The Lost Art of Writing Scripture

It is a common view that the Bible was written by God.  Or that the various texts that constitute it are the result of God writing through human hands.  Prophetic hands such as Moses' or John's.

An extension of this thinking is that if any other hands meddle with the Texts they become corrupt.  The divine original has been lost and what remains cannot be trusted, whether it came from God or not.

This 'God-as-author' view does more harm than good however.  Sure it is deeply true that God's voice is present in Scripture, but insisting upon the divine issuance of Scripture is not necessary at all.  We can avoid one of our society's major problems with Scripture by simply distinguishing between these two.  That is, when God speaks in Scripture we are to certainly take what God says as True.  But we are not to take Scripture itself as from God.  As if God wrote it and there is some original, untainted version, to which we have no access.

There is another problem as well with the God-as-author view.  More than just disconnecting us from Scripture it has also caused us, as a people, to lose touch with the art of writing Scripture.  Whether God is the original source of the Scripture written or not.

I say this for two reasons.

First, in believing that Scripture is God-authored we dismiss the possibility of it being the work of human hands.  It may be in us to theologize, or to provide commentary on Biblical texts, but the writing of Scripture is for God alone.  It is neither for us nor in us to take on such a holy task as Paul or Mark, and so we don't.  We don't engage in the work of writing Scripture since it is beyond our place as humankind.

Second, in believing that Scripture is God-authored the editing or redaction of Texts is an offence.  We lose touch with the fact that this is precisely how Scripture comes into being: through the successive iterations and perfections of generations throughout history.

Because we think that God wrote Scripture any change we see in a Biblical text over time is not appreciated as part of the writing process and as necessary to producing the truth-revealing power of Scripture but rather it is despised as a spoiler of what was once, or may once have been, a holy text.  We have lost the art of writing Scripture, which above all is multi-generational and involves the (re)expression of a wisdom that is generations in the making.  A wisdom that is very much like a tree.

As a people we must recognize once again that Scripture is produced just like any other piece of literature:  It doesn't come fully formed from the divine womb only to degrade under the profane influence of the world but rather Scripture is the result of a text's inception and maturation over time in the world through the tending of many human hands.  Edits, redactions, additions and all.

Scripture is not God-authored, nor is it authored by a single prophet, but rather it is a work of art that spans generations in its creation and perfection.

If we start to recognize the multi-generational authorship of Scripture maybe we'll start, once again, to pour over and (re)produce texts on the order of Genesis 2-3 and the book of Job.

Maybe our religious imagination as a people will be reawakened and the next time an argument is cast against the Bible because it was 'touched' by human hands we won't lament what is lost but rather we'll thank God that human hands are capable of such a marvelous craft.

Thanks be to God and to Job.

Copernicus Against the Church

A defining event in modern Western history is Copernicus' idea that the earth revolves around the sun.  Not the sun around the earth.

The veracity of the claim launched the Copernican Revolution and the ascendancy of science as our society's way to truth.  It marked a turning point in history where truth is obtained not through the teachings of the Church but through consultation with science.

The Church's resistance to Copernicus' idea effectively put the Church on the wrong side of history and was the beginning of the Church's (and Scripture's) growing irrelevance in people's lives.  Our society has lost and continues to lose faith in the Church (and Scripture) because we believe its positions are irreconcilable with such obvious facts as heliocentricity.

But here is the thing: isn't the Church treated a bit unfairly for its proclamations against Copernicus?  More to the point, wasn't the Church deeply right, if superficially wrong, in its insistence that the earth is at the centre of it all?  Or that we earthlings, and not the Sun, are in the position of command?  And are that around which all things revolve?

Just think for a moment: this position of the Church (and Scripture) is true!  Our life in the world shows us that it is!  Sure we are small.  Sure we can die in an instant and the cosmos is an expansive and mysterious space.  But look at what we have done and are able to do!  Look at what is under our power and what could be ours to control!

We have yet to subdue the stars but many of the earth's inhabitants are already under our command.  As human beings we have the power to make life hell just as we can build things like no other has built before.

The simple fact of the matter (evinced by our human capacity for science among other things) is that we are the centre of the universe.  The other planets and suns do, or are meant, to revolve around us.

We have the power, the responsibility, and the potential glory as humankind.  We are the ones who are called to speak so that others will listen and fall in line.  And will revolve around us and our Word.

In its resistance to heliocentricity the Church was simply proclaiming a truth that is deeper and more important than heliocentricity.  It made a mistake in regards to astronomy but it is understandable why it might make the mistake.

The Church did it for us.  To call us to the responsibility that we have all along been called to and to defend us against those who would say that we don't deserve it.

Thanks be to Job.

Introduction to the Book of Job

I've studied the book of Job for some time now.  I'm also constantly praising the man whose name that it bears.

But I've yet to really talk about the book or the man.  At least not here.  So this will be my introduction.

I think a good point of entry is why the book is so great.  I think this is partly answered by why Job is so great.  Understanding the glory of Job is key to opening up the book in all of its glory.

In regards to the man then, I would say that Job is great because he shows us what we are made of.  He shows us what a human life made of dust and invigorated by the Spirit can do.

More precisely, Job shows us that we can stand up to God and live.  He shows us that we can call even God to account and survive the encounter.

Indeed, Job shows us that we can not only survive the encounter but that we can come out of it so valued and adored by God that God would work miracles just to keep us around.  God would even save us from the ashes to ensure our eternal presence and loving rivalry.

Job is great, pure and simply, because he reveals the full glory of humankind.  He shows what those of us who are made of dust can do and he proves that some of us are worth saving from the ash heap.  That we can equal and perhaps even surpass the Almighty in wisdom and power.

Why is the book of Job so great?  Because it reveals even greater mysteries than Job. 

Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is that we are called by God to do what Job does.  That we are made to stand up and fight in the search of goodness and truth.  To call even God to account if needbe.

What is it that God declares to Job from the storm?  "Gird your loins like a man!"

God doesn't say this to knock Job down but to raise him up.  God is calling Job to fulfill his calling as a human being and to image God.

So let us do likewise in memory of Job.

Let us show God what we are made of.

Thanks be to Job.

The Wisdom of our Ancestors

On occassion, typically as a last resort, you might hear a certain criticism being launched against Biblical philosophy, if there is such a thing, or against any ancient thinking for that matter.

The criticism is basically that, being written so long ago, such ancient teachings can hardly be right.  That we're sitting on the receiving end of a long development in thought, and as a result our thoughts today are far truer than were the thoughts of our ancestors.  The idea being that we have learned from their mistakes and long since improved upon their conclusions. 

But is this the case?  Are we wiser than our ancestors given our posterior position in history?

Another argument for this kind of thinking is based on the fairly safe premise that we have technological and scientific knowledge in excess of those who came before us.  And that just as we have superior knowledge in this regard we must have superior knowledge in matters of wisdom (or morality) as well.

But can we really make that first claim?  Are we more ingenious engineers than our ancestors?

Even when it comes to matters of science and technology it is not uncommon, when determining how the pyramids or other ancient wonders were built for example, to be flummoxed by how it was done.  Some people, because they can't fathom the process themselves, jump again to the (rather irrational) conclusion that divine (or alien!) intervention must somehow be involved.  Others, however, accept the ingenuity of humankind and hear rather the call to discern in such examples.  Instead of dismissing the inventive power of our ancestors they embrace it, and try to figure out how they could accomplish such feats...

So I ask, if we can credit our ancestors with marvels of engineering, and we can strive to discern their processes there, why not in matters of wisdom (or morality)?  Should we not, when flummoxed by an ancient text, be just as keen to figure out what is going on, or what it is that is being taught?  That here too may be a marvel of human ingenuity and inventiveness?

As great as our potential may be at the receiving end of history we should not be so full of ourselves or so dismissive of our ancestor's wisdom.  Although thinking is far from over we should not treat their works as dated but as a call to discern.  As revealing treasures as valuable today as ever before.

Thanks be to Job.

Opening Classical Theology

There is a theological model called the classical view.  Proponents of it claim the power and glory of God and God's wonderful plan for all things.

They also insist that God preordains all things, in the strong sense that the cosmic timeline is closed and decided long before we ever came along.  In classical theism every joy and sorrow is set by God from the beginning.  Every good and evil that happens is going to happen no matter what we say or do because it is part of God's plan.

As a result of this classical theism has a problem.  Namely, God's implication in evil.  How could God plan for the horrors of the past, or those of today?  There is also the problem with human dignity.  If God has planned everything, our sense of freedom and personal achievement loses all meaning.

Can we believe in the power and glory of God if God has planned everything?  Can classical theism be saved?

Thankfully there is a counter-current to classical theism which is commonly referred to as the "open" view.  It does not propose a closed system but rather an open-ended creation that God enters into with us.  God wants us to be free so that we can work together in a loving relationship toward what God has all along planned.  Even if granting us freedom runs the risk that we do something else, and take the world in a whole other direction.  In the name of human freedom and the possibility of true partnership God is willing to take the risk, and to abide all of the terrible things that we have done.  To forgive us even.

With this move open theism addresses both of the problems with the classical view.  When God no longer predetermines everything God is no longer complicit in evil.  Evil arises from the free choices of human beings instead.  A space is also opened for human dignity through what we accomplish with our decisions.  There is pride to be had as a human being through our contribution to the achievement of God's wonderful plan.

The only cost is a God who predetermines everything.  What is saved is a God who can do all things in power and glory.

Thanks be to Job.

The Decimation of Israel

God doesn't always come across so good in the Bible.  One place where God's actions are especially questionable is Exodus 32.  Or the story of the golden calf.  For those of you who are unaware it goes something like this: Moses leads the people out of Egypt.  Moses then goes up into the mountains.  The people grow tired of waiting down below.  The people commission a golden calf for their worshipping needs.

When Moses eventually comes down, 3000 Israelites die because of the betrayal.  Moses' command after gathering those loyal to him gives us a good idea why:

"This is what the Lord our God says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'"

In other words, it is the word of the Lord that Israel be decimated.  Hence why God doesn't always come across so good.  Ordering things like genocide.  And of His chosen people no less!

But as always with the Bible we must be careful.  When we see something so contrary we need to look closer.  To see what's really going on we have to wind our way back up the mountain, to when God first discovered Israel's betrayal.  If we do so we indeed see that God is in a genocidal mood because of it, for God says to Moses:

"Leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

In other words, God wants to start fresh with Moses and to scrap the rest.  God wants to do precisely what Moses eventually commands those loyal to him to do.  Decimate Israel.

The problem is, this initial decision of God's is unacceptable to Moses.  Moses calls God to remember Egypt.  Moses asks God whether Israel was saved only to be destroyed.  Moses begs God to remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the (potential) glory of the people.  And as we see Moses succeeds:

"...for the Lord relented and did not bring on the people the disaster that had been threatened."

So what gives?  Why is Israel decimated in God's name? 

What is clear is that it is only after Moses descends from the mountain that the command is given.  It is only after Moses sees for himself the idolatry of the people that his own anger is incited against them and he gives the order to kill (in God's name).

To understand what is going on we have to see Moses as God's representative to the people.  Moses speaks in God's name.  He is to do exactly what God would do.  And as we see this is precisely what he does: He becomes angry and wants to smite the people upon seeing their idolatry.

The problem is that Moses didn't have someone like himself to soothe his anger.

Aaron, Moses' sidekick, who was to be to Moses as Moses was to God, failed to change Moses' mind as Moses changed God's.  Aaron failed to be the wisdom that we are all called to be and as a result Israel was decimated.

Thanks be to Job.

Derrida's Cat

There was a famous philosopher named Jacques Derrida.  In one of his final works he wrote about the animal and nudity.  What I found immediately provocative about this work, which I have only begun to engage, is an experience that he describes with his cat.  Coming out of the shower one day Derrida was caught naked by the cat.

He tells us that in that moment he was ashamed.  He was naked and he was ashamed.

Now I don't know why Derrida was ashamed before his cat.  Shame is not something that I tend to feel when naked before an animal (my dog for instance).  But Derrida says he was ashamed.  He also says that he was ashamed of being ashamed. Standing naked before his cat Derrida was ashamed and he was ashamed of being ashamed.

As to why Derrida was ashamed of being ashamed I like to think that he was harking back to bygone days.  To childhood.  To that time in our lives when we were just beginners in wisdom and there was still pride and joy to be taken in nudity.  When we didn't know or care about our nakedness and we couldn't recognize good from evil. 

I like to think that Derrida was lamenting the loss of a remarkable openness toward others and an acceptance of others that we once possessed as children.  (An acceptance that I find for instance when I stand naked before an animal.  An openness that makes it impossible to feel any shame before them.  Unless I have done them harm.  Or have been too hard on them.)

I like to think that Derrida, in confessing that he was ashamed of being ashamed, was proclaiming the wisdom of nudity.  That while part of our moral development is finding out that we are naked the next step is not covering up or hiding in this state but persevering.  Whether we are ashamed or not.  Whether we should be ashamed or ashamed of being ashamed.

I like to think that Derrida is professing the potential glory of humankind by describing the experience that he has with the cat.

Thanks be to Job.

Jeremiah's Loincloth

Jeremiah was a prophet.

His story holds an interesting account where God tells him to go get a loincloth.  Any one that he chooses.

God then tells Jeremiah to wear the loincloth and not to clean it.  God wants Jeremiah to go about in dirty underwear (and nothing else).

From there the ridiculousness goes on, but instead of continuing the story I would like to change registers.  I would like to use this story to address a modern cultural problem, namely, that some people expect such foolishness of the Bible, and might jump to the conclusion that this story is a confirmation of their expectation.

In response to this pervasive belief that the Bible is absurd my point is simple: Such baffling moments in Scripture, moments such as the story of Jeremiah and his loincloth, are not a sign of the Bible's absurdity but are a call for us to discern.  Such moments are a challenge to us to figure out what the hell is going on.

For instance, in the case of Jeremiah's loincloth is this some kind of a punishment?  Is Jeremiah to go about in dirty underwear because of something he has done?  No!  Jeremiah condemns the iniquity of his people and works miracles among them.  He is a good man and has done nothing to deserve such treatment...

Is the point then to show Jeremiah that without his care the loincloth is ruined?  Is it to say that without God's care Jeremiah, and Israel more broadly, would be nothing, just as without Jeremiah's care the loincloth is nothing?  If so, why would God need to teach such a lesson to Jeremiah?  Doesn't Jeremiah already know the ingratitude of his people as well as his smallness before the Almighty?

This last possibility is closer to the mark though.  The trick to figuring out the story is indeed that the loincloth is to Jeremiah as Jeremiah is to God, but God's point is not that Jeremiah would amount to nothing without God, but rather that Jeremiah has been selected as an article of pride. Jeremiah's loincloth is in the same relationship to Jeremiah as Jeremiah is to God: they are both chosen adornments.  Articles of clothing chosen of their own accord to gird the chooser's loins.

In other words, it is not the grace of God that makes Jeremiah worthy, nor Jeremiah's tending of the loincloth that makes the loincloth worthy.  Rather it is the personal qualities of Jeremiah and the loincloth that make Jeremiah and the loincloth worthy of their place of pride.

Jeremiah is not to clean his loincloth because God wants him to learn this lesson.  God wants Jeremiah to learn that despite the iniquity of his people Jeremiah was, still is, and may continue to be the glory of God.  Israel and humankind more broadly were once articles of pride and may be so again.  Without the grace of God and of their own accord.

That is what we learn if we discern what is going on with Jeremiah and his loincloth.  We see our value as human beings in the eyes of God.  We find that we can be worthy of adorning God's own loins.

Such a baffling moment is not a sign of absurdity but of a humanism of greatest consolation and joy.

Thanks be to Job.

Introduction

There's a great debate taking place in the world today.  I believe that on some level we are all committed.

The debate has to do with the age-old question about God.  Whatever that question is.  Does God exist?  Who or what is God?  Can we say anything about God?  Or even should all Bibles be burned?

My 'position' in this great debate is that there is something in the Bible that needs to be unearthed.  For wisdom's sake.  For the sake of humanity.  For the sake of reconciliation and the possibility of moving forward as a maturing and prospering people.  That is my belief.  That is the position that I fight for and from in this great debate.

My life goal, if I define my life by the parameters of this dispute, is to unearth this mystery and to share it with the world.  Whether people care or not.  Whether I am equal to the task or not.

Each installment here will be in the effort to do just that.

In memory of Job.