I know I don’t have a great following yet on my blog, but for those who come regularly, you will notice that I haven’t had much to say. To be honest, anything that I have had to say has gone on the forums at the GLCC Alumni site. Even then I haven’t had much time to say some of the things that I have wanted to. So, I thought I might make some observations about what I have read.
I have a few things to say about the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. The Pacifism thread of the Alumni Forum contained much discussion about God always being right, and God commanding the Israelites to do some things, and us questioning whether these were right and so forth. It seems to me that the reason that these texts in which the Israelites are commanded to destroy entire nations are so difficult is because they grate against what we consider to be the unchanging nature of God. We consider Him to be Good, Loving, etc. How could a God of that character order His chosen nation to annihilate other members of His creation? The answer, in my opinion, does not lie in the character of God but in the lens with which we interpret the Bible.
Let me introduce a concept that might be considered heretical or liberal—what if God didn’t command them? What if in these texts we have Nationalistic polemic, or what I might call Divine Approval of Israel’s actions? In other words, what better way to justify your actions than by claiming that God has commanded and ordained them? We see it throughout history—the Crusades, the founding of our country, the enslavement of entire people groups, and every other “holy war” that has been undertaken. I believe the example for such actions stems from the Biblical corpus.
This view, though perhaps controversial, ends discussions about war ever being justified because God commanded it. I don’t think God does! This was the misunderstanding of the disciples in Jesus’ time. They expected Him to lead a rebellion against Rome to restore Israel to its proper place in the world. Yes Jesus came to bring a “sword” but not to fight with, but to divide with. He brought a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. The Kingdom of God is one of power, to be sure, but of peace. The power of God’s Kingdom revolves around restoration and redemption, and not about conquering fleshly strongholds, but spiritual ones.
Just some thoughts. Let me know what you think.
6 comments:
Hi Sam. What, in Scripture, gives you the idea that God might not have called them to fight?
Interesting thoughts. I just wonder how you arrived at it.
Sam, I think it is a great thought that we ultimately learn what God is like through Jesus. He is the best revelation of God. However, I'm concerned about this approach to Scripture. Sure, in history you see people claiming a word from God to justify war, but I am not ready to throw Scripture in the same stack as other history books.
It may be easier to come up with a consistent theology when we are allowed to pick and choose which sections are actual accounts and which are re-creations. But who has the wisdom to do such a thing? And if this type of interpretation is allowed then we can certainly come to all sorts of conclusions.
Also, it seems you are impying then, that Scripture was written as a way of decieving poeple. "God didn't command this, but if we say He did..." Is this what you are saying?
It seems that you are allowing your notion of what a loving God ought to do define how you read Scripture. Is that fair?
Either way, I love you, and you are still my best friend. I don't think I can agree with what you are saying, but I want to listen and understand.
Shannon
Regan and Shannon – my comments are not derived from specific Scripture references as much as they stem from my understanding of the nature of Scripture. We often ignore the human element of Scripture. I don’t consider the Bible to be just another biased history book, though such is contained in it. As I see it, Scripture is a testament to both a nation’s and varying individual’s faith journey. Perhaps they did feel that God led them to destroy other nations, but I have to question whether God commanded it. I think that at times, they did, as Shannon put it, say to themselves, "God didn't command this, but if we say He did...” Such an attitude does bother us, but that is the nature of humanity in power (as you said Shannon, “Power corrupts... every human government”). The fact that such attitudes made it into the Bible shows how people in the past have struggled and they continue to.
Look for example at Ezra. I thought God hates divorce. Yet, here is Ezra commanding the people to divorce their foreign wives in an effort to be separate and holy. I think that much of Israel's warfare was along the same vein. In an effort to be “holy,” complete removal of the presence of unholy nations was the only answer. Yet, that does not seem to coincide with God’s promises to Abraham that they would be a blessing to all nations.
Shannon is right—attempting to read human influence into the text does allow us to dismiss those things that do not line up with God’s character or with other Biblical revelation. And he also right in saying that such a task requires wisdom and care. Maybe I shouldn’t attempt it, but that is how I reconcile discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Does any of that make sense or am I on the highway to hell? Either way, thanks for the intellectual challenge and stimulation. I miss the dorm days.
I don't think you are on the highway to hell.
What it seems like, the part I have hard time accepting is you have a picture of God in your head based (I would assume) mostly on Scripture. But the parts of Scripture which do not support your picture you dismiss as human invetion.
You become the final say. Scripture bends to you. This seems inappropriate.
If there are the sort of human elements that you assert, and I would not dispute that, God has left them there for a reason. He chose not to correct them.
I don't get where you muster up the courage to say in essence, "I have an edge on understanding god that the writers of Scripture and the generations of God's annointed communities did not have." I hope that did not come off as a slam, but that seems to be what you are asserting.
My concern would be how do you tell what is bias and what is not?
What I might think is bias isn't what you would think is bias?
man i can't beleive you guys still talk like this , it makes me remember my first night on campus at glcc , i was sitting in tim and leifs room (sorry i dont remember their last names) but ash , matt , jut and jeff finkbeiner were all arguing about something about god , and i got all uspet because they didn't agree , man how immature of a christian i was and am , but then tim took me aside and reassured me that everything was alright. anyway I love and miss you guys.
robbie furman
by the way i will be listening
Post a Comment