#communitypoetry #twitterpoem #Bible

What is the Bible?

A book, a text, sacred, holy,
What is it for, is it high or lowly?
Some claim it is simple,
Obey or rebel
The rules are easy
Choose Heaven, or Hell.

Others say complex, diverse, hard
to get hold of. Does it soothe or jar?
We speak of depth, taste,
sustenance and meat.
Like hot rich chilli
Makes you whole, complete.

A story that fills your belly,
Better than any spewed from the telly.
Filled with the dramatic,
Inspiring to truth
Those who live it, their
lives telling its good.

Wisdom of God spills from inside,
Does it call us, keep us, cause us to hide?
Challenging assumption.
Yet draws us to thrive,
in spite of ourselves.
We are found alive.


With thanks to all who contributed from Twitter: 

@nursie_nigel @simon_p_thomson @acdyw @VicarOfDishley @sutties @theosoc @swile67 @citzgirl @shinybluedress @AngieLetteboer

People of the Book



an exercise in missing the point

This post from ASBO Jesus is great for reminding us that our first love is a relationship with Jesus.  I've heard far too many times that our only way of knowing who Jesus is, is from the Bible.  But even the Pharisees couldn't work out what God was like from simply being those who read the Scriptures...

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.  Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. JOHN 5.39,40

So how do we as evangelical Christians, those who love Scripture, those who believe that this book is a radical life-changing story that can and should impact our faith journey, be those who know how to come to Jesus, through and, dare I say it, beyond, Scripture?

What is it that makes some look at Scripture and proclaim goodness in apartheid, slavery, oppression of women, and others think that the Scripture (as currently understood at that time) is wrong. Those of us who love Scripture and believe that it cannot be ultimately instructing us to do wrong things, find a way around this.  We either take to a literal interpretation come hell or high water, or we decide that it is the predominant interpretation which is wrong, that Scripture needs looking at again because we've misunderstood it.

I confess that this is my approach.  But I think we all have to come to the reality, at some point, that we have to assess where our assessments of what we think the Bible says, are coming from.  It is my somehow intangible strange confusing wonderful unpindownable relationship with Jesus which tells me that I simply cannot think that the Bible says it's ok to buy and sell people.  But I still want to go to the Bible and say, 'Look, See, the Word of Life'.

How does that kind of approach not become horribly individualistic and relativistic?  The Bible says what I think it does.  Do you know - I don't know.  How did the new approach to the Scriptures of a small bunch of 1st Century Palestinians grow and spread like wildfire?

I suppose it has something to do with community - that Jesus is present in me by the Holy Spirit, but is also present in the community I commit to.  It has something to do with prayer - real deep contemplative basking in God's presence prayer, not the kind that is a bit of a shopping list, or asking God to change all the people that we don't like so that they become more like us.  It must have something to do with spending time with the people that Jesus would have spent time with; the sad, confused, poor and sinful.  It's getting to know the voice of God that whispers on the wind, so that we choose the right thing, even when there's not a Bible reference to back it up.

I think Scripture is wonderful, but our God is beyond them..oh yes God is (before you leap)....and how we figure out this life with God, together with the story of God that is captured in Scripture, is part of joy of this life of discipleship.

'have you understood all this?'

i've just published an article on fulcrum, go have a look.........

note to self - don't babylon

BABYLON: (1) city situated on the river euphrates to which the israelites were exiled (2) what a lot of preachers do

_________________________________

the above quotation comes from adrian plass' recent offering to us to make us not take ourselves too seriously, something for which i am eternally grateful.

however this one whilst admittedly raising a snigger, did make me ponder on something that i've observed for a little while now. namely that there seems to be a particular evangelical movement to preach sermons that last at least 45 minutes.

i don't know where this has come from, most of us have had to listen to long sermons and i doubt that many of us have thought, 'oh, we're on point 6 out of 10, goody another 4 to go'. now i love preaching, i take it very seriously - i guess i have quite a 'high' view of preaching to go with my 'high' view of scripture. but precisely because of my high view of preaching, i don't find that i need to be anxious if i haven't said absolutely everything about the text in front of me, or the issues which it might speak about, or to. but it's difficult not to get drawn into this as a preacher. like the more you can say means you're somehow more of a preacher - i'm sure there's some psychoanalysis to be done on that.

perhaps it's apocryphal, that thing that they say about people switching off after 20 minutes, but simply from my own experience of being in a congregation, i have found that a i glaze over somewhere beyond 25/30 minutes, partly because of seat comfort, partly because of brain overload, and partly because the probability is that the preacher has started to repeat themselves at this point. okay, it does depend on the context i suppose - sometimes you expect a longer sermon or talk, like if you go to a conference setting or something (even then it can be difficult not to find yourself dreaming of coffee and a caramel slice........), or if you are going to a teaching session on something - but this is not preaching. preaching is something other than that, where it is promised that the word will be brought to life and it will not return empty. it holds a promise of God for him to be present when his word is preached.

it's mysterion or sacrament to us.

so what do we think, that the holy spirit can't pierce someone's heart in 10 minutes? or 20? sometimes i think we need reminding that this is God's living word, he is the one who brings it to life, not us.

psalm 77

i cried out to God for help; i cried out to God to hear me.
when i was in distress, i sought the Lord; at night I stretched out untiring hands and my soul refused to be comforted.

i remembered you, O God, and i groaned; i mused, and my spirit grew faint.
you kept my eyes from closing; i was too troubled to speak.

i thought about the former days, the years of long ago;
i remembered my songs in the night. my heart mused and my spirit inquired: "will the lord reject forever? will he never show his favour again?

has his unfailing love vanished forever? has his promise failed for all time?
has God forgotten to be merciful? has he in anger withheld his compassion?"

then i thought, "to this i will appeal: the years of the right hand of the most high."
i will remember the deeds of the LORD; yes, i will remember your miracles of long ago.

i will meditate on all your works and consider all your mighty deeds.
your ways, o God, are holy. what god is so great as our God?

you are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples.
with your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of jacob and joseph.

the waters saw you, o God, the waters saw you and writhed; the very depths were convulsed.
the clouds poured down water, the skies resounded with thunder; your arrows flashed back and forth.

your thunder was heard in the whirlwind, your lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.
you led your people like a flock by the hand of moses and aaron.

breath

I'm having a conversation at the moment, it's one of those conversations that seem to go round and round, particularly in evangelical circles and I'm a little undecided as to the fruitfulness of these type of discussions, but the alternative is that we just assume the answers and that's never good is it.

this particular conversation is about the nature of God speaking to us in scripture - if you've ever been in one of these conversations then you'll know how it goes......is scripture God-breathed, if it is then the words are from God, if they are from God then they are God's Word, ergo scripture is God's Words about Himself.

how many times did I hear that one.....

the trouble is that the words that are spoken from the pulpit (or wherever you preach from) are just as much yours as God's, aren't they? and if someone claims that they are 'just saying what it says in the Bible', then I'm not sure they've grasped the nature of scripture or preaching, or, well, I don't know.... is God really like that - the big puppet master in the sky?

either that or when I preach I'm doing it all wrong, 'cos it feels like the words are part of my very own DNA, rather than some ethereal message implanted from above, giving me the exact interpretation of that particular text - one interpretation, for all time.

someone once told me that what timothy actually says is 'God-breathing out', it's an ongoing action - scripture is God breathing out.

God's breath going in and through us, bringing us to life, every day, every hour, every minute, every second.

in

out

in

out

living

Word.

book review

I have been asked to write a short book review for maggi's book for UK christian book shops directory.

here it is

as you will see I really enjoyed this book, and I am definitely going to do the lenten series that brf are publishing by david winter, hopefully it will be just as delightful.......

a samaritan slut

'How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?'

I have been thinking about the ways in which Jesus redefined a person simply by his interaction with them. This woman in John 4 was the complete opposite in status to Jesus - she was a Gentile, a woman, an outcast, he was a Jew, a man, a prophet. It is no wonder this woman is taken aback when he speaks to her, what does he think he is doing? He is contaminating himself! Not only does he break the custom of speaking to a woman, but this is not any woman, this is a Samaritan woman, this is a Samaritan woman who has to come to collect her water at noon! And Jesus does not simply say a word to her, he asks her for something, water, the liquid of life. When Jesus encounters people, he not only says it is okay to talk to those who are deemed the lowest of the low, he redefines them - it is who Jesus is that defines the woman, not who the woman is that defines Jesus. The woman is given the status of a woman worth speaking to, the woman is the water-giver.

and what is the outcome of this active redefinition? The woman is a woman worth listening to in her own society! She brings her living water to her community - a community that before her encounter with Jesus, sent her to collect water at noon. She was a water-taker, now she is a water-giver, and she is the mediator of the living water, included in the transformation of the world that God loves.

what a transformation - she who is not worth talking to, brings words of life to her community.

seems to me that we reduce encounters like these to Jesus simply being 'nice' to those who are downtrodden in society. True as that is, this is not by any means the depth of what happens when Jesus encounters people. The woman does not simply feel better about herself because Jesus has deigned to talk to her. No, the woman becomes the person that Jesus has said she is - the water-giver.

the words we speak to people have the power to transform or simply maintain the status quo.

be careful what you say.

living sacrifices

'I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.'

when I began going to church as a teenager, it was in an atmosphere where the word 'worship' carried many tensions. some identified this with songs and music, and in that they very much meant particular types of songs and music, others thought music important, but again it should be a particular type of music, and then there was the third group who pushed for the understanding that worship was way beyond the kind of songs we sing.

I was with the third group, and in my early twenties I got a lot of nourishment going to a BCP (Book of Common Prayer) communion service on a thursday morning, which was half an hour long and had no music. I was fed up of the infighting about which music was really the best way to worship.

I was recently challenged to think of this again by a comment that someone made in response to a statement that it is our lives, the whole of them, that are our worship to God. The answer was 'yes, they can be'.

they can be.

I think that there are a lot of people like me, who lived in a time when the type of music you listened to and worshipped with, determined the type of Christian you were labelled as - spirit-filled or not spirit-filled. This can lead to a baby out with the bath-water response. thankfully I love music (you can't stop me singing, just ask my very frustrated daughter - 'stop singing mum') and I found a way through the minefield of music-labelling that used to go on - still goes on?

but the other side of this is that there are a lot of people, including me, who will be the first to think or say, when it comes to worship, that it is our whole lives that are our sacrifice of worship to the Lord - but it isn't a done deal.

are our whole lives worship to the Lord?

they can be.

parents are soooo embarrassing

or at least that's what Cain and Abel must have thought. not only embarrassing, but they made such bad choices.....

so here is a discussion regarding Original Sin in the Old Testament, it is based on Genesis 3 - 4:16.

Genesis 3:1-4:16

For this task we must acknowledge our own biases and try to ‘lay aside any ready-made views or doctrines which we have been wont to associate with its contents, and which inevitably transmit their colour to its statements; remembering that what New Testament or patristic writers understood from it only enables us to estimate what it meant to them, not what it implied to its compiler or to the generation to which it was addressed.’[1]

In v1 we are introduced to the serpent, an animal that has been ‘excessively interpreted’[2] However, the text itself is decidedly less interpretive of this animal. It seems unlikely that the serpent is the Devil in the narrator’s mind[3], rather the serpent seems to be a literary device designed to produce a movement in the narrative[4]. Additionally, the serpent’s role in the text is not that of overwhelming temptation – ‘That he transferred the impulse to temptation outside of man [sic] was almost more a necessity for the story than an attempt at making evil something existing outside man [sic].’[5]

But not without reason has the snake been interpreted so vividly. The word arum, translated ‘crafty’ in most of our translations, flavours our ideas that this serpent is not altogether for the wellbeing of the humans. However, he is arum because the LORD God has made him so[6]. The word arum may also be translated ‘clever’, ‘prudent’, ‘shrewd’. In Proverbs[7] the arum or ‘wise’ person is contrasted with the ewil or ‘fool’. In Job the connotation is altogether more negative – the purposes of the arum are to be thwarted[8]. So the sense of the word arum is necessarily ambiguous.

For the modern reader entrenched in negative pictures of the serpent in the garden, it may be a surprise to read that this creature belonged to the LORD. It is the LORD God who has made the serpent. We are not permitted to make this an entity outside of the LORD’s purposes for His garden – that interpretation simply will not do.

And so the first question is asked – ‘Did God say…?’ The serpent suggests that God is not as is imagined by the people. It is the woman who is spoken to[9], and so it is the woman who replies. Her response is to correct the serpent; she engages in hermeneutics[10]. Some see this as a step outside the limits of humanity[11], creating a law for herself and her husband by means of exaggeration, however the danger may lie somewhere else entirely.

The prohibition, a means of blessing, is under analysis. God is made the object of the conversation, is ignored[12] – ‘The serpent is the first in the Bible to seem knowing and critical about God and to practice theology in the place of obedience.’[13] The serpent turns the life-giving boundary[14] into a threat[15] and so it is the serpent, not God, who introduces the notion of death as the primary agenda for humanity[16]. Reality is distorted; the safety of God is re-interpreted as a place to escape from. The woman corrects the serpent’s misrepresentation of God’s prohibition, but the idea lingers – the possibility of a way of being that is different to God’s way.

In vv4-5 the serpent imagines the possibility for the humans - God is open to be judged. The humans are invited to step out of the ‘circle of obedience’[17]. And here again is an ambiguity - does the text say ‘like gods/God knowing good and evil’ or ‘like gods/God and knowing good and evil’? One translation emphasises that the humans will become ‘like gods/God’ and the other emphasises the ‘knowing good and evil’[18]. It may be better to understand this to mean an all‑encompassing ‘all things’ – it is to know ‘all-things’ that is to work outside the remit of God’s limit of human creatures, especially as the sense of the word yd’ (to know) goes beyond intellectual knowing, but means capability, experience and discovery[19] – in this case to discover our limit was to go beyond our limit.

But we must not reign in this enigmatic statement to mean all that we would have it mean through our own agendas ‘the fascination of this statement is in its lack of restriction, its intangibleness; it is intentionally mysterious, and after it has brought the thoughts of man [sic] into a definite direction, it is again open on all sides and gives room to all whispering secret fantasies.’[20] And so the deed is done – the rapid language of verse 6 indicates the seriousness of the action. For many throughout history this has marked the moment of our ‘fall’. It may be noted here that the lack of comment at this point by the narrator is significant. The text simply describes something that seems to be entirely possible within the scope of the human creature’s potential.

Verse 6 sees the disappearance of the arum snake. His arum has not been good for the human pair. They eat[21]. The pair become aware of their nakedness, shame has entered their world in the form of dissonance in human and divine relationships, the outcome of which is seen profoundly in verses 8-13. The humans hide from each other and they hide from God. This is the narrator’s response to the disobedience of the human pair – relationships are corrupted[22].

The choice for good or evil is brought vividly to the foreground of human life. Whereas many have said that this is a picture of ‘fallenness’ it is perhaps better read as a constant truth being brought into sharp relief – it is better to live in obedience to God.

And so the judgment is given, but it is tinged with mercy, God clothes the humans[23] [24], covers their shame where they could not, and sustains their life![25] There is disagreement as to whether the judgments are prescriptive or descriptive and the text may validly be interpreted in either sense. However it is indisputable that eternal life for the humans would be unbearable in this pattern of disobedience that they have set up for themselves and in this context we see mercy in the dismissal from the garden[26]. We also see the consequences when the man names the woman; an act of dominance[27]. However, her name may give hope. The name ‘Eve’ may be ‘mother of all living’ or may have connotations of emptiness, however the text tells us that she was named Eve because of her motherhood – there is a glimmer of hope for the human pair; this is not the end.

At this point there does not seem to be any sign that the nature of the human beings has been changed. In fact the only real glimpse of this is in verse 22, but in this case the change is one that will make them like ‘one of us’ rather than a lower form of creature. This verse has difficulties in interpretation, although it seems that the most likely interpretation would be that the human pair have stepped outside the limitation of their being – to be like ‘one of us’ is death for ones who are not ‘one of us’. It is their very nature as it is that prevents the human creature from being anything other than what it is – a human creature.

And so we move on to the story of Cain. There is a ‘brother‑problem’[28], a problem of relationship. Both brothers bring an offering and whilst there is not much in the text to discern a difference, I disagree that the point of this text is that God has a capricious freedom[29]. God’s ways may be veiled to us, however there is a glimmer of a reason in the fact that Abel brought the firstlings and the fat portions against Cain’s ‘offering of the fruit’. Or ‘Perhaps the silence is the message itself. As outside viewers, we are unable to detect any difference between the two brothers and their offerings. Perhaps the fault is an internal one, an attitude that is known only to God.’[30] In any case God seems to assume that Cain knows the reason for his rejection[31] and then lays out his choices[32]. Von Rad suggests that God is appealing to the better motives of the human heart – but if humankind is fallen, from whence these ‘better motives’? Rather we must say that if the choice is laid before Cain[33] then this choice was entirely possible for Cain. Cain might have chosen to master his sinful inclination[34]. Cain chooses to have sin devour him. Sin is made an entity outside Cain, sin committed becomes a habit - a pattern of disobedience leads to a crystallising of that disobedient pattern. Abel is murdered and God calls Cain to account for his lack of responsibility towards his brother[35]. The consequences of Cain’s actions are a further distortion of relationships. A further break in the relationship between ‘brothers’ has created a further break in the divine-human relationship: Cain is sent further away. But God is again merciful, a protective mark is put over the wayward brother, God chooses the fate of this brother and makes it clear that no place, not even the ‘land of wandering’ is outside God’s care.

Eichrodt[36] talks of a creature once held in the will of God and now corrupted and enslaved by the evil impulses of sin. This of course is the traditional way we have interpreted the text, but it holds some serious questions for us which cannot be shied away from. If the creature was once held in the will of God, obedient to the will of God, which for Eichrodt is the opposite of the enslavement to sin, the corruptness of nature that awaits beyond Genesis 3, how did the first disobedience happen unless the creature was capable of disobedience? The nature of that creature, even held in the will of God, must have had the potential of disobedience. Conversely, Cain is expressly told that he has a choice. Unless God is the play actor extraordinaire that some would have us believe, Cain really did have a choice and so must have been capable of choosing obedience. Perhaps the difference is the context rather than the nature of humanity. For the first creature the context is one of obedience – that is the habit of the creature. For Cain, the context is one of disobedience; he has lived in the consequences of his parent’s decision. His step of disobedience is from within that pattern of disobedience. Some would suggest that Cain’s behaviour is inevitable because of the new nature of humankind[37] - but what of Abel? Abel, who chose to give the good offering, the firstfruits of the flock, the fat portions? What of Abel who had lived in the consequence of his parents’ decision and who still formed a habit of obedience? What of Abel?

In conclusion it is very dubious to create a doctrine of human nature simply from Genesis 3 and 4. In fact there is every reason to see in the story of Cain the true weight of our own sin – I cannot blame my sin on my inherent nature - mea sola culpa.

What of Abel? His blood not only cries to God from the dust, it cries to us - Choose!


[1] Tennant F R, Doctrines of the Fall, page 9
[2] Brueggemann W, Genesis, page 47
[3] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 85
[4] Indeed the serpent, who has a lot to say for himself in the first few verses, simply melts from the text in v6, never again to speak in this narrative.
[5] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 85 (italics mine): this goes against the weight of traditional interpretation regarding the serpent’s role.
[6]Additionally the word arumim in ch2:25 would be recalled. The humans are arumim and not ashamed. Echoes of this joyful nakedness should resonate when we read the word arum in the following verses.
[7] Proverbs 12:15
[8] Job 5:12
[9] Although the man is with her: Genesis 3:6
[10] She interprets what God has said to her and to explain how this will outwork in their common life: they are not even going to touch the tree!
[11] Perhaps even the limits of specifically female humanity: Von Rad G, Genesis, page 85
[12] To contrast with all good theology where we are invited to ‘speak words of God’ with God – to enjoy the unfolding journey of discovery as we walk with God and towards God.
[13] Brueggemann W, Genesis, page 48
[14] Genesis 2:17
[15] Genesis 3:3
[16] Brueggemann W, Genesis, page 48
[17] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 86
[18] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 86
[19] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 86
[20] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 87
[21] The ‘apple’ of Church tradition is thought to come from the latin malus (evil) and mallum (apple), but is not found in the text.
[22] Von Rad, page 88, assumes a priori that there is a ‘fall’ and thus interprets these verses from that perspective, however the text itself has little to say about the human nature.
[23] ‘To be clothed is to be given life’, Brueggemann, page 50
[24] Vriezen, page page 210, suggests that the covering is the only merciful act of God in this text, but what of the goodness of God in separating the humans from the place that would keep them in eternal life in the pattern of disobedience they have cultivated for themselves? Of the God who sustains life, in order to restore real life? Of the God who does not destroy to start again somewhere else? This is the God that I hear from this text.
[25] ‘When the facts warrant death, God insists on life for his creatures.’, Brueggemann, page 50
[26] ‘the withholding of a good which for man [sic] would have been unbearable in his present condition.’: Von Rad G, Genesis, page 94
[27] This is not the same as the definitive moment of ch2:23 in which the male and female are defined by each other.
[28] Brueggemann, Genesis, page 55: he also comments that this is a common theme ‘Why must a certain man always have two sons? Why not only one? Why not only me?’
[29] against Brueggemann, Genesis, page 56
[30] Vriezen TH C, Old Testament Theology, page 224
[31] Verse 6
[32] Verse 7
[33] Even with an emphatic pronoun ‘you, you must master it’
[34] Cain also has the possibility of exercising another inclination - ‘Furthermore, if we postulate a bias toward evil to account for some behaviour, we ought logically to postulate a bias toward good to account for the rest.’: Tennant F R, Original Sin, page iv
[35] Von Rad G, Genesis, page 102
[36] Eichrodt W, Theology of the Old Testament, page 404-413
[37] Following from the suggested change of nature in Genesis 3

eternally created?

my previous post has raised a little bit of discussion which you might find interesting.

based on the premise of ugleyvicar that God is unchanging and therefore he is eternally Saviour and Creator, I suggested that this makes Creation necessary to define God and also makes Creation eternal.

One commenter disagrees with me.

you'll have to see for yourself.

the original discussion can be found on this thread on fulcrum. John (ugleyvicar) tells me he will be publishing it on his own blog soon.

for a bit of light relief here is a musical interlude.

God, Creation and me

John R has asked me to link to a thread on fulcrum where we had a discussion about a year ago - here it is - if you go to 4 September 2006, you will see the start of the discussion. He asked me to link to it because of the conversation we were having regarding my recent post 'for all eves' .

the summary of the discussion for me was that John was suggesting that God was male and that Creation was therefore necessary for God, being the 'female' relational partner, but John thinks that I misunderstood his argument - you'll have to see for yourselves, just to whet your appetite, here is one of the interactions that gave me the impression that he thinks what I thought he thunk:

Tuesday 5 September 3.55pm

Jody says:
Hi John

A couple of questions:

I am slightly struggling to untangle what you are trying to say about God in all that you are writing. I think that this is probably because what I think you are trying to say is something which makes me think 'he can't be saying what I think he's saying', if you get my meaning. Also, as you are working through an argument I can't particularly tell which part of the 'dialogue' you are taking to be your own point of view and which is the point of view of the 'correspondent'.

This is all to say that if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, forgive me.

1. Are you trying to say that God is, in fact, gendered?
2. If God is gendered, are you saying that humanity was necessary for God to be recognised as gendered?

thanks Jody

Tuesday 5 September 7.33pm

John says:
Hi Jody!
The short answer [ ;-) ] is 1. Yes and 2. Yes. But hopefully you and others will find it helpful to follow through my working on this. It is a shame posts take so long to post!

John

So, you will understand why I came to the conclusion that, for John, God is male and Creation is necessary for God - something which I have suggested is, well, ridiculous.

so, on the thread that I've linked you to you will see a detailed thesis of John's on why it is not ridiculous and my, sometimes less than reverent, responses.

Enjoy!

for all eves

having recently read this post from ugleyvicar I thought it might be worthwhile writing something from the radical perspective about men and women.

This will come in installments - First, Eve:

I think that my own views are firmly rooted in what I believe happens in Genesis and then in the entirety of Scripture. Firstly I believe that the best Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:27 reads like this:

'So God created humankind (ha'adam) in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.'

in this translation we recognise that the word ha'adam is not 'man' as some would say (which is iysh in Hebrew), but is the human being made from the dust or the adamah. Some people translate it 'dustling' or 'groundling' or 'earthling' (that last one reminds me of little green men though) Anyway, the point is made that the being made from the dust is created as male and female. These Hebrew words are continued in Genesis 2, where the adam is put to sleep and the male (iysh) and female (ishshah) wake up. The term adam then becomes the personal name for the iysh, before this names are not used. In this sense the adam who goes to sleep is not the iysh who wakes up and the bringing of the ishshah to the iysh is as much a defining moment to the iysh as it is to the ishshah. This is not a 'naming' in the sense of hierarchy or ownership, this is a recognition that male and female are defined by the other - you cannot have male without female and you cannot have female without male.

This 'one flesh' relationship breaks down after the couple's disobedience. Relationships are broken by disobedience: relationships to the Creation, relationships to God and relationships to each other. The man will now dominate the woman and she will desire her husband to the point of risking death through childbirth (the context in which this description is given)

the consequences of this break in the 'one flesh' relationship are seen very quickly in the history of God's people - the woman is 'named', Eve, this time with a sense of ownership, this is no longer 'one flesh' but is 'owner and owned'.

Wives are dispensible - they can be given to Pharoah (Abraham and Sarah)
concubines are acceptable and dispensible - they can be murdered and cut into pieces (the Levite and the concubine)
daughters are possessions - they can be raped and forgotten (Absalom and Tamar - ignored by David)

This is the dire consequence of hierarchy in male/female relationships.

huh?

so, today I read this article in the church times. the most staggering paragraph is this one:

The displays are built around “The Seven C’s of God’s Eternal Plan: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, and Consummation.” A huge demolition ball labelled “Millions of years” is depicted smashing at the foundations of a church, symbolising the moral dissolution caused by those scientists and philosophers who have supported evolutionary theory, thus undermining biblical authority. The resulting cracks reach across the gallery to a model of a home where a boy sitting at a computer is portrayed looking at pornography.

Oh wow - God's plan is Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross and Consummation? Really?......no, really?

I mean God's plan includes Corruption, Catastrophe and Confusion? What kind of God is this?

and this is all without the slightly bizarre association that belief in evolutionary theory undermines biblical authority (huh?) and ends in leading teenage boys to internet pornography.

I have some very very good friends who are creationists and believe in a young earth and the literal historical scientific interpretation of Genesis 1 - it is possible to hold this belief without the need to extrapolate from this belief that others who believe in the literary genre of myth and poetry (in which in my humble opinion Genesis 1 falls) are denying biblical authority. for those who do extrapolate like this it seems to be just one more way in which people can say 'we're the real Christians' - and don't we have enough of that already?

you may say that it is a strictly american phenomenon, but I have seen this mindset in the UK. In one church's magazine I read an article which stated that if you deny the literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1 then you are denying the need for Christ to die on the Cross (again, huh?)

there seems to be something about human beings that makes us want to be right and for others to be wrong. those who want there to be a rapture so they can leave behind messages basically saying 'I told you so'. what is it with us that it is so hard to admit that we might not have all the answers? that someone else might see something of God that we do not? I know I do it too. I will try harder not to do that in future.

sex, lies and videotape

I've just read the book of Esther (she comes before Job, in case you wanted to know, I always find her quite difficult to find)

Esther is one of those books that seems to be quoted in part ('for such a time as this') but with quite a lot of omission regarding the gruesomeness of what Esther and her cousin Mordecai then do to Haman's children.

Let me explain. Esther is press ganged into King Xerxes harem (pretty nasty tyrant was King Xerxes, once he had 'tested' the women he chose a Queen, the other girls were then 'unmarriable' and thus of no real use - Esther obviously had the certain qualities Xerxes was after and was made Queen, but let's not make this into a story about true love......) So then Esther as Queen was in a position ('for such a time as this') to save the Jews from the evil Haman (boo hiss) who planned to have all the Jews exterminated. Haman even builds some gallows to hang Mordecai on, but Esther uses her power over the King to secure Haman's fate - he is hanged on his own gallows. (hooray, the baddie gets it...hmmm)

after this not only is Esther satisfied to save the whole nation of Jews, but she demands the necks of Haman's ten children and anyone else in the Kingdom who she deems to be an enemy of the Jews. - do we quote from this bit? not so much.

I'm always fascinated how we deal with stories, or bits of stories, in the Bible that we can't quite handle (how many times do we hear it said that Esther was made Queen because she was good in bed? - sshh Christians don't talk about sex) - we either don't quote from them, skate over them, sanitise them or ignore them, most of the time.

I think that Scripture is so rich and full of living witness to a God who works with and through people who are, more often than not, a bit crap. What do we do with a story like Esther? Where God is not mentioned at all and yet where God is everywhere present? Where the heroine is the Victoria Beckham (all those clothes and beauty potions) of her day and who saves her people through a combination of sex, lies and videotape? Do we ignore the messiness of the story? Turn it into a love story?

Let's not, shall we?

I for one am overjoyed that my God uses people rooted in their culture and time, who get it right, get it wrong, work with what they've got and the place they are placed in - and, who knows, in the messiness of our lives, we might see that we find ourselves to be somewhere 'for such a time as this' (well it is still a very good quote)

I've written an overview of Phyllis Trible's critique of 'The Unnamed Woman' - Judges 19 - you will find it on the 'articles' page of my website, under 'biblical stuff'. It's worth a read and it is very messy.

because we are a stiff-necked people....

because we are a stiff-necked people we need God in our midst.

in Exodus 34, after the incident of the Golden Calf, God re-iterates his promises that he made in Exodus 20. But there are things that He leaves out. In Exodus 20 God says 'I will punish you if you worship other gods, but I will show steadfast love if you keep my commandments.'

in Exodus 34 God simply says (and note the reversal of order) 'I am steadfast in love, slow to anger and abounding in mercy to the thousands, visiting the iniquity of the children to the third and fourth generation'

two things to say here. firstly God's mercy is not reliant on my faithfulness (BIG sigh of relief), after the incident of the Golden Calf the mention of 'other gods' is mysteriously missing, and secondly - God's judgment is limited to the household (third and fourth generation), whereas God's blessing is showered on the thousands.

it reminds me of the children's song:

Our God is a great big God
Our God is a great big Go-d
Our God is a great big God
and he holds us in his haaaaands

mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos

a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you



A new mandate - Maundy Thursday

When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve; and while they were eating, he said, 'Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.' And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, 'Surely not I, Lord?'

He answered, 'The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! it would have been better for tha one not to have been born.' Judas, who betrayed him, said, 'Surely no I, Rabbi?' He replied, 'You have said so.'

While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.'

When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Then Jesus said to them, 'You will all become deserters because of me this night; for it is written,

"I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."

But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.' Peter said to him, 'Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.' Jesus said to him, 'Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.' Peter said to him, 'Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.' And so said all the disciples.

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, 'Sit here while I go over there and pray.' He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. Then he sais to them, 'I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.'

And goig a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.' Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, 'So, could you not stay awake with me one hour? Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak.'

Again he went away for the second time and prayed, 'My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.' Again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words.

then he came to the disciples and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.'