status quo.

I like the question my brother poses…What is appropriate? Beyond this entertaining picture, appropriateness has been on my mind of late. My simple answer is” freedom in Christ”, implying that one is free to find such humour hilarious. I know that this “freedom in Christ” thing has swung this way and that way throughout history. I, however, refuse to take a stream of logic that states “when in a grey area always hedge toward the conservative side”. I refuse such logic because history has not proven this to be the correct approach. Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, considers such swings, one of such she critiques this way, “In our own day, we have witnessed the permissive society of the 1960s giving way to the more puritan ethic of the 1980s, which has also coincided with the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the west.” All that to say, always defaulting to a more conservative ethic is not necessarily the best route. That is because following such logic leads to some undesirable outcomes, fundamentalism being the case and point.

I bring up freedom in Christ and the permissive nature of Christianity to speak to other whisperings surrounding this blog. What is appropriate to blog about? I thought we had dealt with this topic in a series of posts that all engaged the topic of censorship. Specifically, what is and is not appropriate to post on this blog. There have been some whisperings (yes it is amazing what all comes back to the sources even beyond cyberspace) that some of our posts have been “too far”, or “you are asking questions that should not be asked”. I am frustrated by this.

I am frustrated because there are people who have disagreed with posts and are too timid to comment their disagreements. We have a comment section for a reason. We by no means want to state that we are somehow authoritative on any of the topics we ponder. I believe I speak for Duncan and Danielle when I say that we would welcome a different opinions being posted in the comment section, we would probably be rather excited by such engagement. I am frustrated because this does not happen, but people continue to read, continue to be offended, and they gather their “evidence”, making their “case”. It finally comes to a head when they come out guns blazing, telling us to reconsider what we are doing, stating we are harming others. This I find frustrating because I also have people tell me how much they love the blog, it makes their day, or they wish we went further on some topics. Too be honest, I did not think we were pushing the limits as of late…some posts were downright hopeful! So what then am I to censor?

Rather than reiterate what has already been discussed in other posts about censorship, I want to state a little bit of my personal philosophy on why I do not always censor. I believe freedom in Christ ought to be embodied by those who claim to follow this rebel and social disturber. I believe this is relevant to one’s personal and social ethics, but beyond that I think freedom in Christ MUST relate to one’s academic and intellectual endeavours. It has been said before, but obviously it need to be repeated, “At the root of all fear is a lack of trust”. The limiting of academic and intellectual freedom, by “questions you should not ask”, I believe is rooted in a fear of where they might lead. I see the lack of trust directly relating to one’s perception of God. If your God is stagnant and dormant, then you will spend all you time defending that God. Whereas, if you believe in a living God, a God of personhood, who ought to be able to defend himself or herself, there is no fear to honestly question. Thus, to fear a question is to lack trust in the deity’s ability to deal with such questions. In my opinion, any deity who cannot handle a question is not a deity worth believing in or following.

I find appropriateness frustrating because the line of appropriateness is so hard to gage over the internet. There are many conversations I refuse to have when I am face-to-face with someone, because the other individual is not yet at a place to journey with me into a certain topic or way of thinking. On the other hand, if I do have the discussion I can precede slowly and appropriately, given the other person’s receptivity to an idea. On the internet, however, I have far less ability to perceive such things. There is some interaction in the comment sections, which is great. I also know many people who read the blog, but there are friends and acquaintances of Danielle and Duncan I do not know. Alternatively, even farther afield, other wonderful people who stumble upon the blog while upon their noble quests to read the entirety of the intertubes. How then am I to judge what might or might not be appropriate?

It is here I come to Paul’s concept of not doing everything that is permissible, but only doing what is beneficial. To this concept, I have no answer or rebuttal. My response is that you please engage us and the blog, rather than being hurt by it. If you disagree, comment. If you think something is too far and heretical, click the heretical button. If you are continually offended and are too timid to engage and be stretched in your perspective, please stop reading the blog. Please do what is beneficial for you. Govern your use of this public space and avoid the harm it is causing you. I am not about to be intellectually timid, because I see that as the most horrendous blasphemy and heresy. And with that, the ball is now in your court, your move.

CYOA: Genesis 37-50 - Sold into Slavery

As I read the story of Joseph through a couple times, especially after reading Silas' post, what stood out to me the most was how pervasive the theme of slavery was. It begins with Joseph being sold into slavery, another in a list of fine examples of failure to be one's brother's keeper (Gen. 4:9), and it finishes with Joseph enslaving the entire Egyptian population, which of course includes his own family, but besides these two there are numerous other slave and servant remarks. Ultimately, This is the story of how Israel sold itself into the slavery of Egypt thus setting the stage for the Exodus, which begins not with enslavement but oppression, made possible by their previous enslavement. 

Genesis 48:

 ²⁰ So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, ²¹ and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. ²² However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

 ²³ Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. ²⁴ But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.”

 ²⁵ “You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.”

 ²⁶ So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt—still in force today—that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh’s.

Once Joseph was sold into slavery he never ceased to be a slave he simply changed owners. I don't think there is any reason to understand Joseph's relation to Pharaoh any differently than his previous relationship to Potiphar. In fact the narrator goes out his way to highlight the similarities between Joseph's situation with Potiphar, the jailor, and then Pharaoh. 


This was a revelation to me. I have grown up thinking that the Egyptians' enslaved Israel but as I read the text again I am convinced that Israel sells itself into slavery. At the time of course with Joseph in power this was fine, if not rather enjoyable but it then led to their oppression. 


The other thing that struck me was that the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38) sits in the middle of the story of Joseph. Judah is two for two in back to back chapters, first he suggests selling Joseph in to slavery and then he is sleeping with his daughter in law and trying to have her killed. Perhaps, this is to deter the tribe of Judah of ever thinking too highly of itself; perhaps, it is to ensure that Judah remember that the blessing of God is all gift. In Genesis 50 Judah definitely receives the best blessing from Jacob and maybe having Judah's sin and failure highlighted at the beginning of the story serves to underline the end of the story as grace.


I think the story deliberately tries to show how God is able to work sovereignly in the midst of our free and bad choices. Even our intentional evil can be used by God for good. However, I think it is also worth noting that redemption does not eliminate pain or consequences. Joseph was still enslaved and in prison, all of Israel winds up in slavery, the relationships between Joseph and his brothers seems never to be fully restored. Joseph who was sold into slavery becomes one who enslaves. So while the good of survival and being fruitful and multiplying occurs, there are some fairly significant consequences and one is curious if perhaps better choices could have led to a happier journey...