I have been struggling for quite some time to figure out where I fit politically, and crystalize it into some coherent form I could communicate with others. After reading quite a bit from the Left, some from the Right, and a healthy smattering of Hauerwas, Radical Orthodoxy, and MacIntyre, I have come across a concept called by some "Politics of Virtue" (cf. Philip Blonde). I think this is a pretty good summary of where I am at.
So, before I give my summary statement, I would like to clarify two things: What I mean by "politics" and "virtue".
By politics I mean how people behave toward one another in public, and especially how groups of people behave toward other groups, and the expectations they have of how our common "society" should function. Thus, anytime groups of people are together, politics is necessarily involved, because (as I like to say): Wherever there are people there are politics. Humans are political animals, and with any issue that impacts groups of people, they will inevitably develop ideologies about how to deal with the issue, and form sub-groups to enact their ideologies in public life. Thus, our political life consists of the groups we form (our parties), the solutions we propose (our policies), and the actions we take (our practices). Unless we are hermits, we are political actors on local, regional, national and international levels through our various parties, policies, and practices. Rather than trying to eschew politics or act like we are apolitical, it is best that we are conscious and deliberative about the political life we already are part of.
By virtue, I mean a certain "shape" or "form" of character that brings health and wholeness to persons and communities. Virtue is not a set of actions or list of rules, but a type or pattern of personality that gives rise to choices and actions that bring health to oneself and one's community. Vice is the opposite of virtue, and it refers to diseased, unhealthy and malignant patterns of personality that bring about damage and destruction to oneself and one's community. As followers of Christ, our standard for virtuous life- a life that is abundant in health, healing, harmony, and wholeness- is of course the life of Christ himself. This is not to say that virtue is confined to him alone or to Christianity alone. Certainly virtue is practiced and taught by other people and other traditions. It is merely to say that, for Christians, the fullness of life and completion of virtue is found in the God who became human, Jesus Christ. He is our Source and Exemplar of what it means to be virtuous as individuals and as a community. In various Biblical texts, notably Matthew 7, we are told to evaluate the virtue of a person as a farmer might evaluate the health of a crop by looking at it's "fruit". The "fruit" of a virtuous person consists of specific, namable personality traits which resemble Christ, and spread Christ's health and healing to others. Likewise, on a political level, communities exhibit certain character traits which are either healthy, life-giving, and virtuous, or sick, malignant, and vicious.
Thus, I can summarize my political standpoint as follows:
I stand for a "Politics of Virtue": A Way of public practice and policy that draws those who govern and those who are governed into the health, wholeness, and harmony of Christ-like communities. This pattern of virtuous personal and communal life is called the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.22-23, and it beckons us to asses our common political life based on the Christ-like virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, and self-control. Thus we must evaluate our political parties, policies, and practices by the following criteria: 1. Does it grow communal love, in which we have unconditional care for our neighbors, and selflessly give of ourselves for the sake of their welfare? 2. Does it grow communal joy, in which we give thanks for our gifts and celebrate the grace found in creation and each another? 3. Does it grow communal peace, in which we practice peacemaking, reconciliation, and forgiveness? 4. Does it grow communal patience, in which we suffer with one another as long as is needed to bring about the common good? 5. Does it grow communal kindness, in which we use our blessings to bless others in acts of undeserved grace and personal sacrifice? 6. Does it grow communal goodness, in which we make our goods available to those in need, so everyone has access to the goods needed to sustain a good life of health and wholeness? 7. Does it grow communal faithfulness, in which we fulfill the vows and promises we make to one another, while protecting the community from those who are unfaithful, untrue, or unjust? 8. Does it grow communal humility, in which we recognize our own limitations and mistakes, as well as our interdependence upon one another and the God-given creation we dwell in? 9. Does it grow communal self-control, in which we practice a simple, satisfied, sustainable lifestyle in harmony with the resources granted to us by God? This "Politics of Virtue" transcends contemporary political systems, whether aristocratic or democratic, conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive, by judging all systems with the question: Does this system produce a community of people who exhibit Christ-like character? If the answer is yes, then it is a good political system: That is, it draws people to what is Good. If the answer is that it produces communities at odds with Christ-like virtue then it is a political system that needs to be reformed, rejected or replaced.
Copyright (c) 2011 Nathan L. Bostian. All rights reserved.
2011-07-20
2011-06-21
Development and Dimension
Today I encountered a valid critique of my concept of development which I made use of in my essay on dealing with "contradictions" in the Bible. The critique is that I lumped all of the Old Testament into a lower developmental level (that of a child) as compared to the New Testament. In turn, both the OT and NT were lumped into a lower level than current culture.
This brings up the conception that I think the OT is "child's play", and even worse, that we are somehow morally superior to ancient cultures. This is patently untrue, since by any objective calculation the 20th century was the most brutal and violent on record.
My first response is to say that this objection is dealt with by understanding what I mean by "development" in my essay on developmental revelation. It clarifies a few things:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2011/02/developmental-revelation-and-divine.html
My point in comparing human society at a "childhood" developmental level to society at a "teen" or "adult" level was not to make a point about the moral progress or goodness of society at any particular time. When we talk of individuals, we all know good kids and bad adults. We also know very spiritual kids and very jaded adults. Age and development is not an indicator of moral or spiritual progress.
Rather, I was speaking of development in terms of capacity to understand, synthesize and act in Reality. In terms of individuals, it is clear that an adult is more developed than a teen who is more developed than a child in terms of physical capabilities and intellectual capabilities. The more developed you are, the more capacity you have to understand and do things.
This development CAN be taken in a positive moral direction (such as finding a cure for cancer), or it CAN be taken in a negative moral direction (such as finding a way to engineer biological weapons). In fact, the more developed you are, the more capacity one has for goodness or badness. A 2 year old throwing a tantrum is a lot less dangerous than a teen throwing a tantrum, who is a lot less dangerous than a tyrannical dictator throwing a tantrum.
Now, when we move from individual development to social development, it is clear that two things happen as well: (a) Over time, as a society develops, there is more capacity to understand, synthesize, and act as a society; (b) That such capacity creates the opportunity for greater goods and worse evils.
So, it is NOT that our society is BETTER than NT society which is BETTER than OT society. It is that our society has a greater development, and more total resources available for understanding and action, than NT society. And NT society in turn has greater development and more resources than OT society.
And this is not to say that the writings of the OT and NT are not intelligent and complex. In our culture, it requires a well-educated adult level of individual development to begin to really understand what is going on in Scripture. This is true even of the earliest parts of Scripture which were written to the least developed culture.
To be sure, the INDIVIDUAL writers (and readers) of the Bible were intelligent by the standard of any society, no matter how developed that society was/is as a whole. Surely, St. Paul was more intelligent than me, and the writer of Ecclesiastes was wiser (and that just scratches the surface!). Likewise, many of the arguments made in Scripture are complex and nuanced. But they are complex and nuanced in a certain cultural context which must be understood within its own level of development.
Thus, when I speak of social development and "developmental revelation", I am talking about:
- Development as a society, NOT development of individuals.
- Development of within the context of the communities who received the Biblical writings, NOT that Biblical writings (and writers) somehow lacked complexity and nuance.
- Development of capabilities, NOT development of morality/holiness, or development of spirituality
- Development of TOTAL resources which contribute to the horizon of a societal world-view.
These total resources would include access to food and water, social stability, uniform laws, the conceptual capabilities imbedded in language, the conceptual options available in surrounding cultures, the taboos and social limitations on thought and communication, and dozens of other factors.
For instance, let's take two rather complex concepts: "The Triune God who is transcendent and immanent" and "The sanctity of human life, leading to universal human rights".
While to you and I these may be fairly simple concepts, and even "self-evident" in some sense, think about the immense web of social resources required to both realize and sustain these concepts. Those concepts rest on three millennia of hard work, not only in Scripture (which provides the trajectory toward these ideas in embryonic and disconnected form) but also in society. It requires both the Hebraic and Greco-Roman thought-worlds to accomplish. And those thought-worlds are in turn based on several sets of interlocking social factors that make them possible.
So, the OT provides some great insights from brilliant and holy people who lived in a certain developmental context. In their immediate context (at the time that they wrote) their ideas had a certain limited field of meaning to the original intended audience. But, when those ideas are brought into a wider developmental context (like ours) dimensions of meaning and applicability are added to the same concepts that the original authors and audiences would not have been fully aware of.
To use CS Lewis' analogy of raising complexity to different dimensions: Someone can draw/paint a very complex picture in two dimensions, and it can be absolute world-class genius. If another takes that same picture and then raises it a dimension into three dimensions as a statue (assuming the artist is as good as the original) it then takes on even more complexity and depth. Then let's say someone in the 22nd century brings the same portrait into a 4th dimension we are barely aware of now. And then later a 5th dimension, etc., etc.
The raised level of dimensionality in no way diminishes the genius of the original piece. In fact, serious art students would ALWAYS study the original, and then the higher-dimension renderings as well. However, it would be untrue to say that the original work was as dimensionally complex as the derivative works based on it.
I think that is what I am trying to say about the development in Scripture, and the further theological development that is derivative upon Scripture. The concepts provided in Scripture are spiritual and moral genius, and they have a high level of complexity by any standard. However, many of these concepts are presented in embryonic form at a lower dimension of social development. They await further application and appreciation as we raise these same concepts into higher dimensions of social development.
A final concrete example:
The command "Love your neighbor" has a certain limited sphere of meaning in an ancient land-based culture of the OT. That same command raises to another dimension when culture moves into the pan-Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire of the NT. It further expands in the pan-European culture of the Middle Ages. It further expands in our age of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic globalism. And, assuming we find sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy (which I think we will), the command will expand dimensionally at that point as well. And, even beyond this, what if we become able to interact with beings in other literal dimensions, or other versions of our world in multiple time-lines? Who knows how the 3000+ year old command to "Love your neighbor" might grow in dimensional complexity?
Copyright 2011 (c) The Rev. Nate Bostian
This brings up the conception that I think the OT is "child's play", and even worse, that we are somehow morally superior to ancient cultures. This is patently untrue, since by any objective calculation the 20th century was the most brutal and violent on record.
My first response is to say that this objection is dealt with by understanding what I mean by "development" in my essay on developmental revelation. It clarifies a few things:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2011/02/developmental-revelation-and-divine.html
My point in comparing human society at a "childhood" developmental level to society at a "teen" or "adult" level was not to make a point about the moral progress or goodness of society at any particular time. When we talk of individuals, we all know good kids and bad adults. We also know very spiritual kids and very jaded adults. Age and development is not an indicator of moral or spiritual progress.
Rather, I was speaking of development in terms of capacity to understand, synthesize and act in Reality. In terms of individuals, it is clear that an adult is more developed than a teen who is more developed than a child in terms of physical capabilities and intellectual capabilities. The more developed you are, the more capacity you have to understand and do things.
This development CAN be taken in a positive moral direction (such as finding a cure for cancer), or it CAN be taken in a negative moral direction (such as finding a way to engineer biological weapons). In fact, the more developed you are, the more capacity one has for goodness or badness. A 2 year old throwing a tantrum is a lot less dangerous than a teen throwing a tantrum, who is a lot less dangerous than a tyrannical dictator throwing a tantrum.
Now, when we move from individual development to social development, it is clear that two things happen as well: (a) Over time, as a society develops, there is more capacity to understand, synthesize, and act as a society; (b) That such capacity creates the opportunity for greater goods and worse evils.
So, it is NOT that our society is BETTER than NT society which is BETTER than OT society. It is that our society has a greater development, and more total resources available for understanding and action, than NT society. And NT society in turn has greater development and more resources than OT society.
And this is not to say that the writings of the OT and NT are not intelligent and complex. In our culture, it requires a well-educated adult level of individual development to begin to really understand what is going on in Scripture. This is true even of the earliest parts of Scripture which were written to the least developed culture.
To be sure, the INDIVIDUAL writers (and readers) of the Bible were intelligent by the standard of any society, no matter how developed that society was/is as a whole. Surely, St. Paul was more intelligent than me, and the writer of Ecclesiastes was wiser (and that just scratches the surface!). Likewise, many of the arguments made in Scripture are complex and nuanced. But they are complex and nuanced in a certain cultural context which must be understood within its own level of development.
Thus, when I speak of social development and "developmental revelation", I am talking about:
- Development as a society, NOT development of individuals.
- Development of within the context of the communities who received the Biblical writings, NOT that Biblical writings (and writers) somehow lacked complexity and nuance.
- Development of capabilities, NOT development of morality/holiness, or development of spirituality
- Development of TOTAL resources which contribute to the horizon of a societal world-view.
These total resources would include access to food and water, social stability, uniform laws, the conceptual capabilities imbedded in language, the conceptual options available in surrounding cultures, the taboos and social limitations on thought and communication, and dozens of other factors.
For instance, let's take two rather complex concepts: "The Triune God who is transcendent and immanent" and "The sanctity of human life, leading to universal human rights".
While to you and I these may be fairly simple concepts, and even "self-evident" in some sense, think about the immense web of social resources required to both realize and sustain these concepts. Those concepts rest on three millennia of hard work, not only in Scripture (which provides the trajectory toward these ideas in embryonic and disconnected form) but also in society. It requires both the Hebraic and Greco-Roman thought-worlds to accomplish. And those thought-worlds are in turn based on several sets of interlocking social factors that make them possible.
So, the OT provides some great insights from brilliant and holy people who lived in a certain developmental context. In their immediate context (at the time that they wrote) their ideas had a certain limited field of meaning to the original intended audience. But, when those ideas are brought into a wider developmental context (like ours) dimensions of meaning and applicability are added to the same concepts that the original authors and audiences would not have been fully aware of.
To use CS Lewis' analogy of raising complexity to different dimensions: Someone can draw/paint a very complex picture in two dimensions, and it can be absolute world-class genius. If another takes that same picture and then raises it a dimension into three dimensions as a statue (assuming the artist is as good as the original) it then takes on even more complexity and depth. Then let's say someone in the 22nd century brings the same portrait into a 4th dimension we are barely aware of now. And then later a 5th dimension, etc., etc.
The raised level of dimensionality in no way diminishes the genius of the original piece. In fact, serious art students would ALWAYS study the original, and then the higher-dimension renderings as well. However, it would be untrue to say that the original work was as dimensionally complex as the derivative works based on it.
I think that is what I am trying to say about the development in Scripture, and the further theological development that is derivative upon Scripture. The concepts provided in Scripture are spiritual and moral genius, and they have a high level of complexity by any standard. However, many of these concepts are presented in embryonic form at a lower dimension of social development. They await further application and appreciation as we raise these same concepts into higher dimensions of social development.
A final concrete example:
The command "Love your neighbor" has a certain limited sphere of meaning in an ancient land-based culture of the OT. That same command raises to another dimension when culture moves into the pan-Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire of the NT. It further expands in the pan-European culture of the Middle Ages. It further expands in our age of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic globalism. And, assuming we find sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy (which I think we will), the command will expand dimensionally at that point as well. And, even beyond this, what if we become able to interact with beings in other literal dimensions, or other versions of our world in multiple time-lines? Who knows how the 3000+ year old command to "Love your neighbor" might grow in dimensional complexity?
Copyright 2011 (c) The Rev. Nate Bostian
2011-06-17
Dealing with the "contradictions" in the Bible
Copyright 2011 © Nathan L. Bostian
On a fairly regular basis, one of my students will come to me with questions about whether the Bible contradicts itself. Sometimes their faith is shaken. Sometimes they are trying to find a reason not to believe in the Bible. Whether they are shaken or skeptical, their underlying concern is this: How could a perfect, truthful God give us an imperfect, flawed Book?
This week, I wrote one of my students the following essay on "Bible contradictions". What may surprise you is that I disagree with many Christian attempts to "defend" the Bible almost as much as I disagree with skeptical attempts to debunk it. It seems that most modern skeptics and many modern Christians are guilty of reading the Bible wrongly: In a way that is completely foreign to the purposes and materials found in Scripture itself.
This is particularly true in the American "Bible Belt" where Conservative Christians and angry Atheists get locked in battles over Scripture. Because neither side really understands the nature of what they are reading, they can't help but misunderstanding both the text and each other.
it's like two illiterates arguing over the meaning of Tolstoy's "War and Peace".
I think there are five main factors that come together to create an un-informed view of what the Bible is all about for both Christians and non-Christians in modern culture. Here is my short list:
1. Christians often fail to admit when the Bible does actually have contradictions.
The debate and discussion over the meaning of the Bible simply starts off wrong when Christians are unrealistic about the Bible itself. The Bible not only has parts that are clear, inspiring, rational, and intelligent, but it also has parts that are confusing, paradoxical, messy, and crude. Christians should admit that.
I think most of the difficulties in Scripture can be resolved by knowing how Scripture texts have been copied, the culture they came from, the original language, the historical setting, and a sense of how Scripture's message developed over time. So, most of the Bible's supposed "contradictions" are really caused by the misunderstanding or downright ignorance of the reader.
But, not every problem in Scripture can be explained this way. There are contradictions. There are some contradictions between one part of the Bible and another (internal contradictions). And there are some contradictions between the Bible and the outside world, such as science or history (external contradictions). And while I don't think Scripture has a ton of contradictions, I think it has some. And Christians should be honest and admit this too.
For instance, when Jesus sends out the disciples, we have the following accounts of what Jesus says:
Matthew 10.10 [Jesus said] Take no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food.
Mark 6.8 [Jesus] ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;
Luke 9.3 [Jesus] said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.
So, in Mark Jesus allows them to take a staff, while in Matthew and Luke he did not. Now, we could come up with inventive theories about how this is not a contradiction. Perhaps we could say the text was copied the wrong way. Perhaps we could say they appear to be talking about the same incident, but really they are describing similar but separate incidents. But, at the end of the day, these explanations seem forced and false.
The clearest explanation is that on this one point, the Gospels do not agree.
And you know what, it's OK. The basic message is still the same in all the Gospels: Jesus is sending his disciples out on a preaching and healing mission and he wants them to rely on very few material possessions, and instead depend on the providence of God.
Furthermore, this contradiction does not alter the historicity of the event. We can reliably know that (a) Jesus existed; (b) He had disciples; (c) He sent them out to preach and heal; (d) In so doing, he gave instructions about what to take and not take, including money, clothing, and staffs.
I have read the entire Bible multiple times, and translated nearly all of the New Testament out of Greek. I know of no discrepancy that affects the basic meaning or historicity of the New Testament. And in regards to the Old Testament, there are portions that are not historical in the sense that we think of as history. Yet, the basic trajectory of meaning found there is intact. More on this later.
But long story short, there is no need for Christians to go to absurd lengths to defend the Bible against every claim of contradiction. Nor should Christians have their faith threatened by small discrepancies in Scripture. Our faith does not ultimately rest on the Bible, rather it ultimately rests in the God to whom the Bible points to, and in Jesus who fully reveals God. More on this later too.
2. Many modern readers are abysmally ignorant of ancient cultures, literary styles, and standards of accuracy.
This should be a no-brainer, but it isn't. Modern scientific history, sociology, politics, and science has only existed for around for 200 years in the Western world.
Before that, the world simply did not know these disciplines as we know them now, and thus did not judge literature by their standards. Another way of saying it is this: Neither the Bible writers nor ANY writer up till the Enlightenment tried to hold to a modern scientific standard of accuracy or citation or evidence. Those standards simply did not exist yet.
The Bible writers were not trying to write a science book. The science they knew was extremely crude, and often inaccurate by our standards. When God inspired the various writers to write Scripture, he was not inspiring them to write science. God knew humans would develop that on our own. God was inspiring humans to write about things we could not grasp on our own power, like the nature of God, the reality of sin, the need for salvation, etc.
For instance, Genesis 1 is a poem, not a scientific lab report. And this poem is about the superiority of Yahweh over all other created realities. It is NOT a scientific description of the creation of the world. Likewise, Genesis chapters 2-11 are symbolic, allegorical and legendary. It is given to teach things about God's relationship with humans and the world in a colorful, memorable way. Nothing truly historic starts happening until Genesis 12, and even then it is not history as we think of history. It is more of an imaginative re-telling of the foundational lives of the Hebrew people.
That does not mean it is not true, just that it is not historically accurate. Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar" is not historically accurate, even if it tells a lot of great truths about the human condition, and even tells a few accurate things about Roman culture. But it is not a scientifically historic and objective retelling of the events of Julius Caesar's life. The same is true for much of the Old Testament.
When we get to the New Testament, we are dealing with a more historic, factual period in literature. What we read in the Gospels and Acts is a religiously motivated re-telling of events that historically happened. As such, the early Christian writings are more-or-less historical, and we can place more emphasis on the fact that Jesus really lived, died, and was raised from death in space and time.
But even in these writings, the standards of accuracy are not what we would expect of history. In addition, these documents are very selective in the events they discuss and the perspective they discuss them from (for instance, they leave out nearly all of Jesus' childhood and young adulthood). This is very different from a modern historical biography, which tries to give a comprehensive account of a person's entire life and cultural background from multiple perspectives.
Thus, in the New Testament we can gain a pretty accurate account of some events in Jesus' life and the early Christian community, but there will be large areas we are not fully sure about. In short, our information about Jesus and the early Church is based in history, but not the same kind of historical method as say, reading a modern history book about Abraham Lincoln or the Civil War.
3. Many modern readers seem to want the Bible to be like the Quran, and then get upset when it is not.
The Muslim view of the Quran is that it was directly dictated by God through the Angel Gabriel (God spoke Arabic) and recited by Muhammed. In this process, according to Muslims, NONE of Muhammed's human viewpoints or personality was involved in the making of the Quran. To use an over-simplified analogy, Muhammed was a "divine typewriter" that spoke exactly what he received from God.
The Bible, on the other hand, was written by dozens (hundreds?) of authors in around 70 books over the course of 1500 years. Each book bears the stamp of the interests, prejudices and viewpoints of the human authors, cultures and communities involved in writing them. There was no divine typewriter here, but rather a gradual development over time of the Biblical message.
Some Christians and many skeptics want to treat the Bible as if it was some sort of Quran. The act as if the Bible miraculously appeared from heaven, fully formed. These Christians do it to supposedly defend the absolute "inerrancy" of the Bible, and keep firm the "foundation" of faith they believe is the Bible. Skeptics follow the same tactic to set up a straw man argument.
The logic goes something like this:
Major Premise: The Bible is inspired by God.
Minor Premise: Anything inspired by God must be perfectly factual according to modern scientific and historic standards
Conclusion: The Bible is therefore inerrant.
But then the Skeptic says: Wait! The Bible has errors! Therefore the Bible MUST NOT be inspired by God!
To which the [modern, conservative] Christian replies: No! I will go to absurd lengths to prove that the Bible has no flaws, no matter how badly I seem to be grasping at straws!
However, the minor premise is really problematic. It assumes that God comes from modern, western culture (God must be a white European?). It also assumes that God inspired the Bible to be a book of science and history, instead of having another purpose.
Yet, it is pretty clear that the Bible's purpose is to draw us into relationship with God, not to give us a databank of obscure scientific and historical facts. To use a crude metaphor: The Bible is more of a collection of Love letters and family stories, written to help us know and love God, rather than a scientific textbook.
In fact, while the "inerrancy" argument above might work if one were discussing the Quran, it simply does not work with the Bible. The Bible is not under judgment from Western science, because it was never intended to function as that type of document. Since Muslims view the Quran as the direct dictation of God, perhaps they feel the need to prove the Quran's inerrancy (I don't know for sure: Ask a Muslim).
But the inspiration of the Bible was never understood as being authored that way, so Christians should feel absolutely no need to defend the Bible as if it were perfect in the modern sense. And Christians who treat the Bible as some sort of Quran are doing more harm to their faith than they realize, since their faith is ultimately resting on the Bible instead of on the God to whom the Bible points.
4. Many modern readers fail to grasp the concept of development and trajectory across time in Scripture.
This is another no-brainer which few people seem to really grasp. But the Bible is developmental. Its message developed over 1500 years.
Just think of how the American concepts of "democracy", "civil rights" and "science" have developed over just the last 230 odd years since the founding of the United States. And that is less than 1/6 the time that Scripture covers!
When the Bible began being written, it was written to and for a group of semi-nomadic Semitic tribes who lived in a society that was brutal and barbaric beyond imagination. They had no centralized government, a barter economy, sporadic national defense, inter-tribal warfare, and no organized system of transportation, irrigation, taxation, communication, education, commerce, or food distribution.
Imagine how simple and primitive God's messages to those people would have to be.
They had no language for "universal human rights" or "social justice" or even "unconditional love". They had no concept of a society based on law rather than on blood ties. They had no understanding of a universal, eternal, loving God. God had to start at rock bottom to get these concepts through to them.
And when the Bible finished being written, there was more for God to work with in revealing Godself to us, but society was still primitive by our standards. Several Empires rose and fell from the beginning of the Bible to the New Testament era. But Rome had risen victorious. They provided social systems and stability, as well as universal currency and a system of laws. Also, the Hebrew prophets and Greek philosophers had written by then, so there was a language to talk about God's nature and the nature of human existence.
Yet, even at this time Greco-Roman culture was racked with poverty, illiteracy, war, violence, slavery, patriarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, and ethnic prejudice and hatred.
My point is that, since God is dealing with humans who grow and change and evolve as individuals and as a culture, God has to adapt in the way God communicates Godself to us. God has to use available resources.
Thus, as culture develops over time, we see a development of how the Bible conceives of God and God's relation to humanity. For instance, from the beginning of Scripture to the end of Scripture, we see the following development:
In terms of Godself: God begins as the highest God among many lesser gods; Then all lesser gods are seen as demons or angels, with God as the only God; Then God is seen as the Ultimate Reality that holds all of Reality together; Then God is seen as a Father who loves humans; Then God is seen as an eternal Father who has an eternal Son and shares an eternal Spirit. Later Christian Theology (after the Bible) saw this as the basis of "The Trinity".
In terms of violence: In the earliest Bible texts, violence is just part of the way things are and God helps various tribes to victory over others; Violence then becomes something punished within society, but still used by Israel to invade and get rid of non-Israelite cultures; Violence is then questioned by the prophets, who foretell of a coming age of Peace when "swords will be beaten into plowshares"; Violence is then rejected by Jesus Christ, who refuses to start a violent uprising, and instead defeats violence by allowing himself to be murdered and then rise again; Violence is finally spurned in the later New Testament is wholly beneath Christlike standards of living, and only the government is given "the sword" to protect society.
I could go on with other examples in terms of slavery, civil rights, women's rights, the concept of justice and love, and dozens of other issues.
But the point is that, across Scripture, we often do not find an exact agreement. In fact we may find Scriptures that are at odds with each other on many issues, such as the use of violence or the treatment of women. Yet, we can discern a trajectory and a development across time. This trajectory goes from barbaric to civilized, from law to love, from prejudice to justice, from tribal to universal.
So we should expect earlier Scriptures to have more simplistic and crude viewpoints on various matters than the later Scriptures. Likewise, we should expect the Church and later Christian thinkers to take the trajectory of Scripture and more fully develop the trajectory found there.
As an analogy, think of how you might answer the same question if a question were asked by a 5 year old or a 50 year old. Your answers to the 50 year old would be considerably more developed and nuanced than you answer to the 5 year old.
How would you answer change if a 5 year old or 50 year old asked "What is God like"?
How would you answer change if a 5 year old or 50 year old asked "What is right and wrong"?
How would you answer change if a 5 year old or 50 year old asked "What happens when we die"?
In a similar way, when you are dealing with the Bible, the earlier portions are the social equivalent of dealing with a 5 year old. In all honesty, I would say the New Testament is the social equivalent of dealing with an early teen. And if you move up to our culture, we are probably the social equivalent of a late teen or early 20-something.
We have a lot to learn. And to do that we need to follow the trajectory of Scripture, even if that trajectory differs from the exact wording of earlier portions of Scripture.
For a more extensive essay on the concept of developmental revelation, see my blog here:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2011/02/developmental-revelation-and-divine.html
5. Many modern readers fail to understand that the Word of God is foremost Jesus Christ, and only secondarily the written text.
This is very simple, really. Yet few people seem to get this. The Bible is not "The Word of God". The Bible is "Words about God". The Word of God is described most famously by John:
John 1.1, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
The Word of God is Jesus, who is God embodied in human form. God's ultimate self-communication does not come in a book, but in a Person.
The Bible needs to be accurate enough to get us into relationship with this embodied Word of God. It does not have to be perfect history or flawless science. It does not even have to be great literature (some of it is, but some of it is not).
It just needs to tell us enough to know Jesus and follow him as Lord.
Jesus is the Point of the Bible. He is the target which the trajectory of the Bible ultimately points us to, no matter how many detours the Bible takes along the way.
That is why, when the Bible describes its own purpose, it says this:
2Timothy 3.15–17
[15] The sacred writings… are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
Notice, verse 17 does NOT say:
"so that everyone may have a flawless record of ancient history"
or
"so that everyone may have a transcript of creation science"
or even
"so that believers may have religious knowledge to make them know they are right and non-believers are wrong"
rather
What Scripture gives us is for action, to help us live a Christ-like life "proficient and equipped for every good work". Scripture is not a repository of data and facts to know, but rather wisdom to live as we follow Jesus.
And the qualities of "inerrant" (without scientific or historical flaw) or "infallible" (without fallacy, ignorance, or error) are really out of place to describe the Bible. First of all, these adjectives describe what the Bible is NOT rather than what it IS. Second, they operate within the rules and worldview of modern Western European categories, which the Bible does not.
Perhaps it is better to speak of the Bible as "reliable". When we follow its trajectory across history, it reliably leads us to the God who became embodied in Jesus. Or maybe we should merely use the word that 2Timothy uses above: Inspired (or in-breathed). The Spirit of God breathed and flowed through the authors and communities that formed the Bible, steadily steering them on a course to Christ. That is a much fuller idea of the Story we find in Scripture: It is fully reliable and thoroughly inspired to accomplish the purpose God gave it to us, which it to point us to The Point who is Jesus.
To treat the Bible any differently, or to read it through modern lenses of history and science (whether for or against it), is an adventure in missing The Point.
2011-05-02
On Bin Laden's Death
A Reading from 1st Timothy, chapter 2:
1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
Today has been a day of celebration around the western world as we hear news that one of the leaders of world terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, has been killed.
But before we celebrate too hastily, I would like to remind you all of the gravity of this situation. Bin Laden's death, the death of his henchmen, and the death of the innocent human shields who were used to stop American bullets, are just the top of an immense heap of dead bodies and destruction.
Nearly 3000 innocent lives were lost on September 11, 2001, when the world trade center fell and the Pentagon burned. Since then, nearly 5000 brave men and women have been lost in the US Military, with many more injured and their families changed forever.
In the middle east, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, individuals and families have been torn apart and rent asunder by war. Many of these have been actively fighting for terror. But most of these are families like yours and mine caught in the crossfire of war.
So, when you think about the death of one man, remember what horrible cost it came at. And also remember this: The reason Osama Bin Laden needed to die is NOT for some juvenile sense of revenge, or "I told ya so", or "we're gonna kick your butt".
The reason Bin Laden needed to die is NOT because of his religion. Islam, when rightly understood, is a religion of peace. The word Islam means both "submission" and "peace". Those who practice Islam are supposed to submit themselves to the peace and harmony of the whole human family. And this is precisely what Bin Laden did not do.
The reason Bin Laden needed to die is for the protection of the innocent. He was the head of a global terror network that targets innocent people, and destroys families and communities. This is what justice is: The defense of the defenseless. Bin Laden preyed on the defenseless, and used their suffering to advance his ideology of hate, exclusion, and injustice.
Now I want to give you a brief understanding of why sometimes war is necessary to ensure justice, to ensure the defense of the defenseless:
In Christian theology, every person is created in the image of God, and every person is a child of the God who is Father of all. That means every person is valuable. Every person is sacred. Everyone. Americans. Arabs. Muslims. Christians. Soldiers. And even though they are horribly misguided, terrorists too are children of God.
So, as our Scripture says "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".
God weeps any time he looses a child. God weeps any time one of his children kills another child. It is a sin, an evil, to kill another person intentionally.
But with that said, when given the choice of protecting the innocent who are oppressed, or protecting the guilty who are oppressing and abusing them, it is the lesser evil to stop the guilty. And when the guilty are literally hell bent on hating and destroying others, sometimes the only way to stop them is death.
And that is why the same Scripture also says that it is the job of "those in authority"- our President, our elected officials, and our Military- to provide the conditions "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness". They cannot help us live peaceful lives while allowing people to spread terror and destruction.
So, a war of justice, a war to defend the defenseless, is a lesser evil than allowing a group of killers to keep killing. The death of Osama Bin Laden, who was hell bent on killing the innocent, is a lesser evil than allowing him to keep holding the reigns of terror and harming God's children.
While this may not warrant whoops of joy (for the death of anyone is not an occasion for joy in God's sight), it may warrant a sigh of relief. It may warrant a congratulations to our brave soldiers who risk their lives upholding justice.
But it also warrants something else: It warrants a renewal of our own efforts to create a just world, filled with peace and health and wholeness.
Because I will tell you, unless the basic conditions of human dignity and justice are not met around the world, hatred and terror will still keep raising its demonic head. Unless the people of both America and the Middle East KNOW that they live in a society where the innocent are protected, where there is access to healthy food and clean water, where all are educated and have medical care, and where people are free to become who God made them to be- unless THIS happens, there will ALWAYS be Bin Ladens who arise to channel people's fear and frustration into hatred and violence.
Unless we work together to create a just society, someone crazier, more hateful, more violent than Bin Laden will certainly arise to fill the void left by his death. This is not a time of complacency, where we can sit back and say "He's dead, no worries now!".
NO! This is a time to redouble our prayers, redouble our efforts to bring about the peace and justice of God on Earth. This is what Jesus himself called the Kingdom of God: A Kingdom where everyone is at peace, everyone is healthy, everyone is protected, everyone is healed, everyone has what they need, regardless of what culture, nationality, race, gender, or religion they are.
America has been blessed- YOU have been blessed- so that you can be a blessing to others. You have been given talents and skills and access to resources that people in other countries only DREAM of. You are the tools God will use- if you will let him- to bring about his peace on Earth and across the Earth, so that people will find no need for fear or terror or war anymore.
So is it good that Bin Laden is dead? Yes, it is better than him staying alive to maim and kill others. But his death will not stop the cycle of violence. The only thing that can stop this endless cycle of violence is compassion, is love, is a commitment to use our resources to bring about the peaceful Kingdom of God. Let us commit ourselves to be people of peace, and spread the healing and compassion we see embodied in Jesus, who is the Prince of Peace. Amen.
1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
Today has been a day of celebration around the western world as we hear news that one of the leaders of world terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, has been killed.
But before we celebrate too hastily, I would like to remind you all of the gravity of this situation. Bin Laden's death, the death of his henchmen, and the death of the innocent human shields who were used to stop American bullets, are just the top of an immense heap of dead bodies and destruction.
Nearly 3000 innocent lives were lost on September 11, 2001, when the world trade center fell and the Pentagon burned. Since then, nearly 5000 brave men and women have been lost in the US Military, with many more injured and their families changed forever.
In the middle east, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, individuals and families have been torn apart and rent asunder by war. Many of these have been actively fighting for terror. But most of these are families like yours and mine caught in the crossfire of war.
So, when you think about the death of one man, remember what horrible cost it came at. And also remember this: The reason Osama Bin Laden needed to die is NOT for some juvenile sense of revenge, or "I told ya so", or "we're gonna kick your butt".
The reason Bin Laden needed to die is NOT because of his religion. Islam, when rightly understood, is a religion of peace. The word Islam means both "submission" and "peace". Those who practice Islam are supposed to submit themselves to the peace and harmony of the whole human family. And this is precisely what Bin Laden did not do.
The reason Bin Laden needed to die is for the protection of the innocent. He was the head of a global terror network that targets innocent people, and destroys families and communities. This is what justice is: The defense of the defenseless. Bin Laden preyed on the defenseless, and used their suffering to advance his ideology of hate, exclusion, and injustice.
Now I want to give you a brief understanding of why sometimes war is necessary to ensure justice, to ensure the defense of the defenseless:
In Christian theology, every person is created in the image of God, and every person is a child of the God who is Father of all. That means every person is valuable. Every person is sacred. Everyone. Americans. Arabs. Muslims. Christians. Soldiers. And even though they are horribly misguided, terrorists too are children of God.
So, as our Scripture says "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".
God weeps any time he looses a child. God weeps any time one of his children kills another child. It is a sin, an evil, to kill another person intentionally.
But with that said, when given the choice of protecting the innocent who are oppressed, or protecting the guilty who are oppressing and abusing them, it is the lesser evil to stop the guilty. And when the guilty are literally hell bent on hating and destroying others, sometimes the only way to stop them is death.
And that is why the same Scripture also says that it is the job of "those in authority"- our President, our elected officials, and our Military- to provide the conditions "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness". They cannot help us live peaceful lives while allowing people to spread terror and destruction.
So, a war of justice, a war to defend the defenseless, is a lesser evil than allowing a group of killers to keep killing. The death of Osama Bin Laden, who was hell bent on killing the innocent, is a lesser evil than allowing him to keep holding the reigns of terror and harming God's children.
While this may not warrant whoops of joy (for the death of anyone is not an occasion for joy in God's sight), it may warrant a sigh of relief. It may warrant a congratulations to our brave soldiers who risk their lives upholding justice.
But it also warrants something else: It warrants a renewal of our own efforts to create a just world, filled with peace and health and wholeness.
Because I will tell you, unless the basic conditions of human dignity and justice are not met around the world, hatred and terror will still keep raising its demonic head. Unless the people of both America and the Middle East KNOW that they live in a society where the innocent are protected, where there is access to healthy food and clean water, where all are educated and have medical care, and where people are free to become who God made them to be- unless THIS happens, there will ALWAYS be Bin Ladens who arise to channel people's fear and frustration into hatred and violence.
Unless we work together to create a just society, someone crazier, more hateful, more violent than Bin Laden will certainly arise to fill the void left by his death. This is not a time of complacency, where we can sit back and say "He's dead, no worries now!".
NO! This is a time to redouble our prayers, redouble our efforts to bring about the peace and justice of God on Earth. This is what Jesus himself called the Kingdom of God: A Kingdom where everyone is at peace, everyone is healthy, everyone is protected, everyone is healed, everyone has what they need, regardless of what culture, nationality, race, gender, or religion they are.
America has been blessed- YOU have been blessed- so that you can be a blessing to others. You have been given talents and skills and access to resources that people in other countries only DREAM of. You are the tools God will use- if you will let him- to bring about his peace on Earth and across the Earth, so that people will find no need for fear or terror or war anymore.
So is it good that Bin Laden is dead? Yes, it is better than him staying alive to maim and kill others. But his death will not stop the cycle of violence. The only thing that can stop this endless cycle of violence is compassion, is love, is a commitment to use our resources to bring about the peaceful Kingdom of God. Let us commit ourselves to be people of peace, and spread the healing and compassion we see embodied in Jesus, who is the Prince of Peace. Amen.
2011-04-23
Thoughts on Gaga's "Judas"
For most folks inclined to hate Gaga, I think she spoon feeds them material in her song Judas. Once people hear the following lyric, I bet many will nod with a self-satisfied grin and say "told ya so!":
"In the most Biblical sense,
I am beyond repentance
Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind..."
But is there more to this song than sheer shock? Perhaps. I think a lot will be revealed when we see the video that goes with the song. But, in lieu of the video, I will say this:
The charitable interpretation is that she is exploring her own deep struggle between trying to follow the love and compassion of Jesus, while being constantly treated as a traitor and whore by religious insiders. Thus she identifies strongly with both Jesus (as a follower of his way) and Judas (as a maligned traitor figure). I think this is represented in the following lyric:
"Jesus is my virtue / Judas is the demon I cling to"
In this interpretation, she has a deep compassion for Judas because she deeply identifies with his plight. To her, he is a misunderstood, misidentified traitor figure who was actually doing his best to follow Jesus (like her).
That's the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable interpretation is that she created a catchy dance tune with ambiguous and controversial religious lyrics, and then released it as close to Easter as possible to maximize publicity and sales.
My final interpretation will depend a lot on the video, and the iconography she uses in it. If it seems to have some substance and introspective depth to it, I would incline toward the charitable interpretation. If it's just a bunch of skin and shock, I will incline toward the uncharitable.
2011-04-09
Ode to Infotainment
Ode to Infotainment
2011. Nathan L. Bostian
In an age of simple slogans and blustery books / How shall we show an argument's lame?
Some resort to snide sneers and haughty looks / But that only fans the emotional flame.
Some complain of ad hominems and ad hocs / But that sounds like an unending whine.
Some argue with evidence and logic / But that only casts pearls before swine.
Of all the ways one may disagree / With a pundit's pride and brawn:
I suppose the most effective may be / To simply shrug and yawn.
2011. Nathan L. Bostian
In an age of simple slogans and blustery books / How shall we show an argument's lame?
Some resort to snide sneers and haughty looks / But that only fans the emotional flame.
Some complain of ad hominems and ad hocs / But that sounds like an unending whine.
Some argue with evidence and logic / But that only casts pearls before swine.
Of all the ways one may disagree / With a pundit's pride and brawn:
I suppose the most effective may be / To simply shrug and yawn.
2011-02-25
Developmental Revelation and Divine Violence
Copyright 2011 © Nathan L. Bostian | natebostian@gmail.com
1. The Puzzle of Developmental Revelation:
I have long puzzled over the problem of so-called "progressive revelation" in Scripture. This is the fact that clearly, certain concepts about God, and God's relation to the world (especially in judgement), seems to change radically over the course of Scripture. In particular, we glimpse an often messy trajectory that goes from the divine sanction of violence in the early Hebrew Scriptures, to divine rejection of violence in Christ.
For many reasons, I prefer to refer to this fact as "developmental revelation", because it is not a clear and clean "progress" over time. There is, for instance, clearly divine mercy present in the very beginnings of Scripture all the way through, such as when we find God clothing Adam and Eve in animal skins and providing a new place for their life after "the Fall". Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures- even during their most bloodthirsty sections- God is repeatedly referred to as "slow to anger" and abundant in loving-kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. It is this God whom non-violent Jesus calls "Father".
And likewise, divine violence is present even in the most "peaceful" parts of the New Testament. Jesus talks more about hell and judgment than any other single Biblical figure. St. Paul can turn from discussing radical self-sacrificial neighbor-love (cf. Rom 12) to speaking of how the government has divine sanction to "bear the sword… to punish evil doers" (cf. Rom 13). The very last book of the Bible, Revelation, speaks of bloody wars and crushing victories wrought by Jesus Himself. And although these visions can (and should!) be interpreted as Jesus crushing spiritual forces of sin and wickedness, and not flesh and blood people, it is still clear that images of divine violence are abundant in the New Testament.
So, we do not have a clear "progress" from divine sanction of violence to divine rejection of violence. But, we do have a trend, a development, a trajectory that heads in that direction. This development is rather like the concept of child development, as a child grows in certain capacities, while other capacities are stunted or even retarded temporarily, only to grow and "catch up" later. One quick example is that older children right before puberty are often able to follow directions better, and make rational decisions easier, than teens in the midst of the hormonal onslaught of puberty, even though the teens are physically and cognitively better developed in a number of ways. It is this kind of halting, stuttering development of God's relation to the world we see in Scripture.
And while there are dozens of other developmental themes that could be named from Scripture (such as the development of monotheism or the development of the concept of Messiah), I want to hone in on this issue of "divine violence" as the paradigmatic problem in developmental revelation. It is clear that in the earliest Hebrew Scriptures God is pictured as sanctioning, and in some cases ordering, and in some causes causing, violence against individuals and communities. But, by the end of the Christian Scriptures, it is clear that violence is to be avoided at all costs, even to the point of self sacrifice on behalf of one's own enemies, as Jesus both teaches (cf. Mat 5) and embodies on the cross (cf. Rom 5).
And we must also note that the developmental revelation in Scripture has substantial overlap with the concept of "development of doctrine", in which the Church progressively develops the trajectory of Scripture as it travels through the concerns of contemporary culture. But, I want to clearly differentiate developmental revelation from developmental doctrine.
Developmental revelation involves the action of God in the event(s) of revelation, and it's subsequent recording in Scripture. Developmental doctrine involves the reflection of the community of God on these records of revelation. Developmental revelation would trace the trajectory of an issue through Scripture, such as the development of the concept of Messiah. Developmental doctrine would trace the implications of the totality of Scripture and Tradition on a specific issue throughout the history of the Church. An instance of this would be to trace the elaboration of the meaning of the Incarnation through the seven ecumenical councils, and it's implications on worship, evangelism, and social engagement for the Church. In general, developmental revelation deals with the question of what God has done, while developmental doctrine deals with the question of what the Church does with what God has done.
2. The Non-Solution of a "Growing God":
So, it is easier to understand why developmental doctrine would change over time, because it deals with the human activity of reflecting and elaborating on the event of divine revelation. What is harder to understand is why God, who is perfect, would seem to change in his relation to humanity over time in God's own self-revelation. Surely a perfect unchanging God would be basically the same in appearance across time.
A frequent solution is to say that God Himself changes, develops and grows over time. Perhaps revelation develops in a halting, stuttering way because God Himself is developing in a halting, stuttering way. Some even go so far as to say that we, as humans, help God in God's own moral development over time. In short, God needs creation to fully become God. Without us, God would be locked into a lower developmental level.
But this is problematic for a number of reasons. Is God really worthy of being called God if God needs us to be God? And if so, doesn't that raise us up to a godlike level? This both diminishes who and what God is, while exaggerating (sinfully) our own sense of self-importance. Because it implies imperfection and instability in God, it seems to make God less than God. Certainly such a "developmental" God could not be trusted to be a moral ground for us, or a clear hope for the future. What if God fundamentally changes God's mind about the nature of good and evil (for instance, making hate good and love bad?). Or what if God is not ultimately able to carry out God's promises of healing and restoration?
Clearly, this "solution" of positing a "growing God" behind developmental revelation causes more problems than it solves. Although this point can (and has been) argued, let us bracket out this possibility for the time and see if we can come to an understanding of developmental revelation which does not posit instability in Godself.
3. The Non-Solution of "Shrinking Scripture":
Another frequently explored solution is to simply deny that God has inspired, or is revealed, in certain portions of Scripture (especially those that sanction divine violence). There are many grounds this is done on, whether through literary criticism, ideological criticism, or historical criticism (or just ignoring certain passages in the life of the church by never reading them!). But, the problem is that if we arbitrarily excise the parts of Scripture we find problematic on "anti-violence" grounds, we have no real grounds to object when someone excises scriptural teaching about love, charity, and forgiveness on "pro-violence" grounds.
Let us take to heart the historical example of pro-Nazi Biblical scholarship during the Third Reich: It is possible to use the tools of Biblical criticism to create a pro-violence canon of Scripture which validates our ideology, and destroys those we label as ideological enemies. Or, we could look at the ancient example of the heretic Marcion, who dealt with this issue by positing a good God of Love in the New Testament, and an evil Jewish Demiurge of hate in the Old Testament. Then he simply removed from his canon of Scripture all the writings he though tainted by the evil Demiurge, leaving only portions of the Gospels and some of Paul's letters.
And there is another major problem with simply "shrinking Scripture" to fit our ideology, other than the fact that the same arbitrary logic can be employed to create a pro-violence canon of Scripture. This problem is that we miss an essential dimension of our relationship with God: The dimension of struggle and of "wrestling" with God through the messiness of historical process (cf. Gen 32 and the identity of "Israel"). It is precisely this struggle and wrestling through issues that enables us to become fully formed disciples of Jesus Christ. Without doing the "heavy lifting" of struggling through Scripture with God, we will simply be too weak to "take up our cross" and follow Jesus.
To take back up the idea of child development here, it would be a bit like a parent wanting to "fast forward" their child from a cute kid to a fully grown adult without having to go through all the messiness of teenage development. It simply doesn't work that way. The messiness of teenage life, with all its drama and mistakes and heartaches, is a necessary step to becoming a mature adult. So also, the messiness of developmental revelation seems to be entirely necessary to the full development of individual spirituality, the community of the Church, and even a fully flourishing humanity.
So, just as it is not wise to try and solve the developmental revelation problem through recourse to a "growing God", so also we cannot shrink Scripture to get rid of the embarrassing parts. Instead, we must find a constructive use- a Spirit taught lesson to learn- from every verse of Scripture. After all, the classic Christian tradition us that "all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable". We have been given the deposit- the ENTIRE deposit- of canonical Scripture as a gift from God to form us in Christ's image as we wrestle through it. Thus, we need to use all of it.
4. The Most Problematic "Solution":
Perhaps the both the easiest, and the most problematic solution is to simply say that there are two sides to God: Love for God's elect, and Hate for the damned. There are certainly a number of theological systems that take this "easy path" out of the problem of divine violence. For them, there is a category of people that God simply despises and does not love, nor does God want to heal or save them. The theological reasons for this divine hatred is different depending on which theological system is used: Perhaps they are a member of the wrong sect, denomination, or religion; Perhaps they have committed an "unforgivable sin"; Or perhaps they were pre-destined to be damned before time.
No matter the rationale for divine hatred, this provides the easy solution to divine violence: God kills people, and orders them killed, because they are among the damned. Hatred justifies violence. And since God is the standard of justice, God's violence and hatred are automatically justified.
Now, it should be patently obvious that this is not the God revealed in Jesus Christ. This is not the God who dies for God's enemies, nor the God who forgives undeserving sinners. This God is more like the devil (if not identical), and deserves to be called by the lowercase "god".
Such a "god" is self-contradictory with both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. This "god" is a hypocrite for calling us to "love our enemies" and "be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect" (cf. Mat 5), when in fact this "god" hates, damns and even kills his own enemies. Such a "god" of exclusion and hate completely undermines any motive we would have to love our enemies (Mat 5) or love our neighbor (Luke 10) or love "the other" (Romans 13). Such a "god" cannot be reconciled with the God who is Love announced by John (1John 4), and lived out by Jesus Christ in self-sacrifice on behalf of his enemies (Rom 5).
And, if this were not bad enough, such a God dissolves the entire basis for our own hope in Christ's salvation. For, if God hates some and loves others, and if God's will is hidden from humanity, how can we tell if we are "in" or "out" of God's Love? Theologies that emphasize divine exclusion of some at the expense of others tend to be obsessed with these questions of "how do we know if we are saved?"
This solution is far from a solution, for it creates far more problems than it solves. It undercuts our faith in God, our love for others, and our hope in salvation. Thus, it seems that a God of hate and exclusion is demonic, and both a "growing God" and "shrinking Scripture" are dead ends. Yet, there are four very successful clues which get us a very long way down the road of dealing with the problem of developmental revelation: Narrative, Accommodation, Deconstruction, and Apokatastasis.
5. The Clue of Narrative:
It is often said that we should read Scripture as a Drama of unfolding plot, in which events progressively intertwine leading to the climax and consummation of the Story in Christ. I believe this narrative approach is perhaps the most fruitful way to understand Scripture. And as such, it is conceivable that the Divine Author could and should leave certain things "dark" so they come to light later on. This is surely a hallmark of good story telling.
Yet, as helpful as this is in many regards, it still seems to put God in an inauthentic light as regards violence in particular. In Genesis 6 God destroys the world in a flood. In Leviticus 19 God seems to demand "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life". From Joshua to 2Chronicles God orders executions, warfare, jihad, and even Canaanite genocide. Attempts to link these facts in a "plot progression" to the absolute non-violence we find in Jesus seem to fall flat in my opinion. The gaps are simply to wide to bridge from a strictly narrative standpoint. We have to do more than show a simple plot progression from this concept of divine violence in the Hebrew Scriptures to the God of healing shown in Jesus.
6. The Clue of Accommodation:
So, we come to the next (very helpful) clue: Divine accommodation to human limitations in understanding and comprehending God's plans. This is the idea that God has to limit His revelation to fit into the concepts and abilities of people in their time. I think this gets us a but further with the issue of divine violence. In raising children I know that there is a time when children are young that it is appropriate to discipline them in a very "hands on" way (for instance, grabbing them before they cross a street, taking the stolen cookie from their hand, or even a well controlled swat on the rear end). But as they get older and more developed, it is totally inappropriate to use such means. Instead, you discuss and debate as adults.
Perhaps something similar is going on in Scripture. More ancient peoples could only understand and respond to harshness, whereas later peoples could conceptually understand more about God without "the carrot and stick". This is certainly another part of the answer, but it has significant weaknesses as well, both from the human side and the divine side.
From the human side, in terms of the level of violence in society it is difficult to say the Roman Empire of Jesus' day was significantly more advanced than previous cultures. There were certainly intellectual-conceptual advances available in the Hebrew prophets and Greek philosophers for people of apostolic times, as compared to ancient Israelites living prior to 500 BC.
Yet, we could not say that these advances left their cultures less violent, or able to understand the need for non-violence better. The Jewish-Roman wars of 66 AD and 135 AD were as blood thirsty as any ancient war, and the Roman Empire was built upon violence and coercive military control. So, from the human side the people of 100 AD were no more equipped for the revelation of non-violence any more than the people of 1000 BC. So why did God go ahead and reveal it in Christ at that time?
From the divine side there is also a problem, especially if we equate divine violence with developmental childhood discipline. The genocide commanded and enacted by God in the early Hebrew Bible is not the divine equivalent of "spanking" a young humanity. It is more like infanticide. So, while the clue of divine accommodation is helpful in some ways, we still need to seek more appropriate clues.
7. The Clue of Deconstruction:
Perhaps what is going on is that God is using violence to deconstruct violence in the Hebrew Scriptures, in order to show that violent solutions do not work in the long term. If so, this would be a case of God teaching us through error. After all, what is one of the most effective ways of learning why God and violence do not mesh, and that violence ultimately destroys God's purposes?
The most effective way is a case study: What actually happens when a group of people claim that violence is sanctioned by God to bring about a "better world"? What happens when we claim that violent natural disasters are created by God? What happens when we claim that God is on our side, and has ordered war or genocide against our enemies? What kind of society do these claims create?
Perhaps stories like Noah's flood and Joshua's genocide are errors that God wants in the canon of Scripture, in order to teach us what it looks like when we get it wrong. After all, the tragedy of the flood did not bring about the righteousness God desires. Rather, it brought about Noah's drunk curses and a repeated cycle of destruction within a few generations. And what did Joshua's genocide bring about? A pure Israel? No. It created a system of violent tribal feuds, increasing idolatry, and a spiral of violence during the period of "the Judges". What did the "Wars of Yahweh", which were waged by the Davidic kings of Israel and Judah, accomplish in the long term? Idolatry and injustice, leading to destruction and exile (in 722 and 587 BC respectively).
Perhaps God wanted these in Scripture as a life lesson why claims of divine violence are (a) ultimately false, and (b) don't work. When God comes to us in human form, He tells us that we are to judge a tree by it's fruit (cf. Mat 7). If a tree produces good fruit, it is of God. If it produces death and destruction, it is not of God.
Using Jesus' simple diagnostic test, and applying it to practically every instance of divinely sanctioned violence in the Hebrew Bible, we would have to say that the long term fruit in Jewish society indicates that these actions were never from God. Thus, the true nature of God as Love is revealed in an inverse, deconstructive way in these stories of divine violence. In this sense they are "inspired" and deserve to stay in Scripture.
Yet, such a reading is only possible in a "big picture" sense of looking at Jewish history across time. In the more narrow, immediate read inside these stories, it seems clear that God does sanction or cause these violent acts. Even if, in a big picture sense, it is justified to use such a deconstructive hermeneutic, it still feels wrong and implausible in a narrow "line by line" reading of Scripture.
I am convinced that part of the narrative function of these passages is to show us, long term, that violence cannot accomplish God's purposes (especially in the light of Christ's self-sacrifice on the cross by which he overcomes violence by enduring violence without retaliation). Yet, even though I am convinced of this, I feel that this type of reading of the text comes dangerously close to editing out the parts of the Bible we don't like on ideological grounds, leading to a "shrinking Scripture" approach. This, as I have said before, is not a feasible solution to developmental revelation.
8. The Clue of Apokatastasis:
Yet another clue is to relativize the violence by putting forth the idea of a final eschatological healing. Just as the "tragedy" of an amputation is relativized if it results in saving the life of the amputee, so also perhaps the "tragedy" of divine violence and genocide will be relativized by ultimate salvation and healing of all at the end of time. This is implicit in the Eastern Orthodox claim of "apokatastasis" taught by people as diverse as the 4th century Trinitarian theologian Gregory of Nyssa, and the 21st century physicist-theologian John Polkinghorne, and other Christian thinkers throughout the centuries. Drawing on a panoply of Biblical texts such as Hosea 5:14-6:2, Wisdom 11.21-12.2, John 12.32, Romans 5, 8.31-39, Colossians 1:15-20, and Philippians 2.3-11, they postulate that all things will ultimately be healed and reconciled to God through Christ at the end of History.
While I hope strongly that Christ will accomplish the saving of all that can be saved, this solution is still deficient on two grounds: First, apokatastasis can only be a hope, not a dogmatic certainty. To demand that all people choose salvation is a denial of human freedom, and thus a denial of God's image in humanity. We cannot demand that all are saved while destroying their selves in the process. Humans must remain free to deny Love and choose evil, for without that radical freedom they cease to be human and become robotic automata.
So, as sad as it sounds, there must remain the chance that people who have died at the hands of divine violence may not ultimately be healed. But, this is not the only problem with apokatastasis as a solution to divine violence. The second problem is that such an idea seems to rob dignity and meaning from such deaths.
Can we imagine God saying: "Aw, you and your baby died during Joshua's genocide of the Canaanites? No problem! There's resurrection!" If apokatastasis is the only solution to divine violence, it seems a bit flippant and trite. Don't get me wrong. A death died in the hope of ultimate healing is better than a death died without hope. Yet, it seems that there has to be something else that gives such death and suffering at the hands of divine violence an inherent meaning and purpose in space and time, and not just beyond history.
9. The Clue of Transposition:
So, I was pondering this problem, and I was trying to find yet another clue to help me make sense of developmental revelation, especially as concerns the sanction and later rejection of divine violence we find in Scripture. I wanted something that would both unify and go beyond these insights of narrative, accommodation, deconstruction, and apokatastasis.
And then, remembering a concept from CS Lewis' sermon "transposition", I hit upon something that seems to unify the issue better. The concept of transposition, as used by CS Lewis, is an extended analogy using a musical metaphor. He compares how a musician might "transpose" a piece of music intended for an orchestra to be used by one instrument (say a piano or a guitar). In the process of transposition, something is "lost" in the translation, for it is not as rich as the full experience of an orchestra. Yet, there is also something that remains true to the basic "shape" or "form" of the musical piece, so that we hear it and recognize it as a transposed piece of music.
CS Lewis, if my memory serves me right, goes on to posit that divine revelation, and in particular the Incarnation of God in Christ, is like a process of divine transposition. The same form or essence of God is seen and heard, but in a simpler way that corresponds to the limitations of the medium of human language (in Scripture) and human life (in Jesus).
This concept of transposition has a lot in common with accommodation, except instead of framing the issue in terms of "what conceptual resources did individual humans have to understand God's will?", we frame it slightly different as "what total resources were available to God in human society to heal and restore humans?". At the basis of this idea of transposition is the supposition that God limits Godself to work with the resources inherent in a society- worldview, social structures, technology, economic goods, culture- and uses the potentiality native to them to lead them into greater and greater healing. God does not create new resources out of thin air, but works from within the resources they have to expand what is already there.
So, I propose a medical "thought experiment" to help us understand how this idea of transposition helps us deal with the problem of divine violence in developmental revelation.
Let us imagine there is a physician from the year 3000 AD, whose sole mission in life is to heal others. This physician has knowledge of the human condition and medical techniques beyond anything we can imagine. Furthermore, she has access to medical technology to carry out his knowledge. Her technology is beyond anything we can understand or create, and includes a state of the art hospital, targeted gene therapies, cellular nanobots, disease scanners, and healing force-fields, all of which allow her to cure almost any disease without having to do the invasive violence of actually cutting into the patent.
Now, let us suppose that our doctor gets trapped in a time machine and taken back to 1000 BC without any of her technology. She suddenly has to "transpose" all her healing knowledge and create a hospital and medical instruments using pottery and bronze age technology. How would her healing practice differ from 3000 AD? I would estimate that even with her knowledge, her cures would look barbaric by 3000 AD standards. Furthermore, I bet her care would necessarily include much more "invasive violence" in the sense of cutting her patients with imprecise bronze instruments. And even furthermore, she would find herself condoning and using "medical violence" she would never use or condone if she had 3000 AD technology. And finally, despite her skill, I bet her mortality rate would be very high by 3000 AD standards.
Let us suppose she was able to gradually get her time machine to go forward in time at 500 year increments. Each time she has a multi-year sojourn before she can jump forward. Each time she transposes her medical knowledge and sets up a "hospital" using the technology and resources of the time. As she goes from 1000 BC to 500 BC to 0 AD to 500 AD (and so on) she will find incremental advances in metal working, worldview, sanitation, and technology that allows her medical practice to become more effective, and less violent and invasive, with better mortality rates.
By the time 4000 years has passed, her need for surgical violence will be done away with completely, as most of the healing is done by using her technology to stimulate the body's own healing resources to restore health to the patients. Furthermore, her 4000 year long history of "medical violence" will show that barbaric medical violence can never bring about the full healing of 3000 AD standards. Yet, given the resources available in earlier ages, such violence was better than doing nothing.
I think ultimately, the developmental revelation in Scripture, especially in regards to divine violence, may be very akin to this thought experiment. It is God's desire to heal and restore all of Creation to union with Godself. Furthermore, God has perfect unchanging knowledge of how to bring about this healing. However, in allowing creation genuine freedom, growth, and development over time, God has limited Himself to working through the resources available in any given time.
The result is that all revelation- even divine violence- is done for healing, redemptive purposes in accordance with the best resources of the time. It may seem barbaric to us now, but it was the best option at the time with the least mortality. It may seem cruel by our standards, but at the time it was better than nothing. Yet, as we move through history, we find that God relies less and less on external "divine violence" to heal and change society, and instead relies more and more on the inner transformation wrought by the Holy Spirit to give people a "new heart" (cf. Eze 36).
I think this type of "medical" developmental understanding, combined with a sense if the outworking Plot of God's Story, as well as the hope of the full final healing of Creation through Christ in the apokatastasis, leads us to a healthy understanding of developmental revelation, without falling into the trap of a "growing God" or a "shrinking Scripture".
10. The Clues Applied to the Case of the Death Penalty
The last thing I want to do is apply this understanding of developmental revelation to a specific problematic issue: Namely the issue of the death penalty. In the Hebrew Torah, the death penalty is specified for a number of offenses, some of which seem absurd to us now. But, in the same Torah, the 6th commandment of the Ten Commandments also specified "Do not murder". By the time of Jesus, we find a deliberate rejection of the death penalty of the Torah, specifically the command to stone to death a person caught in adultery (cf. John 8). But not only this, Jesus rejects the Levitical concept of retribution ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth") taught in Leviticus 19 (cf. Mat 5.38-48).
Over time, many Christian Churches as diverse as Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have come to the position that the death penalty, like slavery, is not a genuine option for Christian societies. While this is debated by Christian advocates for the death penalty, it is an historical fact that, from the most ancient Church Fathers, to the largest contemporary Christian bodies, the death penalty has been flatly rejected on Scriptural grounds, even though there are Scriptures that allow it, and even command it, in the Torah.
Is this a contradiction within Scripture? I think if we look at it from the developmental "clues" I have named above, the answer is no.
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the God revealed in Jesus Christ ultimately is about saving and healing life, and not about destroying it. Whatever God does developmentally, God is doing it to save, heal, and restore as much of humanity as possible at any given time, without taking away their freedom and making them "un-human".
If we look at the possibility of a redemptive judicial and penal system, in light of the social resources available in 1500 BC, versus the resources available in 2000 AD, I think it makes sense how God has "transposed" his desire to save life based on these different sets of resources.
A penal system that is able to incarcerate and redeem criminals is only possible in a society which has a vast amount of technological, social, and economic resources. I would like to offer a brief spontaneous list of resources necessary to run an effective penitentiary system that is able to both keep criminals safe and keep society safe from criminals:
- A stable food, energy, water, and sewage supply.
- A working system of laws, applied impartially.
- A judicial system free of corruption.
- Jails with ample space, sanitation, and security, so that criminals cannot escape.
- An economic system that can fund security guards, cafeteria workers, janitors, wardens, therapists, chaplains, etc. without making the rest of society go broke.
- A means of making sure that the worst criminals are not able to operate crime syndicates from within prisons and thus continue to harm society and those who guard them.
Without any one of these resources (and I could name more that are needed), prisons would become so dangerous to the inmates, the guards, and society that they could not function without getting rid of the most dangerous criminals.
In our society, it is possible to have all of these things, and thus remove the need to put to death the worst criminals. But what about a 1500 BC semi-nomadic society that lived on the brink of starvation during any given year?
They had literally NONE of the resources I mentioned above. They had no way of keeping prisoners for life, or even for extended periods of time, without extreme danger to both the inmates within and society without.
For them, what type of legal system would save the most life possible? If you were God, working through human spokespersons, what principals and laws would you command to save and heal the most people possible? How would you transpose the divine desire to save and restore all of humanity into a specific, limited culture like that?
I think, if we were going to be completely honest, we would have to say that the legal system of the Torah is an admirable attempt at such a "transposition". Granted that much of it looks downright barbaric given our current social resources and level of "developmental revelation". But most of the Torah can be seen as an attempt to transpose divine redemptive justice into the mode of a limited, barbaric, bronze age society.
Even a law as blatantly barbaric as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" is lightyears ahead of a concept of unlimited retribution for a limited crime. For instance, it shows that Jacob's destruction of an ENTIRE city because of the rape of his daughter Dinah was ultimately an unjustified act of asymmetric retribution (cf. Gen 34). This principle of symmetric, limited retribution begins the process of helping people realize that the "punishment should fit the crime", which eventually leads to a concept that "the punishment should heal the criminal" in centuries to come.
Likewise, we can look at direct acts of divine violence, such as the flood of Noah (Gen 6-9, which I assume flooded the "world" of the ancient East, and not the "world" in a global sense) or look at divinely commanded the Canaanite genocide (cf. Joshua). In wrestling through these difficult texts, I think we may discover that these may have been a last ditch, stop-gap method to stop cyclical violence in societies that had no means of stopping or punishing violent acts. Perhaps the society of Canaan or the area that Noah lived in had become so lawless and chaotic that there simply were no resources left for God to use to stem the tide of violence. The description of both societies in Scripture would seem to indicate that they were locked in such systemic, chaotic, unredeemable violence. In Canaan in particular, the land was said to be full of "abominations" such as child sacrifice.
Perhaps then these may be seen as divine "mercy killings", or social "amputations" done to stop gangrene from killing the entire organism of society. This does NOT mean that such acts of divine violence ultimately brought about a righteous, lasting society. They did not. In fact, they bred more violence. But, perhaps, the violence they bred was substantially less than what would have happened otherwise.
This type of understanding could lead us to understand how these events were sad, last-ditch "transpositions" of divine mercy into the worst social situations imaginable. But, at the same time they clearly point us BEYOND these solutions, because they are shown to not work in the long run. Rather, they shock us, disgust us, and lead us to yearn for a solution of ultimate healing beyond all the killing.
Furthermore, given our 21st century resources, and our position in "developmental revelation", it makes it clear that such violent solutions are emphatically NOT AVAILABLE to us anymore. We can no longer kill anyone in God's Name as if we were justified in using divine violence. Perhaps the central message in all the Hebrew stories of divine violence is precisely that divine violence can never be justified as a lasting solution to any social problem. Without mercy beyond the violence to redeem the violence we are forever lost in destruction.
Even though our resources are vastly superior to 1500 BC or 0 AD, they are still limited. As a society and as individuals, we still find ourselves in positions where police or soldiers may still be forced to use violence to defend the defenseless, as a last ditch solution. Such an action is a "lesser evil" approach, in which protection of the innocent at the expense of criminals is a lesser evil than allowing criminals to keep victimizing the innocent.
Yet, this approach is no longer God's solution, but a lesser evil that falls far short of God's will for us. It is necessary as a transposition of divine mercy into our limited resources, but ultimately will destroy us if not met with a greater mercy. It is this greater mercy that we should strive for. In fact, we can hope for, and work for, a society where violence is no longer necessary at all, even in the "last ditch" sense. May we work for, and pray for, such a society where all the "swords are beaten into plowshares" (cf. Isa 2), because this is the clear trajectory of the developmental revelation of God in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
